Government Healthcare

[retdetsgt]

You folks are nuts if you reckon your system is half decent. It's actually really bloody stupid, having people go bankrupt because of medical bills, lose their job and bang goes their health insurance and look at it, bankrupting GM. You can do better ;)

Show me a news article where anyone died in this country of a terminal disease because they couldn't get health care.... The same baloney is made about hunger in America. I've yet to read or see any news item where someone was found starving to death because they couldn't find food.

ER's in this country are required by law to treat anyone who comes in for whatever they have, including a cold. People are not denied health care.

I recently read a study that showed that 95% of the people living below the poverty line (which is pretty high, BTW) don't have high school educations and have never held a job for at least a year. When I was in high school, it was drilled into us that we better graduate or we wouldn't get a job. Today, there isn't that incentive. You don't need a job in this country. I've personally watched the transition from people teaching their kids work ethic and how to get employment to teaching them how to get government assistance and who to scream to if you don't get what you want.

For God's sake, you really don't believe that health care bankrupted GM do you???? What bankrupted GM was a lousy business model, kowtowing to the UAW with ridiculous pay and benefit packages and refusing to adapt with the times like the foreign car makers. Geez, you must of have listened to Obama's speech to the AMA.

People here want affordable health care, but that doesn't translate to government run health care, it never has. The working American knows full well how sloppy the government here runs anything. Medicare is wrought with fraud. When Reagan was President, you read about doctors and hospitals getting caught with huge fraudulent claims. I've read of one in the last 10 years and that was a few months ago. The found that 75% of the claims paid for motorized wheelchairs were frauds. Common sense tells you there is a hell of a lot of it going on and nobody in government cares.

In private industry, the person issuing the check has oversight. Trust me, I know this from experience, in government there is virtually none. No one cares how much the check is for or who it goes to. The only time they get concerned is when the funds run low. Then they scream for more taxes.

My wife works for the state determining how much money people get to pay for special needs of adopted children. There are 5 people doing what she does and they have been begging for years for solid guidelines. Supervisors and managers are continually telling them to break federal law and give money to people just because they make too much noise about it. And no one cares and never will even though there are people making small fortunes from this.

Obama even admits the cost will be a trillion dollars even as he has taken our debt to the point I'm not sure we can survive it. I really think that at some point, our whole economic system is going to collapse. And it has nothing to do with health care as it stands today. Our only hope is going to be that he turns out to be a one term president like Carter and Congress continues to gridlock for the next three and a half years.

[Brendon]

Exactly.

Health care is not a Right.

Sounds like... Socialism.

Our last President was the greatest socialist president this country ever had:

1. Stimulus checks and "rebates." Each time Bush sent home $300 for you to spend on hookers and blow that money overwhelmingly came from the wealthy. Since rich people pay/will pay the majority of those refunds over the next few decades this was actually a giveaway of rich people's future taxes to the poor.

2. Increased power in the hands of the executive. All socialist states concentrate power in the hands of the government. Wiretapping, torture, secret police, secret indefinite detentions, are all examples of this.

3. Prescription drug benefit. The largest social welfare program to be enacted in my lifetime.

4. No child left behind. Socialist style government mandates for education.

5. Massive military spending. The military proper is the most socialist of all government institutions, people are literally paid according to their need (more kids, more money, etc) and again, if you consider that the wealthy pay most of our taxes it's truly the only place in America where the maxim is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Moreover, as we've seen after the fall of the old Soviet Union "privatization" of formerly state run services are very popular, "for the good of the people." In reality, this privatization is little more than a smoke screen for increasing the price and thus funneling more money into the hands of the corporation. Thus you have no-bid contracts and all the other ills that are indicative of a socialist state.

6. Massive "bailout" of banks. The single largest socialization of the marketplace in the history of mankind. Not only did they fail to let the market run its course, but now the government owns the banks. Just like all those socialist countries in Europe.

George W. Bush, the best socialist president America has ever had!

[retdetsgt]

Our last President was the greatest socialist president this country ever had:

Oh, Bull****. Go read some history and get back to us. I would suggest starting the FDR and moving to LBJ, then Nixon and Carter.

That has to be one of the five dumbest posts I've ever read here, and I've read some awfully dumb posts.

