An outsider watching the US health care debate

[TommyFoxtrot]

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.

That million estimate came from the white house. It was BEFORE the protests started and probably meant to scare up a bunch of counterprotesters. If you don't consider the Washington Post reliable, I would ignore their estimate, which was 200k.

Conservatives are finally learning how to organize a protest...

[TommyFoxtrot]

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!!!

It's in doubt whether or not the stimulus package or the auto bailout will do any good, and we're just talking about the U.S. crisis. Obama was criticised by the Europeans and the Russians for his handling of the crisis, and they didn't copy America's plan for handling it.

It's too early to say Obama is "ruining" everything. I think his biggest mistake thus far has been the scrapping of the "Third Base" missile defense plan. The Auto Industry bailout could be a domestic failure, because Chrysler was in dire straits before the banking crisis, and is held by a private company to begin with.

[TommyFoxtrot]

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!!!

It's in doubt whether or not the stimulus package or the auto bailout will do any good, and we're just talking about the U.S. crisis. Obama was criticised by the Europeans and the Russians for his handling of the crisis, and they didn't copy America's plan for handling it.

It's too early to say Obama is "ruining" everything. I think his biggest mistake thus far has been the scrapping of the "Third Base" missile defense plan. The Auto Industry bailout could be a domestic failure, because Chrysler was in dire straits before the banking crisis, and is held by a private company to begin with.

[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?

Why's the US in Iraq then?

What do you mean? Do you think they were an ally when we invaded?

[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.

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!!!

How did President Obama save the world economy? A lot of the stimulus money has even been spent yet.

And didn't most of the sales in the Cash For Clunkers program go to foreign nameplates?

I've already shown that the US has the longest life expectancy if you adjust for accidents and murders. How is the US health care system a failure if that is true?

[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?

What do you mean? Do you think they were an ally when we invaded?

What were they doing to the US?

[raybbaby]

They were living on top of our oil, damnit Jay!

[jaycanuck]

They were living on top of our oil, damnit Jay!

haha! That's the answer I wanted to hear! Heaven forbid they took those billions spent on the war and develop new energy sources. But...silly me, I'm sure it wasn't about oil. :roll:

[eddie]

New Zealand citizen here, lived in Australia too - great socialized healthcare in those countries. I live in San Diego CA now and my health care cost goes up every year while I have never made a claim, I am in perfect health and in my early 30s. I see a corporate health care system in the US that is good as long as you can pay for it. I also see healthcare costs going unregulated to keep climbing to a point that many of the average will not be able to afford it in the next 10 or 20 years.

One of my good friends needed a kidney transplant, they denied him over and over again until he showed up at the medical review board looking like a zombie. $1,000,000 operation later and a total medical bankrupsy and he is fine. I think his cost with health insurance was somewhere around $250,000. Why should he be bankrupt if he had medical insurance?

I think Americans are confused when they say they do not trust government on healthcare. To clear up the air the politicians are not the ones that actually operate on you. Doctors and Hospitals are a different system than government, they are there to care for the sick not to decide if you are eligable for insurance or not. Let the doctors do their thing and the poloticians do their thing, provide funding and your care will not be in the hands of the government.

I say go universal health care in the USA and even cover medical procedures on transgender people! If the system falls apart then we will go back to what is there now. Like the metric system Americans are a bunch of dumb asses to think that their system is somehow better than every other westernized country. I want to run for president and do one thing while in office - bring the metric system to the United States! From then on no one will be able to manufacture a new product in "standard" measurment (replacement "standard" products will have to be tolerated). Am I wrong? I mean what is easier to remember: 14mm comes after 13mm or 9/16" comes after 1/2"??? Or is it easier to remeber that water boils and freezes at 100c & 0c or 32f & 212f??? The arogance of the US, second only to England.

[Beagle]

So, gee if there were only 70,000 stragglers at the Wash DC protest, then this whole protest thing is really overblown then.

My bad.

In this case, since there's so much widespread support for Obama and the Dems plan that they'll enact this plan ASAP with no problem. No need for the Repubs at all.

Buaahahahaaaaa!!!!!




Am I wrong? I mean what is easier to remember: 14mm comes after 13mm or 9/16" comes after 1/2"???

You are mixing concepts. There's no reason to use fractions and fractions are an inherent part of INCH measurements. Decimal inches are just as easy to remember and work with as metric dimensions.

And .562 comes after .500 whether the units are inches or centimeters.

[trish]

So let's see, contrapostive of your assertion is that if the dems can't pass the bill without republican and blue dog support, then there were more than 70000 at the DC rally. What kind of logic is that??? Looks like you discovered a non-sequitur. Congratulations!

The reason the dems are reluctant to pass the current form of the bill is that it represents too much of a compromise to the republican authors. The dems don't like it because it has no viable public option and the republicans don't like it because they need to defeat Obama on at least one issue.

Once again, since you keep repeating the opposite, Obama has offered to put tort reform on the table. Just this morning on meet the press he mentioned it again. Personally, I think tort reform is tricky business. If your doctor was sure enough of your diagnosis to propose surgery, but not sure enough not to order the extra tests to cover his own ass in case he's wrong, would you trust him to perform the surgery without the tests? How many safeguards against misdiagnosis are you willing to give away for the miniscule savings offered by tort reform?

[eddie]

Decimal inches my ass! I was an automotive machinist years ago and I heard that same bullshit. Decimal inches are consecutive I agree but everything else with the "standard" system takes memorization. For an American growing up in the USA the standard system seems fine, but go to the simple country of Mexico and the Standard system is lost. Why should you have to re=aquaint yourself with measurements once you leave the US? Why dosent the USA convert to the Metric system, there is no benefit to the US system. Even US cars have gone metric on everything except the speedo as they must do so in order to have their cars and parts manufactured in this WORLD economy.

Any American car in the 1980s was a piece of shit!!!! I love muscle cars and most all American trucks but everything else including your Corvette is garbage. Why do brands like Buick and Mercury still exist? These are old thinking outdated brands that only sell to the 60+ crowd. American car industry is lost. Go more diesel.... oh I forgot most Diesel reserves are in Iran and the US hates Iran so they put dutys on small car Diesel vehicles.

[Beagle]

I'm just saying that since government run health plans have such wide broadbased support with the American people, and since (as everyone points out here) all this protest is just overblown right wing nonsense that is hyped way out of proportion by the evil Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, that the Democrats and Obama should just ram this bill through the House and Senate.

I'm sure (based on the comments of many HungAngel members - which surely represents a fair and balanced cross section of the American psyche) that the vast majority of American public really do want government run health care. All this rumbling you've been hearing about is pure hype. There's only a tiny fraction of Americans - you know the rich evil republicans - who don't want this ObamaCare plan.

Even if a few pesky Blue Dog Dems vote the other way there's still a way to fake the system and get it passed.

Look all those people that are still complaining about Bush/Cheney and the Republicans....Don't forget that you won. The Dems can pass this health bill - and in fact, they can pass the even more radical single payer plan that Obama really wants. We can get a health system that is just as good as the V.A. or as financially stable as Social Security and Medicare!!!

C'mon now... Let's do it for ol' Teddy. And let's try not to think about the gold plated health-retirement plan that our elected officials have (and will continue to have) - that would be too.... divisive.

Heh heh heh...

[Beagle]

Decimal inches my ass! I was an automotive machinist years ago and I heard that same bullshit. Decimal inches ad consecutive I agree but everything else with the "standard" system takes memorization. For an American growing up in the USA the standard system seems fine, but go to the simple country of Mexico and the Standard system is lost. Why dosent the USA convert to the Metric system, there is no benefit to the US system. Even US cars have gone metric as they must do so in order to have their cars and parts manufactured in this WORLD economy.

Any American car in the 1980s was a piece of shit!!!! I love muscle cars and most all American trucks but everything else including your Corvette is garbage.

Surely, there must be some way we can blame this on a member of the Bush family?

[eddie]

the Bush family can not be blamed for shitty American cars in the 1980s. That is a true loss, after bumper and emission laws in the early 1970s the US car manufacturers lost their way.

A company that did well all the way through.. Porsche.

[Willie Escalade]

A company that did well all the way through.. Porsche.
So you LIKED the 914 and the 924?? :lol:

[worldbro]

A company that did well all the way through.. Porsche.
So you LIKED the 914 and the 924?? :lol:

Holy shit those look like pieces of shit

[Silcc69]

Can we please keep the metric system out of here lol this is about healthcare damn it.

[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?

Why's the US in Iraq then?

What do you mean? Do you think they were an ally when we invaded?

What were they doing to the US?

Well, first off, they violated the cease fire. Secondly, Hussein kept acting like he had WMD - which convinced people that he had WMD. Thirdly, it was thought to be an opportunity to start up a western-style "liberal democracy" in the middle of Islam and demonstrate the advantages to the surrounding areas.

[duplicatt]

They were living on top of our oil, damnit Jay!

haha! That's the answer I wanted to hear! Heaven forbid they took those billions spent on the war and develop new energy sources. But...silly me, I'm sure it wasn't about oil. :roll:

If it were just about oil, we'd have invaded Canada and Mexico instead.

[jaycanuck]

They were living on top of our oil, damnit Jay!

haha! That's the answer I wanted to hear! Heaven forbid they took those billions spent on the war and develop new energy sources. But...silly me, I'm sure it wasn't about oil. :roll:

If it were just about oil, we'd have invaded Canada and Mexico instead.

Wrong. You'd have a hell of a harder time convincing the international community to bomb Toronto. And wrong...it was oil. Spin it anyway you want, it was to secure interest in oil reserves in Iraq. Even Mr. Greenspan admits it. 18 year republican....can't go against him can you?


“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,”

[duplicatt]

They were living on top of our oil, damnit Jay!

haha! That's the answer I wanted to hear! Heaven forbid they took those billions spent on the war and develop new energy sources. But...silly me, I'm sure it wasn't about oil. :roll:

If it were just about oil, we'd have invaded Canada and Mexico instead.

Wrong. You'd have a hell of a harder time convincing the international community to bomb Toronto. And wrong...it was oil. Spin it anyway you want, it was to secure interest in oil reserves in Iraq. Even Mr. Greenspan admits it. 18 year republican....can't go against him can you?


“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,”

We wouldn't need the international community to bomb Toronto to take over Canada. We'd have just driven north into Alberta (and probably let Parti Québécois have their way with Quebec to buy off that segment of the population).

And, if it was to secure Iraqi oil for the US, then why are we not importing all of it here regardless of what the international community and putative rulers of Iraq say? And how come a British company (BP) got the contracts? The results do not support your claim (or Mr. Greenspan's).

But, at least you aren't claiming that it was to topple Hussein for trying to kill HW.

[jaycanuck]

They were living on top of our oil, damnit Jay!

haha! That's the answer I wanted to hear! Heaven forbid they took those billions spent on the war and develop new energy sources. But...silly me, I'm sure it wasn't about oil. :roll:

If it were just about oil, we'd have invaded Canada and Mexico instead.

Wrong. You'd have a hell of a harder time convincing the international community to bomb Toronto. And wrong...it was oil. Spin it anyway you want, it was to secure interest in oil reserves in Iraq. Even Mr. Greenspan admits it. 18 year republican....can't go against him can you?


