Heathcare Reform

MitchellC wrote:

RX Reven' wrote: I’m afraid the improvements will have to wait…the president has been disingenuous at many levels and as a result, I, along with many others, won’t support him on this.

Other side: "I haven't really looked at it yet but IT'S WRONG!"

Do you really think that’s a fair criticism in this case???

There are four different bills being floated around at the moment. Do you really think that’s accidental??? The Obama administration ran one of the most sophisticated, well controlled election campaigns in presidential history and now we’re to believe they can’t even produce a unified voice on this matter. So I have to ask you…what is it exactly that we’re supposed to look at??? Additionally, given history’s tendency to repeat itself, President Obama may again have a final 1,000+ page document dropped off at 3:00 AM before a 1:00 PM vote. What could this possibly say other than…I couldn’t care less what you think or how you feel, my only interest is to force you to do what I want…Again, what is it exactly that we’re supposed to look at???

Having gotten my tirade out of the way, I’d like to say that I do appreciate where you’re coming from. There are some folks out there that want President Obama to fail just because he’s a democrat and in those incidences, your point is completely valid.

But that’s just the relatively small lunatic fringe. The big picture is that the President’s actions give completely legitimate reason to not trust him on a truly life & death matter.

RX Reven' wrote:

MitchellC wrote:

RX Reven' wrote: I’m afraid the improvements will have to wait…the president has been disingenuous at many levels and as a result, I, along with many others, won’t support him on this.

Other side: "I haven't really looked at it yet but IT'S WRONG!"

The big picture is that the President’s actions give completely legitimate reason to not trust him on a truly life & death matter.

The hammer has squarely met the nail.

Well said, sir!

MrJoshua wrote: Wealth and excess cause most of our health problems.

I'd say that Cuba does not have wealth or excess. Yet, their socialized medicine statistically performs better than our for-profit system.

Those statistics also only count people who are in the hospital. Not those that avoid getting treatment because they can't afford it.

RX Reven' wrote: Not just conservatives, but the majority of all voters are proposing an alternative which is that of continuing with our current, non optimal system until such time that something superior is proposed.

You're over-reaching when you say "majority." Got any numbers to back that up?

Also, What's the superior alternative? I haven't heard one yet from the Party Of "No." The previous administration had 8 years to come up with something.

triumph7 wrote:

ignorant wrote: The U.K., France, Netherlands, Australia, Canada... E36 M3 even Cuba.. They all have a better infant mortality rate.

How many of those healthcare systems are insolvent? Yes, they may do some things better but the total system is a drain on their economies. Speaking of France, I heard that under their system if you are in a coma for one week they pull the plug. No doctors consultation, nothing.

Medical care is always going to be a tremendous drain on any financial system. It's expensive caring for people and keeping them healthy. National defense, public education, a non-corruptable police force, and government itself is expensive. Should we not undertake each one of those organizations because of sheer cost?

You've made a claim about France. Can you back that up with fact or is that just your opinion?

MrJoshua wrote: Our medical system has some successes and doesn't fail all of the time. Our health care system can be improved. Forcing all of us to pay for health insurance does not fix the problems that need to be improved.

You are going to pay for health insurance anyway. Why not utilize economies of scale to help everyone pay less?

MrJoshua wrote: Infant mortality rate is very very important. Of course it is. With less than 1.5/1000 difference between our infant mortality rate you HAVE to argue statistical significance. You are proposing we enact a national program that will be larger than Social Security based on the ALARMING statistics that we have a higher infant mortality rate when the populations are far from standardized.

Yes. Because this statistic is a better indicator of how effective our health care system is than your opinions on the matter.

Also, our healthcare system is getting exponentially more expensive. In a matter of time every one of you arguing against change will be priced out of having health care in the future if we don't make a change.

RX Reven' wrote: Having gotten my tirade out of the way, I’d like to say that I do appreciate where you’re coming from. There are some folks out there that want President Obama to fail just because he’s a democrat and in those incidences, your point is completely valid. But that’s just the relatively small lunatic fringe.

So you're saying Fox News viewers are a lunatic fringe? Rush Limbaugh's listeners?

Truth is the Conservative side has decided to stop this any way they can. Disinformation and propaganda seem to be the chosen tools. Honorable? No. Respectful of the intelligence of their voting block? Absolutely not. I still amazes me how conservative voters vote again and again to empower and enrichen their leaders more to their own detriment.

Tell me again how letting for-profit insurance companies dictate whether you are treated is helpful or even smart? How is allowing them to gain more profit each year, by raising prices on us all, a good thing as well? Especially when our level of care as compared to other industrialized nations gets worse. Again, why shouldn't we be angry and change this?