[retdetsgt]

For many Americans, the current debate over Healthcare is basically an argument over how much power the American government should have.

That's a concept that most people in European and European style governments don't grasp.

From before the Middle Ages, Europe had strong governments in the form of monarchies that taxed the working people and then provided what protection was needed. That philosophy continued as democratic governments formed.

We were the only country to break from Britain through a violent revolution. Our founders did their best to make sure the federal government didn't have nearly the power over people that was common in Europe. Their first attempt made the federal government too weak and they had to go back and try again with the Constitution. Even then, the idea was to give most governing rights to the states where people had the most control. Different from any of the nations that stayed in the British Commonwealth.

The beginning of the end was the War Between the States. There was nothing that said the states couldn't secede from the Union, Lincoln just made that decision. And afterwards, the North rammed the 14th Amendment down the throats of the South by not allowing them representation until they ratified it. As I said in another thread, that looked good on paper, but gave the federal government a free pass to control the states and tell them what they had to provide with their own state taxes.

FDR was the next to significantly change the landscape. His programs, like Obama's to provide jobs via government rather than allow private enterprise do it, kept the Depression going.

Now the government is way too powerful and Obama is ignoring history. This borrowing is going to create inflation just like it did under LBJ and his "Great Society" spending. Only I think this will be worse and I can see the dollar collapsing. It's value is dropping daily. LBJ, btw is who destroyed the social security system by wiping out the fund to pay for the Vietnam war and his social programs. Again, you can expect double digit inflation and double digit mortgage interest within a few years. I've witnessed the same scenario before.

Trying to provide government funded health care or anything else is going to destroy what we have left. Obama is lying when he says that without it our economy won't recover. We've never had it and we've recovered from much worse situations than the one he inherited.

[CityOfChicago]

I must have been absent on bizzaro-history day.

As RDS says, take a look at Woodrow Wilson and FDR. Take alook at the current President

1) Regarding Stimulus check. I don't know about you, but I work and I pay taxes. I pay a lot more than $300. So that's my money, and I'll take it back, thank you. You cannot stimulate any economy by taking money out of the consumers hands. Does that make any sense? Economies are stimulated by consumer spending. The government has show time and time again that it cannot manage a budget, and I dont believe the government know best how to spend my money than I do. You want to stimulate an economy - give consumers money to spend. Even Kennedy supported tax cuts to stim the economy

2) I've been against the Patriot Act. But I find it laughable the hypocrisy that comes from the left. The PA was passed while the US was still reeling and looking for immediate ways to gather intel. No, that doesnt make it right, butthats what happened. A woman named Naomi Klein wrote a book called "The Shock Doctirine". Her hypothesis was that in times of crisis people revert to child-like states and are willing to sacrifice rights for protection. She accused the Bush Admin of taking advantage of 9/11 to grab power for their own nefarious ends. Ms Klein, I willl add, is a communist who's communist party falmily goes back to her grandparents and parent, who were open about their party membership. he father actually fled to Canada to avoid the draft. Her book is widely touted on the left. The laughable hypocrisy is that the current President has a Chief of Staff who's openly stated that you should never miss the opportunities presented bya crisis. So lets not get ahead of ourselves about 'grabs for power' from the Bush Admin. And the accusations of 'torture' are a bit blown put of proportion. Seriously. Who are our NKVD or KGB?

3) While I believe in capitalism, you're on drugs of some kind if you cant see the problem with our prescription drug companies.

4) The public education system is broken. Period. We are rapidly moving towards a country where only the wealthy will be educated, because private schools offer better educations. I dont want to live in a country where education is not for the masses. Perhaps if both sides of the aisles would put the children ahead of the politiics, we'd get something better than NCLB. But I'd rather have something than nothing.

5) Your 'massive military spending' is actuallly just military spending. It was Clinton and Aspin who started the massive military cutting and base closures. They reasoned that with no cold war we didnt need such a large military. Hows that working out for us now? We have no enemies?