“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,”

We wouldn't need the international community to bomb Toronto to take over Canada. We'd have just driven north into Alberta (and probably let Parti Québécois have their way with Quebec to buy off that segment of the population).

And, if it was to secure Iraqi oil for the US, then why are we not importing all of it here regardless of what the international community and putative rulers of Iraq say? And how come a British company (BP) got the contracts? The results do not support your claim (or Mr. Greenspan's).

But, at least you aren't claiming that it was to topple Hussein for trying to kill HW.

Would look kinda funny for the US to directly import the oil to the States. Did I say "import directly to the states"? "Secure" could mean a lot of things.

So if you don't believe an 18 year Republican who steered the US economy for those years (badly I may add), who will you believe? Get your head out of the sand duplicatt.

[jaycanuck]

Oh and it would be foolish to invade up here. But that won't happen.

[Faldur]

Lol.. left this thread for a couple weeks, I come back and were bombing Toronto... well done chaps, good to see diplomacy at work!

[jaycanuck]

Lol.. left this thread for a couple weeks, I come back and were bombing Toronto... well done chaps, good to see diplomacy at work!

We'll beat them off with our Tim Horton's coffee. :)

[Belial]

Canada would be an easy conquest. :cool:

[Silcc69]

Lol.. left this thread for a couple weeks, I come back and were bombing Toronto... well done chaps, good to see diplomacy at work!

LOL

[jaycanuck]

Canada would be an easy conquest. :cool:

:lol: yah right.

[eddie]

The Porsche 914 is awsome, one of the best handling cars ever made, I own one, Tara Emory drove in it with me and she liked it. The 924 is an Audi designed by Porsche built by Audi and it did finacially pay for itself but none are running well to this day. The 924 taught Porsche a lesson on having too wide of a range of cars, the poor people do not fit in with the rich so why offer cars to both. Now don't get me started on American failures, they tried to come out with "fuel efficient" cars starting in the 70s but the Vega, Pinto, Pacer all had serious problems that the Japs kicked the U.S. ass over and still do today. Americans pyhsically kicked the Japanese ass in WW2 but then the Japanese people kicked the Americans ass in the way of electronics and comuter cars decades later.

Anyway enough of this car talk. Bring on the metric system and universal health care!

[Coroner]

Canada would be an easy conquest. :cool:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xM3f8IWh3hQ&feature=related

[thx1138]

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/041b5acaf5/protect-insurance-companies-psa?rel=player

[Silcc69]

Wait I thought we invaded Iraq to bring them American style diplomacy? And fuck the metric system!

[Faldur]

Wait I thought we invaded Iraq to bring them American style diplomacy? And fuck the metric system!

Come on now, lets keep the facts straight.. we invaded Iran to prevent the Dewey Decimal System from running ramped through the world.

Oh, and we thought they had donuts..

[jaycanuck]

And fuck the metric system!

Funny about the Metric system. When I went through school in the 70s and 80s we were all being switched over to the Metric system ( ah, the Trudeau years ). So we were taught metric..but all of the adults grew up on the Imperial system. So my generation switches back and forth. Mind you...It's less now.. mainly use the Imperial system for measurements ( feet and inches ). Plus the graphics industry still deals in Imperial measurements.

Not sure if younger kids only deal in Metric

That was an aside....sorry. :)

[Coroner]

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/041b5acaf5/protect-insurance-companies-psa?rel=player

Wow, this is fucked up.

[raybbaby]

Canada would be an easy conquest. :cool:
Your mother would be an easy conquest!

[jaycanuck]

Canada would be an easy conquest. :cool:
Your mother would be an easy conquest!

ZING!

[duplicatt]

Canada would be an easy conquest. :cool:

:lol: yah right.

Canada has 3 Brigades on active. The US has 10 Divisions. Each Division is composed of 3 or more Brigades.

In any case, we wouldn't have attacked Canada because it wasn't just about oil.

[jaycanuck]

In any case, we wouldn't have attacked Canada because it wasn't just about oil.

Here's an interesting watch for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDs57H3I6Oo&feature=player_embedded#t=11

[Rogers]

Canada would be an easy conquest. :cool:
Your mother would be an easy conquest!

ZING!

http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?p=294630&highlight=#294630
http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?p=292547&highlight=#292547
http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?p=290350&highlight=#290350

Shit, the fucker's avatar even has shades too. :wink:

[jaycanuck]

hmm...wonder who he is.

[duplicatt]

In any case, we wouldn't have attacked Canada because it wasn't just about oil.

Here's an interesting watch for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDs57H3I6Oo&feature=player_embedded#t=11

And?

That is one man's opinion. If it were just about oil, our invasion would have been different. The first thing that would have been done would have been to secure the oil fields. That isn't what happened. Greenspan may know economics, but he obviously doesn't know anything more about military strategy than any other Average Joe off the street. I don't know why people assume that because someone has a degree in X that he knows a lot about Y.

[trish]

We did secure the oil fields in the first week of the invasion. But we couldn’t keep them secure. We thought we were going to be accepted as liberators. We thought that by taking out the middle man (i.e. the Iraqi government) our oil companies could deal directly with the towns and villages that provide the hard labor for working those fields. Halliburton could smell the profits. But Cheney and Halliburton thought wrongly. We weren't mistaken for liberators. After all, we weren’t. And so it took more effort than expected to keep those oil fields safe.

Bill Moyers and Alan Greenspan are two men. Indeed Greenspan explains that he is just putting to ink what everyone knows. That the Iraq War was about oil is more than one man’s opinion. Perhaps you meant to say that it’s just one opinion that almost everyone shares. Instead of securing those fields we created insecurity. We went four trillion dollars into debt because of the Iraq debacle. We actually lost more than that in Iraq because Bush started his presidency with a ten year surplus.

But more than money we lost over four thousand American lives. The number of severely incapacitated soldiers who made it home alive is tenfold that number. They will require medical treatment for the rest of their lives. But hey, VA health is socialism. Those lazy soldiers with brain injuries and no limbs should get up out their beds and work for a living, right? Four years of service and they think they deserve a lifetime of medical care!?

The nature of human kind, the norm and the expectation, is for a community to come to the aid of any member who is experiencing a personal crisis. From time immemorial we aided people whose homes were on fire. We’ve aided people whose homes have been flooded. We aid people who are being robbed or wronged. And we have aided people who are sick. It’s our duty. There is no right that says we can sit back and watch; not in the constitution and not in any religion’s scripture or in any thinker’s moral philosophy.

[duplicatt]

We did secure the oil fields in the first week of the invasion. But we couldn’t keep them secure. We thought we were going to be accepted as liberators. We thought that by taking out the middle man (i.e. the Iraqi government) our oil companies could deal directly with the towns and villages that provide the hard labor for working those fields. Halliburton could smell the profits. But Cheney and Halliburton thought wrongly. We weren't mistaken for liberators. After all, we weren’t. And so it took more effort than expected to keep those oil fields safe.

Bill Moyers and Alan Greenspan are two men. Indeed Greenspan explains that he is just putting to ink what everyone knows. That the Iraq War was about oil is more than one man’s opinion. Perhaps you meant to say that it’s just one opinion that almost everyone shares. Instead of securing those fields we created insecurity. We went four trillion dollars into debt because of the Iraq debacle. We actually lost more than that in Iraq because Bush started his presidency with a ten year surplus.

But more than money we lost over four thousand American lives. The number of severely incapacitated soldiers who made it home alive is tenfold that number. They will require medical treatment for the rest of their lives. But hey, VA health is socialism. Those lazy soldiers with brain injuries and no limbs should get up out their beds and work for a living, right? Four years of service and they think they deserve a lifetime of medical care!?

The nature of human kind, the norm and the expectation, is for a community to come to the aid of any member who is experiencing a personal crisis. From time immemorial we aided people whose homes were on fire. We’ve aided people whose homes have been flooded. We aid people who are being robbed or wronged. And we have aided people who are sick. It’s our duty. There is no right that says we can sit back and watch; not in the constitution and not in any religion’s scripture or in any thinker’s moral philosophy.

First off, it is rather disingenuous of you to virtually accuse me of being against socialized medicine. I have not stated a position one way or the other. I have merely shown - with evidence that none of you have ever disputed - that the current American system is not as bad as many would have you believe.

Secondly, if the Iraq War was merely about oil, then we would have done nothing BUT seize the oilfields and we would have held them against anything. We did a lot more. I'd trust Tommy Franks on this matter over Alan Greenspan.

Thirdly, we do give aid to the sick and indigent. Didn't you read my post about my friend who had no job and no car who got treatment for cancer (and was able to get SSDI - saving his apartment)?

[Realgirls4me]

First off, it is rather disingenuous of you to virtually accuse me of being against socialized medicine. I have not stated a position one way or the other. I have merely shown - with evidence that none of you have ever disputed - that the current American system is not as bad as many would have you believe.
Well, get off the fence. What is your position on "socialized medicine"? And to say that the American system is not as bad as you and many right-wingers out there would like us to believe is akin to showing that among the midgets of health care, the US might be the tallest one.



Secondly, if the Iraq War was merely about oil, then we would have done nothing BUT seize the oilfields and we would have held them against anything. We did a lot more. I'd trust Tommy Franks on this matter over Alan Greenspan.

Uh, we went there under every pretext imaginable all with the sole purpose of controlling those oil fields and making sure that supplies from that region were not interrupted. Do you really believe the public support would have been there had the administration's true reasons been revealed? And you're right: We did do a lot more. Let's see, according to the DoD's own figures, 95,000 Iraqis died via this country's unwarranted, unjust, and unprovoked attack. Other organizations have it at eight to ten times that figure. Now, divide any figure by 3000.



Thirdly, we do give aid to the sick and indigent. Didn't you read my post about my friend who had no job and no car who got treatment for cancer (and was able to get SSDI - saving his apartment)?

Hmmmm, let's see. What was that latest figure that just came out that told of the tens of thousands of Americans that die each year due to the lack of insurance? You're not going anecdotal on us here are you?

You're all heart.

[archineer]

In any case, we wouldn't have attacked Canada because it wasn't just about oil.

Here's an interesting watch for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDs57H3I6Oo&feature=player_embedded#t=11

And?

That is one man's opinion. If it were just about oil, our invasion would have been different. The first thing that would have been done would have been to secure the oil fields. That isn't what happened. Greenspan may know economics, but he obviously doesn't know anything more about military strategy than any other Average Joe off the street. I don't know why people assume that because someone has a degree in X that he knows a lot about Y.

The war was fought because the Bush Whitehouse new about the imminent peak and terminal decline of world oil production.

[fred41]

In any case, we wouldn't have attacked Canada because it wasn't just about oil.

Here's an interesting watch for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDs57H3I6Oo&feature=player_embedded#t=11

And?

That is one man's opinion. If it were just about oil, our invasion would have been different. The first thing that would have been done would have been to secure the oil fields. That isn't what happened. Greenspan may know economics, but he obviously doesn't know anything more about military strategy than any other Average Joe off the street. I don't know why people assume that because someone has a degree in X that he knows a lot about Y.

The war was fought because the Bush Whitehouse new about the imminent peak and terminal decline of world oil production.