Oh wait, that's right. Because it's a national conspiracy to turn us all into communists and put us under the care of "death boards". If expense is the real issue where was the outrage over the Iraq War #2, creation of the TSA, creation of Homeland Defense, and outrage about the prescription drug benefits? There wasn't any because those were perceived as conservative initiatives. If so many of you are against more government bureaucracy when are you going to campaign so strongly against the bureaucracy created under Bush's watch? Almost forgot about the expense we're still spending on domestic spying. Unlawful as well as expensive.

RX Reven' wrote: The big picture is that the President’s actions give completely legitimate reason to not trust him on a truly life & death matter.

Can you back that up with a source? I'd like to see the proof that we've been lied too.

I'll ask this again as NO ONE has responded. Why don't we have the same level of care as our Congressmen and Senators? The guys arguing against a public option use it everyday they get sick. Why shouldn't we have the same level of care that Dick Cheney enjoyed as the VP? As the Republican senate leader currently enjoys? If this is such a bad thing why is it good enough for them?

Link

Hi Xceler8x,

I'd say that Cuba does not have wealth or excess. Yet, their socialized medicine statistically performs better than our for-profit system…

It seems that you’ve totally missed MrJoshua’s thesis which is that Cuba may have good health statistics because their populace doesn’t have access to the unhealthy life style options like eating at McDonald’s that American’s do.

Numbers to back it up…

Rasmussen Report, August 19th…34% support.

Please see Link at top of page.

Certainly, some of that 34% is coming from Republicans for various reasons (say 6%) so you’re left with around 28% coming from Independents & Democrats even though they represent well over 50% of the population. Bottom line, significant disapproval is coming from all party lines.

What's the superior alternative…

I don’t believe there is one at the moment…my foot hurts, tell me how to fix it or I’ll chop off my arm. Why are you knowingly & voluntarily going to make things many, many multiples worse just because you don’t have an immediate solution for making them better…illogical, does not compute - smoke coming out of ears – illogical, does not compute.

So you’re saying Fox News viewers…

I’m just going to let that one go & say that I respect your right to your opinion.

Can you back that up with a source I'd like to see the proof that we've been lied too…

Absolutely, I already have repeatedly…President Obama said he was doing this out of necessity to reduce costs…the OMB analyzed the situation and reported that it was going to cost a fortune…the president continued on pushing his objective.

The president said we can keep our existing coverage…categorically untrue, please refer to my earlier post.

I'll ask this again as NO ONE has responded. Why don't we have the same level of care as our Congressmen and Senators? The guys arguing against a public option use it everyday they get sick. Why shouldn't we have the same level of care that Dick Cheney enjoyed as the VP?...

Oh boy, I wish I’d read this earlier…I was suspicious when you got MrJoshua’s point perfectly backwards but now I fully understand where you are.

The political folks aren’t going to participate in the public option no matter what happens. They’ve already admitted that they’ll get a different plan, you know, one that’ll actually keep them alive, and the rest of us will get something entirely different.

I really hope you'll invest a little time to become better informed on the subject.

Take care, Brett

Here's an article outlining the plan applied to Congress: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-congress-benefits2-2009aug02,0,463498,full.story You like to keep railing against Republicans, but the sad reality is that of the 435 members of the House, only one has stepped-up and committed himself (and his family) to use a reformed health-care system - Steve Kagen (D-Wisc). Why aren't the ANY of the remaining 434 members (of whom 255 are Democrats) following suit? Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) has sponsored an amendment requiring Congress to forego their current plan and use whatever legislation is passed. Nancy Pelosi doesn't like that idea. If the party mandating radical changes don't have confidence in using a new system, why should those who have to pay for it? img src="/media/img/icons/smilies/wink-18.png" alt="" />

joey48442 wrote: I'm still pissed a stupid ct scan for a kidney stone cost 3200 bucks. Something needs to change to make that a little more affordable for guys like me, who have a combined household income of less than 35000. No, I don't want all you rich republicans paying for it, and i don't want all you bleeding heart democrats giving it to me for free, but something needs to be done to help keep cost reasonable. Joey

Maybe find a different radiologist? I didn't pay anywhere near that much for my kidney stone scans... and I have a High Deductible plan so I paid for much of it myself (out of my HSA). Even the amount they charged my insurance wasn't that much...

Otherwise... I can tell from the first post in this thread that I shouldn't have opened it... more cross-bickering drivel...

