You're not buying this "competition" horsesh!t are you?

[phreakwars]

would you do if you had none?

That's not a question you need ask me, (I have insurance), but rather the MILLIONS of Americans that don't already... ASK THEM what they are doing... then tell me a public plan is worse. At least with a public plan, they will get SOME help.
And THAT is why it won't compete with private health care. The expectation that your gonna get superior coverage is brainwashing. I'm more realistic then that. A public plan is only gonna do so much. Probably as much as subsidized care is doing now, and that's the way it should be.

That's why we will have a NEED for private coverage, and that is why this competition argument holds no water to me.

People will STILL have an option to get the coverage they want, and with a public option as a BOOST of sorts, people will be able to get even MORE coverage at a lower rate to their private insurer then what they do now.

That's why I don't believe in that "OUR HEALTH CARE WILL BE RATIONED" malarkey.

Like I said before, if we NEVER had a system of insurance for medical care, people STILL need medical care. Now ask.

What would you do if you had none? MEDICAL CARE THAT IS!

What kind of pathetic complaint is it complaining that less people will turn to medicine as a career because the pay might go down...

GOOD, I don't want that type of greedy ****** caring for me anyway. I'd rather have someone who went to school to learn to help people, not profit from them.

Maybe that's been the problem all along. I call that Capitalism at it's worst.

.

.

 

[phreakwars]

What's funny is listening to people fear rationed health care, yet in the same breath, these same people wanna ration health care for others who aren't in their class.

"WELL THIS PERSON SMOKES, THIS GUYS TOO FAT, THESE GUYS ARE TOO POOR, THIS GUY DOESN'T HAVE A JOB" Therefore THEY don't deserve the same health care YOU get, oh no... if they were included then YOU might have to worry about your care being rationed. Heaven forbid if you have to pay for some of that care... but then.

WHAT WOULD YOU DO if you lost your job or became too sick to work and didn't have the money for insurance? Get subsidies? As in let the government help you stay well, and your kids stay well so that you CAN go out and get a job.

Like I said before, private providers will STILL have a place in a public insurance system.

Ask anybody who is living off subsidized medicine now if THEY can get that heart transplant, or surgery for the knee, and other such things... the answer is **** NO. And in a public insurance system, it would be the same way. That isn't rationing, it's what you get for your money.

Inferior care... sure is, but, for people who don't even qualify for subsidized care, it would be a great alternative. You don't need MAJOR MEDICAL COVERAGE to survive. Just the basics like Dr. visits covered, dentists to pull teeth, not put in gold grillz or work that is made for show like breast implants, crowns, etc...

THAT is what people want. But of course Republicans gotta fall for the lobbyist scam getting played on them by the insurance companies and believe that the care proposed is something different. Myself, I don't fall for the scare tactics of the lobbyist that Republicans have so foolishly done only because they wanna play politics.

Keep playing politics and ******** about rationed this, and drive out business that. I still side with the people. Not my fault the people majority happen to be Democrats.

.

.

 

[timesjoke]

What kind of pathetic complaint is it complaining that less people will turn to medicine as a career because the pay might go down...

GOOD, I don't want that type of greedy ****** caring for me anyway. I'd rather have someone who went to school to learn to help people, not profit from them.

Maybe that's been the problem all along. I call that Capitalism at it's worst.

.

.

And I am sure you have never asked for a raise, looked for a better job than the one you have or anything like that Bender........right?

You work for 8 bucks an hour and never expect more than that because of your training, dedication or superior skills......right?

Well I believe we all know better than that Bender. Your so fast to say Doctors, insurance companies and nurses do not deserve their pay but do you always select the lest expensive person as your doctor? How about your mechanic? Do you use the dirt floor shop outside of town or a reputable shop that costs more?

How about computer work? Should people select any idiot that has a sign that says computer repair?

Well that is what we will get with this proposal, cut rate doctors who do not have enough on the ball to go find a job that will pay them what their worth.

Again, look to Canada, they have a huge shortage of doctors and nurses because the job pays nowhere near what it should considering the hard work these people must do.

My brother in law is a doctor and he has spent over 12 years in college courses combined with all his follow up schooling he has had to do. Your saying that he does not deserve to earn more than a 150k a year?

 

[phreakwars]

If they want more money, then all they have to do is learn more skills. Like I said before, public health care will have limits, private care will have a place. And in order for private care to have it's place, we will need skilled pros for more advanced medicine. Dr.'s will STILL make those big bucks. Insurance companies will still be there to pay it out, people will still be there to pay the premiums.

If your brother-in-law wants to earn that much, then he should be given a job that pays that based on his skill, not based on how long he went to school and how much he thinks he should be worth.