Yeah, right....lol

[trish]

...it is rather disingenuous of you to virtually accuse me of being against socialized medicine. It's rather disingenuous of you to literally accuse me of virtually accusing you of taking a position which you virtually support but literally feign not to support. Clever :wink: I'm with Realgirls4me: time for you to get off the figurative fence. We[] have one of the worst infant mortality rates and one of the worst life expectancies among the western developed nations. No other developed nation in the western tradition has so many citizens dying because they're uncovered or going bankrupt because of the illness of a family member. But hey, things aren't as bad as we think they are. After all, who wants longevity when you have to watch your children die, your family go without proper medical care and your house fall into the hands of insurance barons?

[archineer]

In any case, we wouldn't have attacked Canada because it wasn't just about oil.

Here's an interesting watch for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDs57H3I6Oo&feature=player_embedded#t=11

And?

That is one man's opinion. If it were just about oil, our invasion would have been different. The first thing that would have been done would have been to secure the oil fields. That isn't what happened. Greenspan may know economics, but he obviously doesn't know anything more about military strategy than any other Average Joe off the street. I don't know why people assume that because someone has a degree in X that he knows a lot about Y.

The war was fought because the Bush Whitehouse new about the imminent peak and terminal decline of world oil production.

Yeah, right....lol

We peaked in 2005, just wait and see....

[duplicatt]

...it is rather disingenuous of you to virtually accuse me of being against socialized medicine. It's rather disingenuous of you to literally accuse me of virtually accusing you of taking a position which you virtually support but literally feign not to support. Clever :wink: I'm with Realgirls4me: time for you to get off the figurative fence. We[] have one of the worst infant mortality rates and one of the worst life expectancies among the western developed nations. No other developed nation in the western tradition has so many citizens dying because they're uncovered or going bankrupt because of the illness of a family member. But hey, things aren't as bad as we think they are. After all, who wants longevity when you have to watch your children die, your family go without proper medical care and your house fall into the hands of insurance barons?

I've shown that our infant mortality rates have little to do with health care and I've shown that, when you adjust for non-health care related deaths (like murders), the US life expectancy is the best in the world. Yet, you ignore those proofs and repeat your talking points. Do you pay attention to anything that doesn't fit your world view?

Where have you shown how many citizens are dying because they are uncovered? One thing to remember is that around a third of the uninsured in America are illegal aliens. Even the much vaunted Canadian system doesn't cover aliens. Why should America's system? And, I've shown where people die in Canada because of funding issues with their health care.

Finally, if insurance companies are so profitable, why don't you buy some stock and become an insurance baron yourself?

[trish]

Who wants to profit from denying others healthcare?

[fred41]

Do you pay attention to anything that doesn't fit your world view?


Most people here don't. They'll sometimes say they do.....but they don't.

[jaycanuck]

Where have you shown how many citizens are dying because they are uncovered?

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2009/09/17/3283909-no-health-coverage-tied-to-45000-deaths-a-year?pc=25&sp=50

[Rogers]

Obama's ex-doctor: Insurers 'screwing it up'
Chicago physician says companies are telling doctors how to do their job.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/24/news/economy/healthcare_obama_doctor/index.htm?postversion=2009092506

Attorney General's Investigation Reveals Flawed Lyme Disease Guideline Process, IDSA Agrees To Reassess Guidelines, Install Independent Arbiter
http://www.ct.gov/AG/cwp/view.asp?a=2795&q=414284

[duplicatt]

Where have you shown how many citizens are dying because they are uncovered?

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2009/09/17/3283909-no-health-coverage-tied-to-45000-deaths-a-year?pc=25&sp=50

Thanks. Unlike Trish, you are willing to try and back up your statements.

However, I'd like to see what the methodology is and how that differs from the Institute Of Medicine study which pegged the rate at under 20,000.

Now, I wonder how many people die in Canada each year because, despite being covered, they are not funded - like those bone marrow transplants Dr. Galal mentioned in the article I cited.

[duplicatt]

Who wants to profit from denying others healthcare?

Way to dodge the substantive issues.

[jaycanuck]

Where have you shown how many citizens are dying because they are uncovered?

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2009/09/17/3283909-no-health-coverage-tied-to-45000-deaths-a-year?pc=25&sp=50

Thanks. Unlike Trish, you are willing to try and back up your statements.

However, I'd like to see what the methodology is and how that differs from the Institute Of Medicine study which pegged the rate at under 20,000.

Now, I wonder how many people die in Canada each year because, despite being covered, they are not funded - like those bone marrow transplants Dr. Galal mentioned in the article I cited.

You love bringing up that marrow thing and I've debated that with you. We don't see eye to eye. Move on. And as for Trish, she backs her self up more times than not.

As for your death rate in Canada, here's a quick paragraph...


Deaths considered preventable through health care are less frequent in Canada than in the U.S., according to a January 2008 report in the journal Health Affairs. In the study by British researchers, Canada placed sixth among 19 countries surveyed, with 77 deaths for every 100,000 people. That compared with the last-place finish of the U.S., with 110 deaths.

[trish]

Health insurance companies are answerable to their shareholders. Whether the profits are small or large, they are the primary concern. Corporations will cut costs and increase revenue to secure profits, that’s the name of the game. Deductibles are going up, loopholes are exploited to drop the sick and injured from coverage, and people are denied coverage for diseases and injuries that are exempted by the fine print. Expectant mothers discover to their dismay that their plans don’t cover prenatal care, accounting for our higher rate of c-sections, higher rate of premature births and low weight newborns. The elderly discover their insurance isn’t properly tailored to their needs, because very few people can predict which disease they need to purchase insurance against. Generally it’s not evil to make a profit. Just good business. But to make a profit at the expense of someone’s health is untenable. For profit insurance and for profit health care is wrong and is leading us down the road to moral and financial disaster.

Our child mortality rates are poor and our life expectancy is low compared to other western nations. There have been no contrary demonstrations of these facts. No one posted actuarial tables? No one posted calculations? Links to articles in reason magazine do not constitute proof or demonstration.


Finally, if insurance companies are so profitable, why don't you buy some stock and become an insurance baron yourself?
Who wants to profit from denying others healthcare?

Way to dodge the substantive issues.
If you weren’t so keen to display your lack of wit and launch ad hominem arguments, you wouldn’t have asked the question?

[Rogers]

But to make a profit at the expense of someone’s health is untenable. For profit insurance and for profit health care is wrong and is leading us down the road to moral and financial disaster.

"How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortunes of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it."
- The opening sentence of Adam Smith's book, "The Theory of Moral Sentiments".
http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/tms/tms-p1-s1-c1.htm

"Is this Adam Smith's greatest book?"
http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/tms-intro.htm

[MrF]

I don't see a problem with health insurance companies "making a profit at the expense of someone's health" -- provided people feel they have an option to not buy the insurance or find a better alternative.

I've said something similar to this on this thread, that there is a divide in the USA between rich and poor -- a divide which is bigger than other industrialized countries. We already have Medicare and Medicaid for the elderly and the poor, respectively. One simple thing we could do, I suppose, is boost funding for these, so more people are covered, but then the money has to come from somewhere. We can either raise taxes (which would be resisted) or cut some other programs (the military is a possibility). One thing we cannot continue doing is borrowing trillions of dollars.

I don't think it's fair to call the private insurance companies evil. Everyone can read the contract and refuse it. However, the powerful influence they have over politicians is a serious problem for crafting alternatives.

[MrF]

I am curious about the universal health care in other countries. Does it really work better than the US system, and if so why ? Are the services intrinsically cheaper ? Or do these countries spend a higher percentage of their government outlays on health care as a deliberate priority ? I'm a little too lazy to research this, but maybe someone knows.

[Silcc69]

I am curious about the universal health care in other countries. Does it really work better than the US system, and if so why ? Are the services intrinsically cheaper ? Or do these countries spend a higher percentage of their government outlays on health care as a deliberate priority ? I'm a little too lazy to research this, but maybe someone knows.

I think that has been mentioned in here before.

[Rogers]

I am curious about the universal health care in other countries. Does it really work better than the US system, and if so why ? Are the services intrinsically cheaper ? Or do these countries spend a higher percentage of their government outlays on health care as a deliberate priority ? I'm a little too lazy to research this, but maybe someone knows.

Nearly 1/3 of your insurance bill goes to cover paper work. Add to that the profits the insurance companies have to make + their funding of "friendly" politicians. You do the math. :wink: American's are spending almost twice as much on healthcare as anywhere else in the world.

Why does America have the most sick & twisted healthcare system in the developed world?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsUFxotEgkg&feature=channel

Sick and Wrong
How Washington is screwing up health care reform – and why it may take a revolt to fix it
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29988909/sick_and_wrong/1

[Faldur]

This is just getting down right scary..


http://www.breitbart.tv/shock-discovery-community-organizers-pray-to-president-elect-obama/

[trish]

OOOOoooooOOOOooooo SCARY!!!! You guys will misconstrue anything to drum up
some fear won't you? Is that because your base is loaded with gullible cowards?
As long as they're afraid you can snow them into voting against their self-interest.


Thanks to Breitbart, Fox etc, Obama (who was wavering on the public option) will
certainly remember the cry of those who rallied Gamaliel way back in December 2008.
I hope he hears other, more recent, democratic protests as well. The public option is still
alive. Perhaps there's still a chance to pass a bill that will deliver us from the clutches of
private health insurance corporations. Oh was that a prayer???


Everybody in. Nobody out. Everybody in. Nobody out.


Be afraid. Obama-ites are coming to kill your grandmother. Obama-ites are coming to
get your guns. Obama-ites are coming to guarantee you health care. Obama-ites are
practicing antiphony. Be very afraid.

[Silcc69]

Trish for sum reason you made me think of:

http://designergenesdevo.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/elmer_fudd.jpg

[trish]

Be werwy afwaid!

[Faldur]

The public option is still alive.

It sure is, and oh look also ALL illegal immigrants are covered too! (distant shout, "YOU LIE!).

"There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants, this too of false! The reforms I am proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally." His holy Reverence Barack Obama 09/09/09

Ya think Joe Wilson might be feeling a little vindicated?

[duplicatt]

Way to dodge the substantive issues.
If you weren’t so keen to display your lack of wit and launch ad hominem arguments, you wouldn’t have asked the question?

Would you care to quote some post where I have attacked anyone, much less presented an actual ad hominem? It seems that, as in the case of begging the question, you need an education in the words and phrases you are using. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

[duplicatt]

Our child mortality rates are poor and our life expectancy is low compared to other western nations. There have been no contrary demonstrations of these facts. No one posted actuarial tables? No one posted calculations? Links to articles in reason magazine do not constitute proof or demonstration.

So, you didn't look at the article at all, then. So you have no idea if the study by the O'Neills, which is what is cited in the article for the conclusions derived, is right or not. You can't just cry that it was in Reason magazine, so it must be wrong. You have to address the DATA.

Moreover, the data on life expectancy did not come from the Reason article. But, you ignore that fact as well. It is rather clear that you are not even going to view any data that contradicts your pre-conceived notions.

[duplicatt]

American's are spending almost twice as much on healthcare as anywhere else in the world.

What do you mean by that? Absolute amount? Per person? Percent of GDP?

[raybbaby]

American's are spending almost twice as much on healthcare as anywhere else in the world.