Ian F wrote:

joey48442 wrote: I'm still pissed a stupid ct scan for a kidney stone cost 3200 bucks. Something needs to change to make that a little more affordable for guys like me, who have a combined household income of less than 35000. No, I don't want all you rich republicans paying for it, and i don't want all you bleeding heart democrats giving it to me for free, but something needs to be done to help keep cost reasonable. Joey

Maybe find a different radiologist? I didn't pay anywhere near that much for my kidney stone scans... and I have a High Deductible plan so I paid for much of it myself (out of my HSA). Even the amount they charged my insurance wasn't that much... Otherwise... I can tell from the first post in this thread that I shouldn't have opened it... more cross-bickering drivel...

Actually, Ian, your post is very helpful because it shows that there are cheaper alternatives, and that HSA's are worthy investments.

As for the bickering, it's bound to happen, is it not?

RX Reven' wrote: It seems that you’ve totally missed MrJoshua’s thesis which is that Cuba may have good health statistics because their populace doesn’t have access to the unhealthy life style options like eating at McDonald’s that American’s do.

Either way. It's crap. We shouldn't rank 180th in the world for infant mortality. A population, as in infants, who usually isn't rich or eats at McD's. Especially when our medical care is the second highest price in the world.

Total Health Expenditures as % of GDP, 2002-2005 - Country Rankings

Link to infant mortality numbers.

Turns out I was wrong about Cuba! They're right below us in infant mortality as well at 181. Wow.

Also, check out France and Canada. Two countries with socialized healthcare who pay significantly less than we do. Did someone say we'd pay more for a socialized, single payer, system? Not in Canada or France. Can you say "propaganda" or "scare tactics"?

RX Reven' wrote: Numbers to back it up… Rasmussen Report, August 19th…34% support. Please see Link at top of page.

Eh. Ya got me there. I'm seeing support in the 45% depending on who you go to.

RX Reven' wrote: Absolutely, I already have repeatedly…President Obama said he was doing this out of necessity to reduce costs…the OMB analyzed the situation and reported that it was going to cost a fortune…the president continued on pushing his objective. The president said we can keep our existing coverage…categorically untrue, please refer to my earlier post.

I meant post a link. Post some OUTSIDE proof that we have been lied to.

RX Reven' wrote: Oh boy, I wish I’d read this earlier…I was suspicious when you got MrJoshua’s point perfectly backwards but now I fully understand where you are. The political folks aren’t going to participate in the public option no matter what happens. They’ve already admitted that they’ll get a different plan, you know, one that’ll actually keep them alive, and the rest of us will get something entirely different.

..and therein lies the problem. The plan that everyone argues against is working great for our elected officials. See anything wrong with that in the land of equality. Yeah. Me too.

RX Reven' wrote: I really hope you'll invest a little time to become better informed on the subject.

LOL. Ah, patronization. Are you going to call me a doody head next? Then our political discourse would match the level of a town hall meeting.

Xceler8x wrote: I'd say that Cuba does not have wealth or excess. Yet, their socialized medicine statistically performs better than our for-profit system.

I work with a bunch of Cubans.

Now, they may be biased, some of them having sailed tractor tires across shark infested waters, some were dropped a mile off the Florida coast from a real boat, and some actually flew into Canada believe it or not...

But anyway from what I've heard, healthcare is poor because it's one doctor to every...3000 people I think.

Also, Beef is illegal to own.

(The above is based on my communication skills with Cubans who speak -some- English, and myself, who knows a few Spanish words)

No one risks their lives to get INTO Cuba for the healthcare, and our supposed horrible system isn't a big deterrent to those who would come here.

-James

jamscal wrote: No one risks their lives to get INTO Cuba for the healthcare, and our supposed horrible system isn't a big deterrent to those who would come here.

..and yet somehow they pay much less than we do and keep their babies alive almost as often as the U.S health care system.

Nah, the system isn't broken. We're paying the second highest amount in the world for healthcare and our performance is a step above Cuba.

USA! USA! USA! USA!

11 million Cubans

33 million Canadians

61 million French

59 million Brits

300 million Americans

Direct comparisons are impossible.

I can probably pick various subsets of Americans and "Prove" that we have more superbly healthy people than the entire population of Cuba and Canada combined.

Did you guys read the link? We go out of our way to birth babies (Premature, physical defects, etc...) with little to no chance of survival. They die, our stats get worse. You watch big stats to see if you have a problem. When it looks like you have a problem you investigate to see if you really do. We do not have a problem with infant mortality that merits turning our health care system upside down.

BTW: we are 180th WORST at Baby Killin (infant mortality). Meaning there are 179 countries with more infant mortality than us. Thought I would point that out because its being quoted in reverse in this thread. There are 224 countries reported which means 44 rank better than us, not 179.

We have an estimated 6.26 deaths per 1,000 live births in the USA.