6) The banks failed becuase we allowed them to give loans to people who have no business getting the loans to begin with. I saw a woman on TV ask the president not to forclose on her $850,000 home. She's a bus driver. How does that happen? How do so many people with no income and no credit purchase homes that I and my working wife cannot afford? How do they propose to make those payments. Many of them did not, and they were allowed to re-finance over and over. That's not the banks fault. Its the fault of the liberals who demanded that all these programs be developed to provide expensive items to peole who cant afford them. The banks are/were mandated by LAW to offer these programs. Well, when the money never comes back in.... And the failure of the banks has imlplications for everyone, not just the people who failed to make their payments. Remove thoose programs. People get loans for what they can afford. Period. There is no right in ths country to a large home in the 'burbs

I dont want the gov toown banks, but i dont want them to own automanufacturers or healthcare, either - and that's happening on Obama's watch. And It's ludicrous that you call returning tax money, that we all paid into the gov, back to the people as "Socialism" while Obama is spending ungodly amounts of tax and deficit money to create social programs and fund public works. Which definition of Socialism were you using?

[PJMurphy]

There is no sense in arguing who is more socialistic, Democrat or Republican. We have been moving in this direction for quite some time (FDR and Social Security). Proof? Look at government spending as a percentage of GNP. In just a few years our government will be spending more than 40% of our total Gross National product. When the Soviet Union fell they were spending less than 30% of theirs.

What's the definition of a socialist sate? When the government owns the means of production, like General Motors perhaps.

Both parties are to blame for not having the guts to say "No" to either social welfare or national defense spending. Politicians are not good at being the bad guy so where will it end??

Government is designed to do things to people not for people (that's why we have a bill of rights to protect us from it). Letting the government have more control over our health care system (it already caused the current problems beginning with medicade and medicare) is like turning your personal finances over to a teenager who only wants to be everyone's friend.

My solution: Declare ownership in Iraq and sell it to the Saudi's for 10 trillion, then we can start over.
No wait. That would be like paying off my wife's credit cards. She'd just run the bill up again.

Sorry guys, I've got a Ph.D. in Political Science and I can't figure it out.

I really like that quote: A government strong enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have. -Thomas Jefferson-
Nice retdetsgt

[CityOfChicago]

I'm working on my new song "Back In The USSA"

[Pookie44]

F%@K OBAMA and while I'm at it that beeeeeeotch Jennifer too!!!!!! :mad:

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/...t-quitters.jpg

[oscarmitre]

Here in America, our Constitution is written with the blood of Patriots, and has been earned and has survived by several generations of Americans who have fought and died for the freedoms that myself and all other American Citizens have grown accustomed to.

Our Constitution defines our government. It distinctly seperates the powers of the Judiciary, Executive and Legislation and keeps them from growing too powerful over one another.

For many Americans, the current debate over Healthcare is basically an argument over how much power the American government should have. We are a Republic and a Capitalist nation, and many Americans have fought and died for the right for us as a people to remain free. Free from any discrimination amongst ourselves. Free to do as we please everyday.

Free from a large central government.

Right now our crisis is that Obama and the Congress are trying to force their will unto Americans. BO has undermined the confidence in ourselves as a country and has belittled the USA to all foreign countries, hostile or Ally. He has shown very little faith in the powers and history that has allowed someone like him to become a President. If our Guardians who earned our Country with their blood had him as president, you can bet your bottom euro that they would kick his ***.

That being said, Personal Bankruptcies do not occur solely because of health bills. GM went bankrupt because of the UAW and because Obama single-handedly dismantled the largest auto maker the US has to offer with his "regulation." He has acted very much like a dictator in handling the GM issue and has had Detroit bow to his will. He has exercised too much power in handling this IMO.

Medical bills are not all that large, and I'm sorry to say this but most older Americans drive their BMWs and Mercedes to the Borders to get cheap pills because they are cheap. Take a look at the border crossings here in Texas, for example. I see mostly cars newer then my truck.

I was laid off from my job. I had medical coverage and I chose not to maintain it, but my father did maintain his. And he used it too, and has paid all of $12 for some treatments while he found a job.

Look, I love French toast, I love French fries, and I love french bread. BUt I do not want anything modeled after the French in my government. WHy? Because I do not want them to roll over and surrender each time somebody fights with them ;)

All very complex. No need for it. The question is simple really - do you want to continue with the current model or do you want something better?