What do you mean by that? Absolute amount? Per person? Percent of GDP?
I'm guessing both 1, and 3.

[duplicatt]

American's are spending almost twice as much on healthcare as anywhere else in the world.

What do you mean by that? Absolute amount? Per person? Percent of GDP?
I'm guessing both 1, and 3.

If 1, then I hope so. We have the third largest population in the world. And we are going to spend a lot more than the PRC or India per person.

If 3, then no. That is more like half again as much.

[trish]

Hey, for the sake of argument I have granted the data and addressed the interpretation of the data. You chose to ignore that and to continue your attack. Quite the clever debater, aren’t you?

To say infant mortality rates in the U.S. are due to an inordinate number of low birth weight babies and shouldn’t be counted, is like saying U.S. students do poorly on scholastic exams because an inordinate number of them don’t study and therefore they shouldn’t be counted. We have low birth weight babies because expectant mothers aren't covered for prenatal care. It’s the same reason we have a high rate of premature births and complications that result in surgical deliveries.

[jaycanuck]

]You have to address the DATA.

On numerous times we've given opposing arguments to your DATA Duplicatt. When we rebut it, you hold onto it thinking we'll forget it and then you bring it up again. Like the marrow discussion. We read your data and dispute it. You keep harping on elements even though we come up with our own.

[duplicatt]

Hey, for the sake of argument I have granted the data and addressed the interpretation of the data. You chose to ignore that and to continue your attack. Quite the clever debater, aren’t you?

You said, "Links to articles in reason magazine do not constitute proof or demonstration." which neither granted the data or addressed the interpretation of it at all.


To say infant mortality rates in the U.S. are due to an inordinate number of low birth weight babies and shouldn’t be counted, is like saying U.S. students do poorly on scholastic exams because an inordinate number of them don’t study and therefore they shouldn’t be counted. We have low birth weight babies because expectant mothers aren't covered for prenatal care. It’s the same reason we have a high rate of premature births and complications that result in surgical deliveries.

You never prove any of your contentions. Moreover, you misrepresent the conclusion of the study.

You'll have to excuse me if I take the word of two trained researchers over some random person with unknown credentials off the Internet.

[trish]

The very form of my argument grants the premise that low birth weight babies contribute to child mortality. :roll:

Oh my I'm such a naughty girl. I don't prove my contentions. I misrepresent. I'm never the subject of an ad hominem argument.

Yes, duplicatt. You're excused.

[duplicatt]

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.

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.

How nice of you to ignore the rest of that paragraph where I commented that, "Once the UK went to NHS, British innovation slacked off."

I had hoped you were an honest person interested in discussion. That omission makes it clear that you are not.

[duplicatt]

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.

Who is seriously trying to do anything close to impeaching President Obama?

[duplicatt]

]You have to address the DATA.

On numerous times we've given opposing arguments to your DATA Duplicatt. When we rebut it, you hold onto it thinking we'll forget it and then you bring it up again. Like the marrow discussion. We read your data and dispute it. You keep harping on elements even though we come up with our own.

You need to address data WITH data. You haven't done so.

You say you addressed the bone marrow transplant thing. I just went back and re-read the entire thread, Jay. The closest you come to addressing the bone marrow transplant thing is saying that you were for spending more money on health care and you said something about liver transplant wait times and try to claim that the transplants aren't done because of lack of donors. Well, you aren't in charge of spending money more. One down. Liver transplant wait times are irrelevant to bone marrow transplants. Two down. Dr. Galal says that money is the decisive issue in bone marrow transplant, not donors. Inning over.

[duplicatt]

The very form of my argument grants the premise that low birth weight babies contribute to child mortality. :roll:

Oh my I'm such a naughty girl. I don't prove my contentions. I misrepresent. I'm never the subject of an ad hominem argument.

Yes, duplicatt. You're excused.

Where have you proven anything, Trish?

And, as for ad hominem, I haven't done that to you.

[jaycanuck]

duplicatt wrote:
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.

looks like debatable data to me. I agreed with your statement for one that every system has it's own drawbacks. I didn't say our system was perfect. I then followed up with the point that with a public health care service people don't need to pay $200,000 - $500,000.

[jaycanuck]

Oh and then I continued to address another point that donations are also an issue. Even in the US.


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.

Further addressing that no system is perfect.

[trish]

Where have you proven anything, Trish?Your contention is that the high infant mortality rate in the U.S. is explainable. It’s due to an inordinate number of low birth weight babies. If we toss those low birth weight babies from the data our infant mortality is perfectly respectable! Therefore low infant mortality shouldn’t be used as an argument for heath care reform.

It’s an amazing argument. Don’t you think? Let’s grant the premise. We have an inordinate number of low birth weight babies. Let’s even grant that if we toss those low weight babies out of the data, our infant mortality would be in alignment with other developed western nations. Okay. Now what? What rules of logic lead from these premises to the stated conclusion? There is no reference to health care in the premises, and so there can be no reference to health care in any valid logical conclusion. The argument nicely demonstrates the fallacy known as drawing a non sequitur. Viola, I’ve proven something. The above argument is logically invalid.

We have more low birth weight babies because we have more premature births ( http://hsc.virginia.edu/UVaHealth/peds_hrnewborn/lbw.cfm ). A primary contributor to the higher occurrence of premature births is lack of prenatal care ( http://www.marchofdimes.com/prematurity/21326_1157.asp ). Gee, why are so many expectant mothers not getting proper prenatal care? Perhaps because tens of millions of young American women can’t afford medical coverage. Perhaps because millions thought their medical insurance covered prenatal care when it didn’t. Why would we think tens of millions of young American women have no medical coverage? Because nearly fifty million Americans have no coverage. Seniors are covered by Medicaid, so the bulk of those fifty million are men and women of reproductive age.

Is this a “proof”. Of course not. I rarely claim to prove anything that isn't of a formal nature (like the form of an logical argument or a mathematical proposition). Is it a convincing argument? That’s for the reader to judge.

[duplicatt]

duplicatt wrote:
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.

looks like debatable data to me. I agreed with your statement for one that every system has it's own drawbacks. I didn't say our system was perfect. I then followed up with the point that with a public health care service people don't need to pay $200,000 - $500,000.

What is debatable about it? Do you dispute what the head of the busiest transplant centre in Ontario says?

$200-500,000 is what Ontario pays. Over 83% of Americans have health insurance (call it 50 million - which is high - uninsured in a nation of 307 million) and do not pay $200-500,000 out of pocket to get the same operation either. Another 9% will get Medicaid if they have a medical need this big - because the hospital will make them apply for it - and they will not see that bill either.

I asked you before if you really considered 58% to be pretty good. You never answered.

[duplicatt]

Oh and then I continued to address another point that donations are also an issue. Even in the US.


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.

Further addressing that no system is perfect.

Dr. Galal said that the limiting issue for bone marrow transplants in Canada was money, not donors.

Furthermore, liver donations and bone marrow donations, while both can be done done with live donors, are not in the same league as each other. Donating a piece of your liver is a serious, major and possibly life threatening operation with major recovery needed. A bone marrow donation, while nothing to sneeze at, is not in the same category in terms of risk to the donor.

So, no, you haven't adequately addressed this at all, Jay.

[jaycanuck]

I asked you before if you really considered 58% to be pretty good. You never answered.

Sure I'll answer. It's acceptable. I say acceptable because you completely bypassed what I said about our struggle with politicians up here. We demand more taxes be taken off. Why? Because of something else that I already mentioned...and that's that we used to have a BETTER system than the one we already have. Election after election the number 1 issue with Canadians is health care.

I've already mentioned the Harris Gov. of the 90s destroying it. That's why it's at 58%.

For pete's sake Duplicatt, what you aren't getting is that the more money that's put into the system the better the care, the better the care the healthier the nation is. You just don't understand.

Your statement of "Over 83% of Americans have health insurance" is rather misleading. Are you saying that everyone has the ease of paying insurance costs. C'mon D

Here's a quick image from the The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations based on people buying their own coverage.
http://www.aflcio.org/issues/healthcare/survey/images/chart_10.jpg

Is this the only poll? No...but c'mon...i mean you have to realize that there are a large number of people who don't have employee medical coverage and can't afford it (or your statistic...are having a hard time affording it). You can't be that naive.

We can bat statistics and stories around all we want, you just won't get it. It's a shame.

[Rogers]

Americans' are spending almost twice as much on healthcare as anywhere else in the world.

What do you mean by that? Absolute amount? Per person? Percent of GDP?

It's funny how you've dodged my posts about how the current system is both damaging and corrupting to the medical profession itself, but somehow found the time to reply to that cherry-picked sentence. :wink: Ahahaha. If others can't see the flaw in your attempt at "logic", duplicitous, then I feel obliged to point it out to them. Anyone can read what I said anyway they like, because it still doesn't change the fact that almost 1/3 of health insurance goes to cover paperwork which the companies use to try and swindle their own customers out of the care they both need and paid for. :idea:

"Fully $350 billion a year could be saved on paperwork alone if the U.S. went to a single-payer system — more than enough to pay for the whole goddamned thing, if anyone had the balls to stand up and say so."

Nevermind the money the I.C.s' use to pay their lackey politicans. :twisted:

"Max Baucus, a right-leaning Democrat from Montana who has received $2,880,631 in campaign contributions from the health care industry"

"Grassley (who has received $2,034,000 from the health sector), Snowe ($756,000) or Enzi ($627,000)"

"It was Baucus' own committee that held the first round-table discussions on reform. In three days of hearings last May, he invited no fewer than 41 people to speak. The list featured all the usual industry hacks, including big insurers like America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), Blue Cross and Aetna. It's worth noting that several of the organizations invited — including AHIP and Amgen — employ several former Baucus staffers as lobbyists, including two of his ex-chiefs of staff."

Source:
Sick and Wrong
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29988909/sick_and_wrong

This is all part of the reason why, "Americans' are spending almost twice as much on healthcare as anywhere else in the world". :!: :!: :!:

[Silcc69]

The GOP plans!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-usmvYOPfco&feature=player_embedded

[techi]

Haha, yeah, Grayson on the Republican plan: don't get sick.

Single payer is the best solution, but that can't even be considered in this country because too much of our politicians campaign cash comes from the health insurance industry.

[duplicatt]

Americans' are spending almost twice as much on healthcare as anywhere else in the world.

What do you mean by that? Absolute amount? Per person? Percent of GDP?

It's funny how you've dodged my posts about how the current system is both damaging and corrupting to the medical profession itself, but somehow found the time to reply to that cherry-picked sentence. :wink:

It is a rather simple question. And I note that you don't answer it.

If you can't be bothered to answer the very simplest questions, then why should I pay you any mind?

[duplicatt]

I asked you before if you really considered 58% to be pretty good. You never answered.

Sure I'll answer. It's acceptable. I say acceptable because you completely bypassed what I said about our struggle with politicians up here. We demand more taxes be taken off. Why? Because of something else that I already mentioned...and that's that we used to have a BETTER system than the one we already have. Election after election the number 1 issue with Canadians is health care.

I've already mentioned the Harris Gov. of the 90s destroying it. That's why it's at 58%.

For pete's sake Duplicatt, what you aren't getting is that the more money that's put into the system the better the care, the better the care the healthier the nation is. You just don't understand.