The European Union has 5.72

Singapore (The best) has 2.31

MrJoshua wrote: Did you guys read the link? We go out of our way to birth babies (Premature, physical defects, etc...) with little to no chance of survival. They die, our stats get worse. You watch big stats to see if you have a problem. When it looks like you have a problem you investigate to see if you really do. We do not have a problem with infant mortality that merits turning our health care system upside down. BTW: we are 180th WORST at Baby Killin (infant mortality). Meaning there are 179 countries with more infant mortality than us. Thought I would point that out because its being quoted in reverse in this thread. There are 224 countries reported which means 44 rank better than us, not 179. We have an estimated 6.26 deaths per 1,000 live births in the USA. The European Union has 5.72 Singapore (The best) has 2.31

Of course, the US can always reduce the defense budget and allocate the funds to pay for health-care. That certainly can help improve our standing on the infant mortality list.

It's interesting that many of the countries that have lower infant mortality rates don't spend as much for defense, if any all.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2034rank.html

Other countries would have to re-evaluate their priorities and divert funding away from their health-care systems, but who cares?

We get a better position on the list!

Xceler8x, first off, I just wanted to say it seemed a bit lacking in couth to bring religion into this debate a few pages back. Leave that elsewhere.

Xceler8x wrote: Total Health Expenditures as % of GDP, 2002-2005 - Country Rankings

Again, putting a spin (misinterpreting if you will) on the statistics.

They spend less of their GDP on healthcare BECAUSE IT IS RATIONED BY THE GOVERNMENT!!!!!!!!

And your precious Socialist Democrats aren't voting themselves onto the system either. So quit trying to blame those evil-money grubbing Republicans for that one.

I don't know if it's been posted yet, but have we looked at surival rates for cancer/heart disease/etc for our country vs other countries? Using the infant mortality rate, while it may be a good "general" measure for healthcare, hardly gives us the entire picture.

We try to keep people alive and healthy and enjoying life at all costs.

Are you guys not paying attention to what the new Canadian health care leaders are saying now? I do, so I'll let you do your own research.

RX Reven' wrote: There are four different bills being floated around at the moment. Do you really think that’s accidental??? The Obama administration ran one of the most sophisticated, well controlled election campaigns in presidential history and now we’re to believe they can’t even produce a unified voice on this matter. Having gotten my tirade out of the way, I’d like to say that I do appreciate where you’re coming from. There are some folks out there that want President Obama to fail just because he’s a democrat and in those incidences, your point is completely valid.

You know, from what I have seen, it's a strategic difference between democrats and republicans. From what I have seen, it's easier for republicans to rally behind a single idea, while democrats have more trouble deciding on a single, unified decision.

RX Reven' wrote:

MitchellC wrote:

RX Reven' wrote: I’m afraid the improvements will have to wait…the president has been disingenuous at many levels and as a result, I, along with many others, won’t support him on this.

Other side: "I haven't really looked at it yet but IT'S WRONG!"

Do you really think that’s a fair criticism in this case???

What was the time gap between Obama's healthcare proposal and republicans being against it? 0.523 seconds?

RX Reven' wrote: But that’s just the relatively small lunatic fringe. The big picture is that the President’s actions give completely legitimate reason to not trust him on a truly life & death matter.

The problem is that the fringe seems to be the most vocal. Take the town hall meetings lately as an example. If you plant 50 hecklers in a crowd of 250, a media outlet can report "the tension over pending health care reform legislation 'boiled over'".

It's because the Dems are the party of special interests.

This will sound harsh, but to those who don't thnk waiting lists, etc will be a problem. If you're having trouble getting a doctor now, what will happen when there are 47million more insurers and the same supply of doctors...........

z31maniac wrote: Are you guys not paying attention to what the new Canadian health care leaders are saying now? I do, so I'll let you do your own research.

I wasn't aware that we had any 'health care leaders'. What are the new ones saying?

MrJoshua wrote: BTW: we are 180th WORST at Baby Killin (infant mortality). Meaning there are 179 countries with more infant mortality than us. Thought I would point that out because its being quoted in reverse in this thread. There are 224 countries reported which means 44 rank better than us, not 179.

I know, I know..I read it backwards. I got all wound up and spouted off.

Still, The Czech Republic and freakin Malta do a better job than us. Cuba does as well. Point being, we need a fix. We're paying more than all but one country in the world and not getting our monies worth.

Does that gall the economically conservative group of you? We're paying more and getting less? Shouldn't that be reason enough to change things?