[oscarmitre]

Show me a news article where anyone died in this country of a terminal disease because they couldn't get health care.... The same baloney is made about hunger in America. I've yet to read or see any news item where someone was found starving to death because they couldn't find food.

ER's in this country are required by law to treat anyone who comes in for whatever they have, including a cold. People are not denied health care.

I recently read a study that showed that 95% of the people living below the poverty line (which is pretty high, BTW) don't have high school educations and have never held a job for at least a year. When I was in high school, it was drilled into us that we better graduate or we wouldn't get a job. Today, there isn't that incentive. You don't need a job in this country. I've personally watched the transition from people teaching their kids work ethic and how to get employment to teaching them how to get government assistance and who to scream to if you don't get what you want.

For God's sake, you really don't believe that health care bankrupted GM do you???? What bankrupted GM was a lousy business model, kowtowing to the UAW with ridiculous pay and benefit packages and refusing to adapt with the times like the foreign car makers. Geez, you must of have listened to Obama's speech to the AMA.

People here want affordable health care, but that doesn't translate to government run health care, it never has. The working American knows full well how sloppy the government here runs anything. Medicare is wrought with fraud. When Reagan was President, you read about doctors and hospitals getting caught with huge fraudulent claims. I've read of one in the last 10 years and that was a few months ago. The found that 75% of the claims paid for motorized wheelchairs were frauds. Common sense tells you there is a hell of a lot of it going on and nobody in government cares.

In private industry, the person issuing the check has oversight. Trust me, I know this from experience, in government there is virtually none. No one cares how much the check is for or who it goes to. The only time they get concerned is when the funds run low. Then they scream for more taxes.

My wife works for the state determining how much money people get to pay for special needs of adopted children. There are 5 people doing what she does and they have been begging for years for solid guidelines. Supervisors and managers are continually telling them to break federal law and give money to people just because they make too much noise about it. And no one cares and never will even though there are people making small fortunes from this.

Obama even admits the cost will be a trillion dollars even as he has taken our debt to the point I'm not sure we can survive it. I really think that at some point, our whole economic system is going to collapse. And it has nothing to do with health care as it stands today. Our only hope is going to be that he turns out to be a one term president like Carter and Congress continues to gridlock for the next three and a half years.

Baloney? There's enough of it in this thread to make several very large sandwiches :D

When this topic comes up it's marked by sweeping generalisations, wild claims and references to other countries by people who obviously haven't got a clue what they're on about. That's a shame because the ignorance about how health care works in other countries is blinding people from understanding how it actually can work to the advantage of the average person. Instead of blanket condemnations of the French, Japanese, Australian, etc system, it would be more useful to have a look at them and try to understand them as they really are and not as they've been caricatured.

I didn't claim anyone died from a terminal disease through not getting care so I'll let that one go past. But it is interesting that now and again someone tries to condemn a single payer/universal health care system by pointing to a failure (usually in the underfunded British NHS which is another story all by itself). It would be good to actually have a discussion based on facts rather than on emotion and appeals to tradition and culture.

[noelchabanel]

I really can't believe anyone wants the kind of health care provided in Europe, UK or Canada. At best it is reported to be horrible. The only thing people like is it is free (when you can get it). :(

I'll probably get flamed for this, but that just isn't true. Canada has good heath care. You may have to wait a quite some time to get an appointment for non-urgent care, but honestly, I scheduled a dermatology appointment in the US a YEAR in advance just a couple of weeks ago for a suspicious mole. Hope it's not cancer, or I'll be dead by then ;). And despite what Fox News reports, Canada isn't bankrupt. Many americans are though because of medical bills they never pay....although the rest of us do wind up paying them....

On the other hand, I am extremely suspicious of the federal government. They waste money like there is no tomorrow, and are so inefficient and slow it absolutely amazes me. The reality is though, we already have fedeally funded universal care for everyone over 65. And if the amount of junk mail and telemarketer calls insurance companies send to people on Medicare touting their expanded plan options indicates anything, there is plenty of money to be made even in a federalized system.

Canada's system is NOT really federal BTW, each province administers its own plan. Personally I think I could MAYBE trust New Hampshire to do it on the cheap (quality may be a different story), but states like Massachusetts and new York like to spend money a bit more freely so it's kind of a crap shoot.