Your statement of "Over 83% of Americans have health insurance" is rather misleading. Are you saying that everyone has the ease of paying insurance costs. C'mon D

Here's a quick image from the The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations based on people buying their own coverage.
http://www.aflcio.org/issues/healthcare/survey/images/chart_10.jpg

Is this the only poll? No...but c'mon...i mean you have to realize that there are a large number of people who don't have employee medical coverage and can't afford it (or your statistic...are having a hard time affording it). You can't be that naive.

We can bat statistics and stories around all we want, you just won't get it. It's a shame.

I'd rather be in a system that covers 83% of the people (and we know that some significant percentage of the remaining 17% are eligible for Medicaid but have not applied and so would be covered in case of medical emergency) than a system that covers everyone, but runs out of money for the last 42%.

As for the funding level, if the people of your province truly want to be taxed more to spend more on health care, then you'd vote the rascals who will not do this for you out and put in politicians who will do your bidding.

[jaycanuck]

I'd rather be in a system that covers 83% of the people (and we know that some significant percentage of the remaining 17% are eligible for Medicaid but have not applied and so would be covered in case of medical emergency) than a system that covers everyone, but runs out of money for the last 42%.

As for the funding level, if the people of your province truly want to be taxed more to spend more on health care, then you'd vote the rascals who will not do this for you out and put in politicians who will do your bidding.

You just ran over what I said about people having a hard time paying for insurance. Nice. Which brings me back to the universal health care and people not stressing about paying such exorbitant prices for insurance. But again Duplicatt....we can go back and forth until the cows come home. You just won't get the idea of universal healthcare. So....on that note, I'm going to work on my actual work and end the debate.

And as for me voting for said party. I do. I vote for the NDP. But much like your country, politicians are politicians. They lie. I would love for the NDP to be in power. And with the amount of fighting between our 2 main parties I often wonder why they aren't.

[duplicatt]

You just won't get the idea of universal healthcare.

I don't consider a system where 42% of people can't get the procedures they need to be "universal," Jay.

[Rogers]

Americans' are spending almost twice as much on healthcare as anywhere else in the world.

What do you mean by that? Absolute amount? Per person? Percent of GDP?

It's funny how you've dodged my posts about how the current system is both damaging and corrupting to the medical profession itself, but somehow found the time to reply to that cherry-picked sentence. :wink:

It is a rather simple question. And I note that you don't answer it.

If you can't be bothered to answer the very simplest questions, then why should I pay you any mind?

Nice editing of my posts again, duplicitous. Pook, pook, pook. It's all three!!! Like I already fucking told you it doesn't matter how you read it.

U.S. Health Spending Breaks From the Pack
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/us-health-spending-breaks-from-the-pack/


Anyone can read what I said anyway they like

High standard of possible care + largest population in the Western world + $350 billion to cover paperwork + big profits + bribing politicians to do their dirty work = "Americans' are spending almost twice as much on healthcare as anywhere else in the world".

DUH!!!

Now, you've racked up a large amount of your total posts on this forum on this thread alone. I wouldn't at all be surprised if you actually work for an I.C.. :wink: You seem to be pretty much replying to everyone with an opposing view to your own, yet you still dodged my posts about how the current system is both damaging and corrupting the medical profession itself. Damaging not only the doctor-patient relationship, but creating corrupt and greedy doctors in what is profession prized for it's ethics. If you can't trust a doctor, then who can you trust? This is part of why I mentioned Adam Smith and his "Theory of Moral Sentiments". There are simply some areas where the free-market should not reign.

The following link is the view of just one doctor, but all my medic friends and family are saying EXACTLY the same thing...
http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/24/news/economy/healthcare_obama_doctor/index.htm?section=money_topstories

And the truth is that we only know a fraction of the corruption that is going on because of insurance companies in what is supposed to be a highly ethical profession...
http://www.ct.gov/AG/cwp/view.asp?a=2795&q=414284

The more leeching middle-men you have in any system the more the price goes up. FACT.

*waits to have my post edited by duplicitous again*

[Rogers]

U.S. Health Spending Breaks From the Pack
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/us-health-spending-breaks-from-the-pack/

[duplicatt]

*waits to have my post edited by duplicitous again*

name calling? How juvenile...

[Rogers]

*waits to have my post edited by duplicitous again*

name calling? How juvenile...

You have CHOOSEN to align yourself with crooks and liars. You also CHOSE to try and play smart with something I said, and you are the one calling me juvenile. Hypocrite much? Now you are QQing about the way I've reacted. I'm sooo impressed. At least I'm not trying to intimidate you with a gun, huh? :wink:

[duplicatt]

*waits to have my post edited by duplicitous again*

name calling? How juvenile...

You have CHOOSEN to align yourself with crooks and liars. You also CHOSE to try and play smart with something I said, and you are the one calling me juvenile. Hypocrite much? Now you are QQing about the way I've reacted. I'm sooo impressed. At least I'm not trying to intimidate you with a gun, huh? :wink:

I called out the poster that was being rude to your side. If you can't be civil, then there is no use trying to have a discussion.

As for hypocrisy, your side balked when I used Reason Magazine as a source - never mind that it just cited a study. Then you expect me to take Rolling Stone as an unbiased source? "It is to laugh."

[Rogers]

*waits to have my post edited by duplicitous again*

name calling? How juvenile...

You have CHOOSEN to align yourself with crooks and liars. You also CHOSE to try and play smart with something I said, and you are the one calling me juvenile. Hypocrite much? Now you are QQing about the way I've reacted. I'm sooo impressed. At least I'm not trying to intimidate you with a gun, huh? :wink:

I called out the poster that was being rude to your side. If you can't be civil, then there is no use trying to have a discussion.

As for hypocrisy, your side balked when I used Reason Magazine as a source - never mind that it just cited a study. Then you expect me to take Rolling Stone as an unbiased source? "It is to laugh."

My side? Now that is a LAUGH! :lol: I'm no slave to any political party OR ideology. :idea: The Rolling Stone article is critical of BOTH SIDES, and I posted quotes from it to prove it.

Here are some more sources for ya...

Industry Cash Flowed To Drafters of Reform
Key Senator Baucus Is a Leading Recipient
Washington Post
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/20/AR2009072003363_pf.html

Health care in US ranks lowest among developed countries
BMJ 2008;337:a889
"The United States ranked last across a range of measures of health care in a comparison of 19 industrialised countries, despite spending more than twice as much per person on health as any other of the countries, says a report published last week."
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/337/jul21_1/a889

It’s The Prices, Stupid: Why The United States Is So Different From Other Countries
Health Affairs, 22, no. 3 (2003): 89-105
"These facts suggest that the difference in spending is caused mostly by higher prices for health care goods and services in the United States."
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/abstract/22/3/89

[Rogers]

You never did get back to me about those pesky graphs did you, duplicatt? :lol:

Why Does U.S. Health Care Cost So Much? (Part II: Indefensible Administrative Costs)
By Uwe E. Reinhardt
Uwe E. Reinhardt is an economist at Princeton.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/why-does-us-health-care-cost-so-much-part-ii-indefensible-administrative-costs/

[duplicatt]

You never did get back to me about those pesky graphs did you, duplicatt? :lol:

Which part of 'If you can't be civil then you aren't worth having a discussion with?' isn't getting through to you?

[Rogers]

You never did get back to me about those pesky graphs did you, duplicatt? :lol:

Which part of 'If you can't be civil then you aren't worth having a discussion with?' isn't getting through to you?

Ermm, those weren't your last words to me. A nice but failed try at being deceitful again. And the only "bad name" :roll: (AMFG! :lol: ) I called you was duplicitous, so you've clearly proven me right about that AGAIN. So make your pathetic little excuses and run away now that you've clearly lost the debate. You clearly don't give a flying-fuck about your fellow Americans, and most likely never have done.

New Report Finds 86.7 Million Americans Were Uninsured at Some Point in 2007-2008
Three out of Four of Those without Health Coverage Were Uninsured for at Least Six Months
March 4, 2009
"* Four out of five (79.2 percent) of the uninsured were in working families: 69.7 percent of the families included a worker who was employed full-time, and 9.5 percent included a worker who was employed part-time."
http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/newsroom/press-releases/2009-press-releases/one-of-three-uninsured.html

Holy Grail - Killer Bunny
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcxKIJTb3Hg

[raybbaby]

Good stuff here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQBOK6qrEIc

[Realgirls4me]

Good stuff here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQBOK6qrEIc

Excellent -- EX-EE-LENT! Hee-hee. :)

[jaycanuck]

Good stuff here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQBOK6qrEIc


Perhaps more Grayson's should step up and start hitting back at the nonsense coming out of the right wing.

[Baron Of Hell]

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.

Who is seriously trying to do anything close to impeaching President Obama?

Right now only the crazy people like the birthers and truthers.

[duplicatt]

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.

Who is seriously trying to do anything close to impeaching President Obama?

Right now only the crazy people like the birthers and truthers.

Truthers? You mean like Van Jones former Obama Administration Green Czar? Something tells me that the truthers aren't calling for Obama's impeachment.

[duplicatt]

You never did get back to me about those pesky graphs did you, duplicatt? :lol:

Which part of 'If you can't be civil then you aren't worth having a discussion with?' isn't getting through to you?

Ermm, those weren't your last words to me.

It may not be a direct quote, but my post of Sat Oct 03, 2009 4:03 pm contains these exact words - "If you can't be civil, then there is no use trying to have a discussion." - which certainly have the same overall meaning.

[Baron Of Hell]

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.

Who is seriously trying to do anything close to impeaching President Obama?

Right now only the crazy people like the birthers and truthers.

Truthers? You mean like Van Jones former Obama Administration Green Czar? Something tells me that the truthers aren't calling for Obama's impeachment.

No Van Jones isn't a truther.

Truthers = People that want the truth as they see it known about 911. They believe the crashes were fake and the government was behind it all.

Van Jones signed a petitions for an investigation about events on 9-11. The petition itself makes no mention on were guilt lies. The far right used this to claim Van Jones as a radically to trick morons.

You can read the petition he signed here
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633

[evilernie]

Politics is not easy, but if I were to say what should be in there.

1. up to $20,000 (or pick a better number) tax deductible towards healthcare expenses or contributed to a health savings account. Employee and employer combined. (No. SRS is not considered healthcare expenses.)

2. Employers are required to match the contribution. This includes salaried and hourly workers.

3. Every individual is required to see a physical, at least once a year. Otherwise, he cannot claim the tax deduction.

4. The Fed Gov (using our tax dollars) shall establish a Third party administrator to handle claims and provide Information Technology support to Hospitals and Clinics that choose to form a co-op. In two years, these co-ops will gradually fund this department and eventually buy it out from the government and take it private. The directors and shareholders can only be nominated by the co-ops that this TPA is servicing and can never be a public company.

4. For the people earning below $50,000 (let's say). The gov will create a separate account, which can only be used for preventative care and emergency. This account will accumulate a negative balance when used. If the individual take a deduction as stated in #1, corresponding amount will be taken out of this account - tax deductible.

5. The account will be charged and accrue an interest equivalent to the 10 year bond.

6. If a person dies, this balance will be considered a lien to his estate. Therefore, it should be paid off before any inheritance can be passed on.