Course, it would seem we all agree something needs to change. Personally, I'm willing to try something while it would seem most of the U.S. is unwilling or too scared. Eh, I'm a risk taker.

z31maniac wrote: Xceler8x, first off, I just wanted to say it seemed a bit lacking in couth to bring religion into this debate a few pages back. Leave that elsewhere.

Point taken. I'll refrain from now on. My point was some claim a religious affiliation but dump it once a true sacrifice on their part is required.

z31maniac wrote: And your precious Socialist Democrats aren't voting themselves onto the system either. So quit trying to blame those evil-money grubbing Republicans for that one.

Fully aware. I haven't said "Republican Congressmen or Senators." I've said "Congressmen and Senators." I know the Dem's are utilizing a single payer healthcare plan as well. It galls me that what's good for the goose is not good for the gander in this case. That point is being ignored all over.

It galls me more that the guys who argue the most against a single payer plan are utilizing it themselves. Do some people just expect that Royalty will be treated better?

z31maniac wrote: Are you guys not paying attention to what the new Canadian health care leaders are saying now? I do, so I'll let you do your own research.

Come on man! Don't be a tease. Just post it.

z31maniac wrote: It's because the Dems are the party of special interests. This will sound harsh, but to those who don't thnk waiting lists, etc will be a problem. If you're having trouble getting a doctor now, what will happen when there are 47million more insurers and the same supply of doctors...........

..and Democrats are the only ones beholden to special interests?

Here is a great article from 538.com about PAC's, donations, and political affiliation.

Special Interest Money Means Longer Odds for Public Option

Draw your own conclusions since it seems I have trouble reading stats these days.

So far as a shortage of Dr's...we'll get more. Believe me. Doctors are not paid as well as they used to be, like airline pilots. Imagine if being a Doctor was the respected profession it used to be before money managers at Insurance companies started making medical decisions for them?

Also, should we not offer medical coverage to people who need it because we don't want to be personally inconvenienced? What kind of argument is that? I know I'm oversimplifying here but there has to be a level of personal sacrifice if we are to move ahead society as a whole. There are plenty of hard working people who deserve to be able to take their kid to see a doctor about a broken arm without facing bankruptcy as a result.

Xceler8x wrote: Does that gall the economically conservative group of you? We're paying more and getting less? Shouldn't that be reason enough to change things?

sure, but first you've got to show me how the change is actually going to get me more for the same or less than what i'm paying now. from what i've heard from places with government run healthcare, you get less for the same, then have to pay for extra coverage if you don't want to wait 3 months to see doctor for your cold.

I'll see if I can dig up the articles I've been referencing over my lunch break.

iPhone posting FTW!!!

Strizzo wrote: ....if you don't want to wait 3 months to see doctor for your cold.

Probably not what you really mean, but that apparently is a problem with health care currently. That is people going to see a doctor for things the really shouldn't be going to a doctor for. I can't imagine going to a doctor for the flue (unless it got really bad) but I know there are plenty of (otherwise healthy) people who would, which of course not only increases costs but clogs up the system.

Ohh, BTW I think I found the cause for all of our problems...

...apparently Obama IS HITTLER!!!!

Xceler8x wrote: Still, The Czech Republic and freakin Malta do a better job than us. Cuba does as well. Point being, we need a fix. We're paying more than all but one country in the world and not getting our monies worth. Does that gall the economically conservative group of you? We're paying more and getting less? Shouldn't that be reason enough to change things?

Absolutely. Unfortunately, the proposals currently on the table do not address the real issue, which is cost. If fact, costs will go up under the current plans, because they further the issue that has driven costs up thus far.

The next time I hear the word "ration" in regard to this issue I swear I am going to berkeleying explode. Does nobody what that word means? It means "everyone can have this much, but no more", not "everyone can have this much, but if you want more you have to pay extra for it". Do these people also think that a soup kitchen is worthless because it isn't an all you can eat buffet?

We know exactly what ration means, hence the reason most people who already have insurance have a problem.

True or not, it is preceived that those with healthcare now will be brought down to the level of those without care vs those without care being brought up to our level.

Josh, why wouldn't the middle class be ticked about paying more money for a lower standard of care?

Xceler8x,

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jbjzPEY0Y3bvRD335rGu_Z3KXoQw

superfly, sorry its the incoming president of the Canada Medical Association. Guess she probably isn't in a position to be called a "leader in healthcare."

And I agree with basically everything said in this article. I wish I could take the money my employer pays for my health/life/AD&D insurance and purchase it on the open market. I'd still have health insurance, and much more money in my pocket to spend in our service/consumer based economy.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/14/news/economy/health_care_solution.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2009081410

Another good one that I'm in the process of reading right now.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/20/news/economy/health_care_reform_middle_class.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2009082015