And for the record, I am a Canadian citizen, have great private insurance in the US and don't support a sigle payer system. I just prefer to base my opinion on actual facts rather than so-called fair and balanced reporting.

US federal $ waste is a fact.
Inefficiency is a fact.
Political prefernce for certain pet groups is a fact.
Canadian bankruptcy is not a fact.
Waiting weeks for emergency bypass surgery during an actual heart attack is not a fact.

[retdetsgt]

Baloney? There's enough of it in this thread to make several very large sandwiches :D

When this topic comes up it's marked by sweeping generalisations, wild claims and references to other countries by people who obviously haven't got a clue what they're on about. That's a shame because the ignorance about how health care works in other countries is blinding people from understanding how it actually can work to the advantage of the average person. Instead of blanket condemnations of the French, Japanese, Australian, etc system, it would be more useful to have a look at them and try to understand them as they really are and not as they've been caricatured.

I didn't claim anyone died from a terminal disease through not getting care so I'll let that one go past. But it is interesting that now and again someone tries to condemn a single payer/universal health care system by pointing to a failure (usually in the underfunded British NHS which is another story all by itself). It would be good to actually have a discussion based on facts rather than on emotion and appeals to tradition and culture.

Baloney? What the hell are you talking about? I never mentioned your or Europe's health care system, much less condemn it in any post I've ever made. Maybe try to read, THEN comment...... Unlike some people, I feel only qualified to talk about my country, not yours and others. There is nothing is your post that disputes any of my facts nor anything even relevant to what I posted.

I've worked some of the poorest neighborhoods in this country. I've written a thesis on poverty in America and government's role in perpetuating it. I even got it past a panel of liberal sociology professors because they couldn't dispute my facts and research. I readily admit I know nothing about poverty in Australia, what makes you an expert on poverty in America? CNN?

You really shouldn't get your opinions based on the liberal press here. You probably believe that Bush and the Republicans are behind the failures of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. That's the story the media's been pushing and the facts simply contradict that. But facts aren't really important when you have an agenda to push, do they?

I can assure you, if we wanted a government run health care system, we would have gotten it a long time ago. Every time the do gooders in Washington try to push it, it's the people that push back, not the insurance companies. Of course, if you get your info from CNN, you're not going to know that.

[retdetsgt]

US federal $ waste is a fact.
Inefficiency is a fact.
Political prefernce for certain pet groups is a fact.
Canadian bankruptcy is not a fact.
Waiting weeks for emergency bypass surgery during an actual heart attack is not a fact.

I've never heard that Canada was going bankrupt. I think the VAT would prevent that.

Perhaps Canadian provinces are capable of administering the health care system, but that's not what's being proposed here. The federal government will handle it and they will make it a farce, count on it.

Political preference is very real. My father in law wrote his Democratic Congresswoman because being a liberal Democrat himself, he believed the VA should pay for everything for him. He's going blind from glaucoma, but because he once complained to his Congresswoman, he gets new glasses about once a month, none of which work. That's money that should go to deserving people they could help. Everyone else is limited to one pair of glasses every two years, just like in private insurance.

I've never heard any stories that people couldn't get emergency care in Canada. I have heard that elective surgery takes a lot longer than here, but I have no personal knowledge of it.

Why don't you go to another doctor here? If you have to wait that long and can't go somewhere else, you picked the wrong insurance. I have an HMO here and I can get an appt with a specialists in less than a couple of weeks for anything.

Frankly, in a little over a year I have to go on Medicare and I'm not looking forward to it. There are doctors here who refuse to take Medicare patients. Dealing the the federal government and accepting low fees isn't worth it for them.

As I keep saying, people in this country want affordable health care, but affordable health care and government run are NOT synonymous in the USA.

[retdetsgt]

One of the major problems with health costs is never mentioned or when it is, the Democrats poo poo it, that's the cost of litigation. The reason it's not mentioned is the Trial Lawyers Assn. is the single largest contributor (or was a couple of years ago, I assume they're still in the top few) to the Democratic party.