Effects:
1. If the employee chose to decline coverage, he loses out of the deduction.

2. Since there is a cap, anything above that will be considered as income and thus taxable.

3. Uninsured are covered. If let's say they won the lotto, they have to pay it back.

4. The limitation on forming a coop is the limited infrastructure that they have against established insurance companies. Providing seed money for development, will spur growth. Hence, encourage competition.

I'll update when I can think of something else.

[jaycanuck]

Just watched Sicko (here come the Michael Moore bashers). Quite shocking.

I gotta say...England and France are on the ball. Canada needs to catch up to them.

[Rogers]

You never did get back to me about those pesky graphs did you, duplicatt? :lol:

Which part of 'If you can't be civil then you aren't worth having a discussion with?' isn't getting through to you?

Ermm, those weren't your last words to me.

It may not be a direct quote, but my post of Sat Oct 03, 2009 4:03 pm contains these exact words - "If you can't be civil, then there is no use trying to have a discussion." - which certainly have the same overall meaning.

Nice editing of my post again. Grrrrr. I wasn't disputing you said those words, but you directly addressed a few more things to me after them. Cappiche? "Exact words"? :roll: English is your first language isn't it? And the first rule of lying (apparently) is to not get caught. Hence my "bad word" for you... duplicitous.

Now bravely run away. :wink:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&feature=related&v=BZwuTo7zKM8


For anyone else interested:
Healthcare around the world
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8201711.stm

[duplicatt]

Rogers: There is far more to civility that simply not calling names. I didn't call Trish or Jay liars - even when they got their facts wrong. And when Jay decided to walk away from our one-on-one conversation, I didn't proclaim "victory" and post pictures of Ali gloating over a fallen opponent.

You have much to learn about human interaction.

[jaycanuck]

Rogers: There is far more to civility that simply not calling names. I didn't call Trish or Jay liars - even when they got their facts wrong. And when Jay decided to walk away from our one-on-one conversation, I didn't proclaim "victory" and post pictures of Ali gloating over a fallen opponent.

You have much to learn about human interaction.

Nor did I call you blind when you refused to see the truth.

[Silcc69]

duplicatt you have seem to veer off from the topic and instead go on about net etiquette.

[Rogers]

Rogers: There is far more to civility that simply not calling names. I didn't call Trish or Jay liars - even when they got their facts wrong. And when Jay decided to walk away from our one-on-one conversation, I didn't proclaim "victory" and post pictures of Ali gloating over a fallen opponent.

You have much to learn about human interaction.

My experience of debating politics on this board is from the P&R forum. When I first arrived here things were extremely vicious there (I don't exaggerate!) primarily because of a right-wing poster who may well have posted in this very thread using a new account. He got very personal with me and a few others and was eventually banned because of it. The ali knockout pic had more to do with him than you. It's a long story. :wink: If you've taken that personally then I apologize to you sincerely. But you did try to play smart with something I said. And in all honesty, I really don't have much respect for people with your political leanings after the shameful events of this passing decade. The fact that insurance companies are bribing politicians should tell you that you're on the wrong side of this debate from the get-go. Why even try and defend the indefensible?

[trish]

I didn't call Trish or Jay liars - even when they got their facts wrong. I don't recall either of us getting any facts wrong, even though we were accused of being disingenuous and as misrepresenting the facts, which comes with the connotation of calculatingly and deliberately misconstruing the them. Call me crazy, but attacks directed toward the intent of the speaker rather than toward what is spoken crosses into the domain of the ad hominem.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misrepresentation

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disingenuous

:wink:

[Faldur]

Couple simple questions:

1) If health care is such an urgent need, why doesn't it kick in until after the 2012 elections? What are they afraid of? If this is indeed such an urgent issue enact it immediately.

2) The CBO estimates the bills currently presented WILL impact the US budget:
"The blog of the C.B.O. director, Douglas W. Elmendorf, taking into account new “gateways” for access to health insurance, says:
According to our preliminary assessment, enacting the proposal would result in a net increase in federal budget deficits of about $1.0 trillion over the 2010-2019 period. When fully implemented, about 39 million individuals would obtain coverage through the new insurance exchanges. At the same time, the number of people who had coverage through an employer would decline by about 15 million (or roughly 10 percent), and coverage from other sources would fall by about 8 million, so the net decrease in the number of people uninsured would be about 16 million or 17 million."

Who is going to pay for all of this?

3) So if there is all this fraud out there, how about we just pass a healthcare fraud bill, collect all the billions you say are available in fraud over the next three years. Put that money in the bank, and buy the 47 million people you say don't have health care, but buy it for them in 2013, just like ALL of the proposed health care bills do.

The motives and numbers just don't add up. This is clearly about a power grab and a move towards socialism. If they can screw up the US economy so badly over the next 3 years with cap and spend, health care, stimulus 1, stimulus 2, and God only knows how many more little brothers and sisters that will have. If they can get things so screwed up, and the US so far in debt that the only option, as they will propose it to us, is for the government to take over private enterprise and to become our Nanny.

America is not drinking the cool-aid, someone tell me how your going to pay for the 10 trillion in additional debt your going to pile on to our economy in the years 2013 - 2019.

The only thing we should be rushing to the Presidents table, unread like all the other congressional bills, is one that is titled, "BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT"!

[Rogers]

Last post on this thread (TF! :lol: ):


Couple simple questions:

1) If health care is such an urgent need, why doesn't it kick in until after the 2012 elections? What are they afraid of? If this is indeed such an urgent issue enact it immediately.

Ermm, Clinton tried to reform the system but hit the same snags Obama has. Remember? Reform has been needed for decades now.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/us-health-spending-breaks-from-the-pack/


2) The CBO estimates the bills currently presented WILL impact the US budget:
"The blog of the C.B.O. director, Douglas W. Elmendorf, taking into account new “gateways” for access to health insurance, says:
According to our preliminary assessment, enacting the proposal would result in a net increase in federal budget deficits of about $1.0 trillion over the 2010-2019 period. When fully implemented, about 39 million individuals would obtain coverage through the new insurance exchanges. At the same time, the number of people who had coverage through an employer would decline by about 15 million (or roughly 10 percent), and coverage from other sources would fall by about 8 million, so the net decrease in the number of people uninsured would be about 16 million or 17 million."

Who is going to pay for all of this?

The bills currently presented are being drafted by politicians in the pay of the health insurance companies. And the winner is... the health insurance companies!

How Insurance Companies Will Make Even More Money from "Health Care Reform"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&gl=US&v=R0dmPX_hdBw

It's just fucking "beautiful" how the free-market continues to stiff the majority. Greedy insurance companies, greedy bankers, the list goes on and on.


3) So if there is all this fraud out there, how about we just pass a healthcare fraud bill, collect all the billions you say are available in fraud over the next three years. Put that money in the bank, and buy the 47 million people you say don't have health care, but buy it for them in 2013, just like ALL of the proposed health care bills do.

What fraud? It's all legal. The funding of politicians is legal. Paying doctors to give "expert testimony" against further expensive treatment for a patient is legal (that'll be the "death panels" that clueless cunt Palin was blathering on about). Dragging out insurance claims so that the patient either gives up or dies is legal. The law protects more crooks than it convicts. If this wasn't the case then the bastards Cheney and Feith would be in the Hague for war-crimes right now.


The motives and numbers just don't add up. This is clearly about a power grab and a move towards socialism. If they can screw up the US economy so badly over the next 3 years with cap and spend, health care, stimulus 1, stimulus 2, and God only knows how many more little brothers and sisters that will have. If they can get things so screwed up, and the US so far in debt that the only option, as they will propose it to us, is for the government to take over private enterprise and to become our Nanny.

America is not drinking the cool-aid, someone tell me how your going to pay for the 10 trillion in additional debt your going to pile on to our economy in the years 2013 - 2019.

The only thing we should be rushing to the Presidents table, unread like all the other congressional bills, is one that is titled, "BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT"!

"God"? :lol: More right-wing drivel. Blah, blah, blah. You can't see it but I really am laughing my ass off right now. Did you read any of the links I've posted? Here's one again so that you can MAYBE, JUST MAYBE understand:

Why Does U.S. Health Care Cost So Much? (Part II: Indefensible Administrative Costs)
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/why-does-us-health-care-cost-so-much-part-ii-indefensible-administrative-costs/

[Faldur]

Although I Found the random highlighting of text amusing I still can't see anyway your proposing we pay for this!

10 trillion dollars, where does it come from????

[Faldur]

Of the 1,695 federal subsidy programs, can you name me 3 that are well managed and efficient?

The postal service?
Medicare?
Social Security?
Food stamps?
Helium subsidies?
The study of the breeding habits of the woodchuck?
The study of the Hatfield-McCoy feud?
The restroom added on Mt. McKinley?
The Seafood Consumer Center?
The Executive Branch for gold-embossed playing cards on Airforce two?

[Rogers]

Although I Found the random highlighting of text amusing I still can't see anyway your proposing we pay for this!

10 trillion dollars, where does it come from????

Hahaha. My highlighting of your text WASN'T RANDOM, God-boy. :wink:

We maybe shouldn't have invaded Iraq then, huh? But that's what you get from having a bloated military and a free-market pushing even more "efficient" weapons to kill little kids with. But that's patriotism for you. Oops, sorry, right-wing jingoism!
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/29/photos-embassy-iraq/

And you clearly still haven't grasped why Americans' pay almost twice as much for their healthcare as nearly everywhere else in the developed world have you? Like I said in my first post on this thread (NOTE: THIS IS MOST DEFINITELY MY LAST :lol: ) it's like talking to a dumb, brick wall. :banghead

From the New England Journal of Medicine:
"Conclusions The gap between U.S. and Canadian spending on health care administration has grown to $752 per capita. A large sum might be saved in the United States if administrative costs could be trimmed by implementing a Canadian-style health care system."
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/349/8/768

"In the real world, nothing except a single-payer system makes any sense. There are currently more than 1,300 private insurers in this country, forcing doctors to fill out different forms and follow different reimbursement procedures for each and every one. This drowns medical facilities in idiotic paperwork and jacks up prices: Nearly a third of all health care costs in America are associated with wasteful administration. Fully $350 billion a year could be saved on paperwork alone if the U.S. went to a single-payer system — more than enough to pay for the whole goddamned thing, if anyone had the balls to stand up and say so."
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29988909/sick_and_wrong/1

"$350 billion a year" on paperwork. Now that IS fantastic free-market efficiency for you, Faildur! :roll:

[Faldur]

We maybe shouldn't have invaded Iraq then, huh?

I couldn't agree with you more.


And you clearly still haven't grasped why Americans' pay almost twice as much for their healthcare as nearly everywhere else in the developed world have you?

Well I do know when you tell an insurance provider that your boundaries of business lie within this state and you are not allowed to cross the state lines. But in return we will make sure no one comes in a pisses in your play yard.. that doesn't tend to drive costs down. Without reform of our insurance regulation to allow competition it's going to remain expensive.

Without tort reform to reduce the amount of frivolous lawsuits it will continue to rise. $126 billion awarded in jury awards last year alone. The fear of lawsuits results in an additional $50 billion each year in un-necessary medical tests.


$350 billion a year" on paperwork.

In what world has the federal government ever reduced paperwork? Two thirds of what the insurance companies require is due to the governments regulation.

Have you ever done work for a state or federal agency? The concept that government can reduce paperwork or spending is completly absurd.

Still looking for 3 well run, efficiently run government subsidy programs. Hell I will take one! Name one of the 1,695 programs that actually works?

The CBO currently tells us health care reform will cost us $1 Trillion each year for the first 10 years its implemented. Lets look at the governments accuracy in budget projections... Medicare, in 1966 the house ways and means committee estimated that medicare would cost only about $12 billion in 1990, (the figure took into consideration inflation). The actual cost in 1990? $107 Billion!!! Ooops! Missed that one by 850%

So what happens if we have blown the estimate of what health care reform costs, like we did with medicare?

And oh by the way, Who the heck is going to pay for all this???

[MrF]

^ You want an example of "well run" govt subsidy programs ? I'll just discuss programs. Well, it's going to depend on what you mean by "well run".

The postal service runs pretty well, in my opinion. It's cheap and pretty reliable. Plus, they allow competition like Fedex and UPS.

Look at how water delivery works. There's the government-run stuff, which works pretty well, and then there are non-government alternatives (bottled water, purifiers). Public schools, trash pickup, national defense, TSA -- they all work.

So, some private / govt competitive options work pretty well, though it's a matter of opinion, I suppose.

It seems to me setting up a non-profit government-run health insurance agency is worth a try. Make it a temporary mandate and review its success after 10 years. It should be as self-sustaining as possible. To the extent that it needs new revenues, however, I would try hard to cut other programs first. I am nervous about the government growing much further and I'm especially nervous about huge deficits. Hard to say what to cut; I'd start with the military. Maybe the bloated homeland security department needs a trim. But the cuts have to be gradual so the workers can find other jobs.

[techi]

Of the 1,695 federal subsidy programs, can you name me 3 that are well managed and efficient?

No need, you already named 4 which are better managed and more effecient than private equivilents.


The postal service?
Works fine and delivers mail pretty much everywhere, it doesn't just cherry pick profitable delivery regions.


Medicare?
Better managed and more efficent than private healthcare. Medicare helps keep medical costs down. It also does a better job than private health insurance companies at actually paying doctors for services rendered.

Critics say that Medicare costs are becoming unmanageable. That may be true but they fail to mention that private healthcare costs are growing in an even more unmanageable manner.


Social Security?
It's administered extremely well. the old folks get thier checks like clockwork.

And the beauty of it is that unlike your 401K contributions, WallStreet bankers cannot steal it.

It may have to somewhat reduce payment rates at some point in the future but compared to private corporations it's extremely solvent. How many banks have been closed this year? Over 90. Not to mention the number of private companies gone bust or the fact that many banks still in operation are horribly insolvant(including the big ones... Citi&co). And lets not forget that the FDIC has run out of cash.


Food stamps?
Works fine and doesn't cost much at all.



Helium subsidies?
The study of the breeding habits of the woodchuck?
The study of the Hatfield-McCoy feud?
The restroom added on Mt. McKinley?
The Seafood Consumer Center?
The Executive Branch for gold-embossed playing cards on Airforce two?
Yes, there is definently some wasteful spending on the fringes... retarded even. But how much does this add up to really? As much as the cost of the Iraq war? Does it compete in size with normal peacetime defense spending? Why bitch about a pork mole hill when you are confronted with a mountain of military waste?

I think the folks that listen to right wing radio need to grow up and realize that government and government institutions are required to run a modern society. And that brings us back to health care.

Should healthcare be considered a right, a privalege or an obligation?

If it's a right then just form a government institution to maintain and protect that right. Something like a single payer system funded by a VAT(a form of sales tax) that everyone would pay.

If it's a privilage then stick with the Republican plan and just let ppl die when they run out of cash. I'm not a fan of this but the current Democrat healthcare bill sucks bad enough that I wonder if it will be a noticable improvement.

Congress seems to have decided that healthcare is an obligation. A perspective that seems deranged to me but does make sense from the point of view of the health insurance industry. The way the current healthcare bill is shaping up it looks like the IRS will be forcing people to buy a private health insurance product even if they feel that product to be defective. And oh yeah... no sign of any real cost controls so this bill is far from a complete solution.

[Silcc69]

This thing is getting very interesting.

[MrF]

There are plenty of things the government does well, and the model of government competing with private enterprise can work. Take for example public schools. I know there can be a lot of complaints about public schools, but there are private schools if you prefer them. A lot of "high class" people choose to put their kids through private schools; it's their choice, and perhaps they deserve a suitably calibrated tax break since they didn't benefit from the public schools. But the public schools can produce good results -- it depends a lot on the student's capabilities and the engagement of the parents.

This just amplifies what I said above about the model for a government-offered health insurance.

Edit: I just saw an interesting story on the PBS newshour about health care in the Netherlands; the story is on their website together with a comparison of six countries. The USA looks pretty bad in comparison.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/globalhealth/july-dec09/insurance_1006.html

[Faldur]

Wow, really...

Postal Service, never had a profitable year in its history. Estimated to loose 7 billion dollars in the 2009 year. Just a general business rule, business that loose that kind of money go bankrupt. One of its counterparts, UPS, earned $908 million dollars in 2008. And contrary to a government run business UPS and its employees actually generated tax revenue, rather than just spent it.

Medicare/Medicaid will consume 19% of GDP by the year 2013. The systems is fraught with fraud and the only time anyone discusses fixing the fraud is when they want to buy something they cant afford they point to Medicare and say well we have $200 billion in fraud here that we can pay for it. Left to run its own coarse it will fail from lack of funding, or the youth of today will see a very steep tax increase. Estimates put employee portion of medicare/social security taxes at 17% by the year 2020.

Social Security, where to start.. the systems is broke, and will fail within 15 years unless major changes are made to it. Services will be drastically cut, and taxes will be increases substantially if the program is to survive. Social Security may hit its first cash shortfall this year, projected to have a positive cash flow of $119 billion in 2009, that projection has been revised to $19 billion, and many feel that will also reduce due to the high unemployment. Had this program done as it was set up to do, and safely invest the monies it received, rather than spend every penny like drunken sailors this program could have worked.

Not going to touch food stamps ... too late and its not worth the effort. Any program that every illegal alien in the country is on should be eliminated.

Government does one thing well.. it protects its citizens.

[techi]

Wow, really...

Postal Service, never had a profitable year in its history. Estimated to loose 7 billion dollars in the 2009 year. Just a general business rule, business that loose that kind of money go bankrupt. One of its counterparts, UPS, earned $908 million dollars in 2008. And contrary to a government run business UPS and its employees actually generated tax revenue, rather than just spent it.


As I said, the postal service doesn't cherry pick, they deliver pretty much everywhere. It's called: providing a public service. So your comparison is apples to oranges.



Medicare/Medicaid will consume 19% of GDP by the year 2013. The systems is fraught with fraud and the only time anyone discusses fixing the fraud is when they want to buy something they cant afford they point to Medicare and say well we have $200 billion in fraud here that we can pay for it. Left to run its own coarse it will fail from lack of funding, or the youth of today will see a very steep tax increase. Estimates put employee portion of medicare/social security taxes at 17% by the year 2020.

Again, you fail to notice that private healthcare is in even worse shape than medicare. Are you suggesting we move from a public system that is messed up to a private system that is even more messed up?

You cannot use medicare as an example of government solutions being bad when the private alternative is even worse.

And regardless, the real problem is out of control healthcare costs. That is the real problem which does need to be addressed.



Social Security, where to start.. the systems is broke, and will fail within 15 years unless major changes are made to it. Services will be drastically cut, and taxes will be increases substantially if the program is to survive. Social Security may hit its first cash shortfall this year, projected to have a positive cash flow of $119 billion in 2009, that projection has been revised to $19 billion, and many feel that will also reduce due to the high unemployment. Had this program done as it was set up to do, and safely invest the monies it received, rather than spend every penny like drunken sailors this program could have worked.


The SS trust fund is expected to be depleted somewhere around 2040. After that it could only pay 70 cents on the dollar for a while if it was not allowed to run an unfunded deficit. It's a generational hiccup caused by the baby boomers which will self correct provided that our population doesn't start endlessly shrinking.

Now compare that to private investment. We've just witnessed the market plunge to 50 cents on the dollar. It's recoverd to 66 cents on the dollar but there's not a lot of confidence that it'll stay that way.

So really, worst case, social security is looking a lot healthier and more stable than private retirement investments.

Also, Social Security acts as a very good stabilizer in times of economic crisis(like now). It spreads out a steady flow of purchasing power that is largely unaffected by what the crooks on wallstreet are up to. Our economic collapse would have been much more severe without SS to pad our fall.

Pete Peterson, David Walker and the Concord Coalition(the IOUSA ppl) make an argument about SS & Medicare much like the argument you are making. They are of course completely wrong and here's why:

Thier argument is based on "national savings". They believe that the government should run a balanced budget AND that the public should increase thier personal savings. This is mathematically impossible in a world that runs on a dollar reserve system.

Under the dollar reserve system the rest of the world has to acquire an ever growing quantity of dollars to support thier trade and economic growth. By definition, that means that the rest of the world must run a trade surplus against the US in order to acquire an ever increasing quantity of dollars. That of course means that the US ends up with trade deficits.

Where do the dollars come from that make up the US trade deficit? There's only 2 possible sources: the US government or the US public. So the US will always run deficits so long as the dollar reserve system is in place.

It's a rather dishonest system, I don't like or defend it but it is the system we are currently using. Thus much of the balance budget and deficit talk is utter nonsense. The real threat to the dollar and economy is entirely related to what our wallstreet clowns have been up to. It has nothing to do with Medicare and SS.


Any program that every illegal alien in the country is on should be eliminated.
Oh, I'm all for law&order when it comes to illegal immigration. The simplest way to fix the problem is to fix the Mexican economy. It also happens to be a much cheaper solution than building a wall along the Mexican border.

Most of the illegals don't want to be here. They are only here because thier country has been turned into a violent jobless drug infested pile of crap due to 30 years of deregulation, privatization and "free trade".

If we help them to fix thier economy they'll be more than happy to go home.

[dj4monie]

Wow, really...

Postal Service, never had a profitable year in its history. Estimated to loose 7 billion dollars in the 2009 year. Just a general business rule, business that loose that kind of money go bankrupt. One of its counterparts, UPS, earned $908 million dollars in 2008. And contrary to a government run business UPS and its employees actually generated tax revenue, rather than just spent it.


As I said, the postal service doesn't cherry pick, they deliver pretty much everywhere. It's called: providing a public service. So your comparison is apples to oranges.



Medicare/Medicaid will consume 19% of GDP by the year 2013. The systems is fraught with fraud and the only time anyone discusses fixing the fraud is when they want to buy something they cant afford they point to Medicare and say well we have $200 billion in fraud here that we can pay for it. Left to run its own coarse it will fail from lack of funding, or the youth of today will see a very steep tax increase. Estimates put employee portion of medicare/social security taxes at 17% by the year 2020.

Again, you fail to notice that private healthcare is in even worse shape than medicare. Are you suggesting we move from a public system that is messed up to a private system that is even more messed up?

You cannot use medicare as an example of government solutions being bad when the private alternative is even worse.