It's not just the cost of malpractice insurance, but doctors are forced to run unnecessary tests just to cover their asses in case something goes haywire. A few years ago, my doctor did a cat scan and all sorts of tests instantly because I was having mild headaches. He told me that he thought it was stupid to do it, but his malpractice insurance company required him to do things like that. Of course, my insurance company paid for it all. And since Americans are too stupid as a group to see who actually ends up paying the awards, they are ridiculously inflated.

But as long as Democrats have any power at all, tort reform will never happen and we will continue to make lawyers wealthy.

BTW, this gives you an idea of how honest the Obama administration is.

62 percent support new health care legislation, not Barack Obama's particular plan


A new ad urges support for President Barack Obama's push for major health care legislation. Created by the liberal group Americans United for Change, the ad argues that 62 percent of the public supports "the President's plan to reform health care," and that Republicans in Congress should, too.

Here's the full script of the ad; you can also watch it via YouTube:

"In the Senate, they call 60 percent support a super-majority. Well, a new poll shows 62 percent of Americans support the President’s plan to reform health care. That means lowering costs, so everyone has access to quality, affordable care, protecting your choice of doctor, letting you choose between keeping the private insurance you have and a public health insurance plan. So if the Republicans in Congress ignore what 62 percent of us support, you gotta wonder: Who are they listening to?"

It's true that polls show solid majorities of the American public think the health care system needs change.

But there's a big difference between general support for health care legislation and the particulars of Obama's plan. The ad from Americans United for Change cites a Diageo Hotline Poll of June 10, 2009, saying that it showed 62 percent support for "the President's plan to reform health care." The actual question was this: "Do you support or oppose Congress and the President enacting a major overhaul of the U.S. health care system?" That question gauges whether people broadly support the president and Congress working together to change health care. (The poll was a random sample of 800 registered voters, and The Hotline is part of the nonpartisan news group National Journal.)

But the ad repeatedly cites the number in a misleading way. It makes it sound as if the 62 percent singled out the president's plan for support. It further distorts the poll by saying that same 62 percent backs a public health insurance plan, sometimes referred to as a public option. When the ad mentions the public option, a big "62%" flashes on the screen.

A public option is controversial in Congress. Democratic advocates for it say the public option would act as an insurer of last resort for people who have problems getting private insurance. Some Republicans say it will be a Medicare-style plan that will pay doctors and hospitals significantly less than private insurance, thus undermining the private insurance system. The devil is in the details here, and Congress is debating what a public option might look like.

The ad from Americans United for Change implies that 62 percent support a public health insurance plan. But the Diageo Hotline poll did not ask specifically about the public option.

A poll that did, the Rasmussen Reports poll of June 15, 2009, asked the question plainly -- "Would it be a good idea to set up a government health insurance company to compete with private health insurance companies?" -- and found support split, with 41 percent answering yes, 41 percent answering no, and 18 percent saying they weren't sure. That's nowhere near 62 percent support.

It's true that large majorities of the public do want health care reform. The Diageo Hotline Poll showed that an even larger majority -- 94 percent -- said it was important or somewhat important that health care legislation pass this year. But it's not accurate to say that 62 percent favor Obama's plan above and beyond other ideas being considered in Congress. And it's incorrect to attribute that specifically to the public option. The ad gives the impression that rock-solid majorities are in favor of the specifics of Obama's plan. But the poll doesn't say that. We find their statement False.

PolitiFact | 62 percent support new health care legislation, not Barack Obama's particular plan

This is a non partisan web site. It hammers Republicans as well as Democrats when they lie.

[Brendon]

*SNIP*

I was fighting idiocy with more idiocy. In truth, every first world country has been turning the same route in one way or another ever since the advent of the Service Sector economy.

Back in 1776, do you know what their small taxes went to? The Military - That's it! People built their own houses and paved (er, or brushed) their own roads. As time went on, taxes went towards more things. The railroads, the civil war, hospitals, police departments, research and development of new technology (Which the United States is a leader in, and a very big cost too) and so on. In 1776, there was no chance of being bankrupted by a doctor because of your cancer, the cancer would have just killed you.

Times are changing, and a couple of the people here are stuck with the ideology that we should continue on how the Government worked as if it was the 18th Century.