And regardless, the real problem is out of control healthcare costs. That is the real problem which does need to be addressed.



Social Security, where to start.. the systems is broke, and will fail within 15 years unless major changes are made to it. Services will be drastically cut, and taxes will be increases substantially if the program is to survive. Social Security may hit its first cash shortfall this year, projected to have a positive cash flow of $119 billion in 2009, that projection has been revised to $19 billion, and many feel that will also reduce due to the high unemployment. Had this program done as it was set up to do, and safely invest the monies it received, rather than spend every penny like drunken sailors this program could have worked.


The SS trust fund is expected to be depleted somewhere around 2040. After that it could only pay 70 cents on the dollar for a while if it was not allowed to run an unfunded deficit. It's a generational hiccup caused by the baby boomers which will self correct provided that our population doesn't start endlessly shrinking.

Now compare that to private investment. We've just witnessed the market plunge to 50 cents on the dollar. It's recoverd to 66 cents on the dollar but there's not a lot of confidence that it'll stay that way.

So really, worst case, social security is looking a lot healthier and more stable than private retirement investments.

Also, Social Security acts as a very good stabilizer in times of economic crisis(like now). It spreads out a steady flow of purchasing power that is largely unaffected by what the crooks on wallstreet are up to. Our economic collapse would have been much more severe without SS to pad our fall.

Pete Peterson, David Walker and the Concord Coalition(the IOUSA ppl) make an argument about SS & Medicare much like the argument you are making. They are of course completely wrong and here's why:

Thier argument is based on "national savings". They believe that the government should run a balanced budget AND that the public should increase thier personal savings. This is mathematically impossible in a world that runs on a dollar reserve system.

Under the dollar reserve system the rest of the world has to acquire an ever growing quantity of dollars to support thier trade and economic growth. By definition, that means that the rest of the world must run a trade surplus against the US in order to acquire an ever increasing quantity of dollars. That of course means that the US ends up with trade deficits.

Where do the dollars come from that make up the US trade deficit? There's only 2 possible sources: the US government or the US public. So the US will always run deficits so long as the dollar reserve system is in place.

It's a rather dishonest system, I don't like or defend it but it is the system we are currently using. Thus much of the balance budget and deficit talk is utter nonsense. The real threat to the dollar and economy is entirely related to what our wallstreet clowns have been up to. It has nothing to do with Medicare and SS.


Any program that every illegal alien in the country is on should be eliminated.
Oh, I'm all for law&order when it comes to illegal immigration. The simplest way to fix the problem is to fix the Mexican economy. It also happens to be a much cheaper solution than building a wall along the Mexican border.

Most of the illegals don't want to be here. They are only here because thier country has been turned into a violent jobless drug infested pile of crap due to 30 years of deregulation, privatization and "free trade".

If we help them to fix thier economy they'll be more than happy to go home.

Amen!

[Belial]

Wow, really...

Postal Service, never had a profitable year in its history. Estimated to loose 7 billion dollars in the 2009 year. Just a general business rule, business that loose that kind of money go bankrupt. One of its counterparts, UPS, earned $908 million dollars in 2008. And contrary to a government run business UPS and its employees actually generated tax revenue, rather than just spent it.

Medicare/Medicaid will consume 19% of GDP by the year 2013. The systems is fraught with fraud and the only time anyone discusses fixing the fraud is when they want to buy something they cant afford they point to Medicare and say well we have $200 billion in fraud here that we can pay for it. Left to run its own coarse it will fail from lack of funding, or the youth of today will see a very steep tax increase. Estimates put employee portion of medicare/social security taxes at 17% by the year 2020.

Social Security, where to start.. the systems is broke, and will fail within 15 years unless major changes are made to it. Services will be drastically cut, and taxes will be increases substantially if the program is to survive. Social Security may hit its first cash shortfall this year, projected to have a positive cash flow of $119 billion in 2009, that projection has been revised to $19 billion, and many feel that will also reduce due to the high unemployment. Had this program done as it was set up to do, and safely invest the monies it received, rather than spend every penny like drunken sailors this program could have worked.

Not going to touch food stamps ... too late and its not worth the effort. Any program that every illegal alien in the country is on should be eliminated.

Government does one thing well.. it protects its citizens.

Preach it, Brother. :cool:

[raybbaby]

Hrrmm...seems you have a pretty narrow idea of what "protects" means....

[Belial]

Hrrmm...seems you have a pretty narrow idea of what "protects" means....

OFF TOPIC: I'm tired of looking @ some porn flunky's gay looking avatar.
Would u mind changing it? Thanks. :smile:

[raybbaby]

I will, but for the record I'm bothered by "porn flunky" and will most likely cry myself to sleep tonight. Hope you're happy.

[Silcc69]

Oh, I'm all for law&order when it comes to illegal immigration. The simplest way to fix the problem is to fix the Mexican economy. It also happens to be a much cheaper solution than building a wall along the Mexican border.

Most of the illegals don't want to be here. They are only here because thier country has been turned into a violent jobless drug infested pile of crap due to 30 years of deregulation, privatization and "free trade".

If we help them to fix thier economy they'll be more than happy to go home.

Amen to that we shoulda been down there rather than the middle east but oh well.

[MrF]

We could learn a lot from health care in the Netherlands. The insurance companies are private. Every citizen is required to buy insurance; the minimum policy is 160 US$ per month. I don't know what they do with people who can't pay that, but in the USA I bet there would be many who could not -- we are not as homogenously wealthy. Citizens can buy different tiers of insurance: 1-star, 2-star, etc up to 5-star. The 1-star is the most basic. But even if you have 1-star insurance the govt will make up the shortfall in case of catastrophic illness. There are admittedly many details here I don't know, but it's clear the govt has some financial obligation within this system, including subsidies to insurance companies that take high-risk patients. However, no insurance company can refuse a patient, and the prices are fixed. Their primary care and emergency care seem to be more efficient and cost-effective than in the USA. One drawback of the system is that new drugs are somewhat slow to come to market.

Re: the discussion about the US mail: true it doesn't run a profit, but it's not mandated to. If probably could run a profit but that would be a tax by a near-monopoly, which many would find objectionable. So it runs deficits on the order of 2%, which is small. And it is pretty reliable. Nevertheless it's an interesting question how well mail would work if it were 100% private sector. I'm guessing some poor rurual areas would be neglected -- no profit.

[Faldur]

I have great respect for anyone who has an opinion and takes the time to voice it, thats what the country is about.. honest debate.

Looking back at the postal service, it is not mandated to turn a profit, agreed. But it is mandated to pay for itself, in other words manage its business assets. Loosing $7 billion in 2009 is far greater than 2%, more like 28%. The decisions the postal service has made in guaranteed employment, no ability to dismiss most of its workers. And having a pension plan that is beyond affordable, or anywhere near the industry standard. Will continue to burden its cost, to the point of break.

And keep in mind any government position contributes $0 to the treasurery. The US postal service is the 2nd largest employer in the US, second only to WallMart. So our second largest employer contributes $0 to the treasury in tax revenue. 664,000 employees earning in average $45,000.00 not contributing any tax revenue to the treasury.

If that same employment was private sector $4.5 billion in tax revenue would be realized. Sorry, but black ink is smart business, its how you pay for things. Government has lost the ability to see that.

[MrF]

Sorry, not 2%, you're right. But also less than 28%.

I've read there is recently a problem with retiree health care funding at the USPS -- another casualty of the spiraling health care costs, and perhaps some would argue a too generous retiree plan. This summer, a House committee passed H.R. 22 which may relieve most of that obligation by not requiring the USPS pre-fund the retiree fund. But this seems to be a short-term emergency provision. Note, the statutory limit on the debt at USPS is 15 B$.

Looking over the longer haul, according to usgovinfo.about.com, the USPS has averaged a small yearly profit on its now 45 B$ / yr budget. Do you dispute that ? (I can't vouch for that source.) Recent years haven't been so good, however, largely due to health care costs. Which brings up back to the need to bring health care costs in line. Out of curiosity, Faldur, do you favor dismantling the USPS ? And do you favor greatly reducing retiree health care benefits ?

When people ask "Who will pay for 'socialized' health care ?" I think the answer is -- we already do, to a large extent. For example, I took my daughter to the emergency room not long ago -- she had a dislocated kneecap which, it turned out, was easy to fix (doctor just pushed it back). On this visit I saw about 30 people waiting in the ER; I think they were mostly poor people and had no real emergency probably. We did X-rays and a 10 min visit with the doctor. The bill was $1200 !! Fortunately my insurance paid for it. But they were in essence paying for most of the other people in the room, too. Apparently emergency rooms cannot turn people away. It seems to me there has to be a better way to keep costs down for individuals who can pay.

[techi]

Some other issues that need to be considered regarding healthcare:

US health insurance is still centered around the corporation. This made perfect sense back when most people worked at the same corporation thier entire lives but it no longer makes sense today. Here's why:

- The modern job market is all about job mobility. People switch jobs a lot.
--- 6 months of cobra coverage between jobs was added as a stop gap to fill in the gaps but it's pretty easy these days to find yourself going more that 6 months between jobs.

--- Every time you switch jobs you have a new healthcare bureaucracy to deal with. That's just a needless royal pain in the ass.

--- Legal or not, employers simply don't want to hire you if they think it'll drive up thier healthcare costs. The completely artifical link between healthcare and employment ends up giving companies a perverse incentive to deny jobs to qualified people.

- Healthcare costs end up being built into the cost of goods & services being produced in the US which does make our goods & services less compeditive in modern markets. The alternative is to fund healthcare via a Value Added Tax, under WTO rules VAT can be removed from exports and added to imports.

- As has been mentioned, hospital emergency rooms already treat anyone regardless of insurance, ability to pay or nationality. Who pays for this? You do. You, your company... the costs already do end up being passed along.

All of these problems can be adressed by switching to a single payer system funded by a Value Added Tax(VAT). A VAT is just form of sales tax, it's how Canada funds thier healthcare.

- Everyone pays, even illegals can't get around paying VAT. Granted, people living large will pay more than poor people but they already do that. In fact, costs would go down for most people because the old emergency room freeloaders are now paying at least what they can afford based on thier consumption.

- There's only one bureaucracy to learn to deal with. No switching around.

- Corporations no longer have to consider thier health insurance policy costs when decideding who to hire.

- We'd get economies of scale in eliminating a miriad of overlapping health insurance bureaucracys around the country. The savings from this alone would make up for an enormous amount of fraud if the government plan wasn't properly policed.

- No drops in coverage.

- Unions can no longer negotiate unrealistic healthcare plans for thier workers. They get the same damn plan as everyone else and that's it.

- A single payer plan would have a great deal of leverage when negotiating cost increases.

The Republicans do make one very valid point when attacking the weaksauce Democrat healthcare reform package. Where are all the doctors and nurses to properly provide healthcare for all these currently uninsured people going to come from? Crickets chirping....

The obvious answer is to build more medical schools and hospitals, spend more funding the training of doctors and nurses. How can we afford that? Well, a larger number of doctors means more job competition which will help keep costs down. Also, we could add to the funding by removing our troops from Central Asia and canceling all the contracts with Haliburton, Blackwater&co.... That'd free up Trillions to spend on healthcare.