.

.

 

[timesjoke]

If they want more money, then all they have to do is learn more skills.

What are you talking about? This makes no sense. A doctor is already highly trained and skilled, you want him to be an electrician too or something? Work two jobs because the government looks down on healthcare professionals?

Like I said before, public health care will have limits, private care will have a place. And in order for private care to have it's place, we will need skilled pros for more advanced medicine. Dr.'s will STILL make those big bucks. Insurance companies will still be there to pay it out, people will still be there to pay the premiums.

Again, where does this stuff come from?

No, there is not to be any limits for levels of care the Government insurance will support. It is to be a general health insurance plan like any other, just run by the Government so they do not have to make a profit.

Do you know how insurance works?

They cover a wide range of people and services so some use a lot and some use a little. There is a wide stance of customers with various policies so the insurance company can make a profit.

If you completely erase 3/4 of their customer base, there is no way the insurance companies will be able to stay in business with such a tiny segment of the business. They will no longer have lots of policies and people to spread out the costs so anything they will have to offer will be extremely expensive.

The same is true for doctors. They stay in business by seeing lots of patients. If you suddenly reduce the amount of money they can collest from the average patient, you will erase the ability to pay their bills and as IWS pointed out, their malpractice insurance will still be very expensive so who in their right mind would want to work so hard to make very little money?

If your brother-in-law wants to earn that much, then he should be given a job that pays that based on his skill, not based on how long he went to school and how much he thinks he should be worth.

Again, what are you talking about? His skills are learned, just like anyone, do you think a mechanic just knows everything instantly?

My Brother in law owns his own practice, he is paid by treating people. If you cut all the payouts for treatments in half or less he will no longer be in business. So much for Obama wanting to create jobs, he is even crippling the jobs we have.

 

[phreakwars]

Then have him perform open heart surgery on you if your so confident with his skills. Can he do that with his 12 year degree?

.

.

 

[timesjoke]

Then have him perform open heart surgery on you if your so confident with his skills. Can he do that with his 12 year degree?

Well he is an orthopedic surgeon and that is very difficult work.

While he is not specifically trained in open heart surgery, he would be a better choice over a guy with no medical training.

So what is your point?

My point is anyone who is a doctor has worked very hard to reach that point where they can be doctors, and your saying they do not deserve to get a better return on their investment in education and training than to make 150k a year?

I notice you again dodged another point I brought up about the wide stance needed by private insurance companies to stay in business, something you failed to account for?

Obviously losing such a massive amount of their customer base will drive them out of business and any doctor who respects himself will not stay in a field where there is no possibility to earn a decent living......just like what is now happening in Canada.......and that shortage of doctors in Canada is another point you refuse to address.......as well as the Canadian suppreme court also admitting that the Canadian system is killing Canadians.......

 

[ImWithStupid]

Then have him perform open heart surgery on you if your so confident with his skills. Can he do that with his 12 year degree?.

.

I'm glad you made TJ's argument for him. There won't be any specialists anymore. You'll have a pediotrist doing heart surgery, or a cardiologist doing the work of of an oncologist.

Yea. That sounds great.

 

[ImWithStupid]

That's not a question you need ask me, (I have insurance), but rather the MILLIONS of Americans that don't already... ASK THEM what they are doing... then tell me a public plan is worse. At least with a public plan, they will get SOME help.
.

.

This is why I don't understand your stance. I am assuming that your insurance comes from your wives insurance. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You like what you have right now. Under the current open and obvious plan, you won't have what you currently have now and soon will be forced to have something different.

It's been proven, it's enevitible , it's gonna happen.

Here's the problem. They keep talking of the millions of people who don't have insurance. They say 47 million, it's more like 20 million when you take away those who have it available and affordable but opt out and those who are illegal aliens, but I digress.

Why should over 100 million people lose the health care they like so that 20 million people get health care?

 

[phreakwars]

****** doom and gloom fear mongering bastards.

.

.

 

[ImWithStupid]

****** doom and gloom fear mongering bastards..

.

Just another unsubstantiated, no argument, DNC talking point, stance.

Who's on the defensive with no reply?

You.

 

[phreakwars]

Jesus Christ I'm taking on 4 right wingers on this site and 3 on another, like I'm gonna keep up with all this .

I have no choice but short summary's. But I DO however have an advantage...

My thoughts on health care are STILL felt by the MAJORITY of people and that's all I need. Doesn't matter how many ANTI-PUBLIC HEALTH complaints you wanna try debating. Democrats STILL win. HAHA.

.

.

 

[ImWithStupid]

Jesus Christ I'm taking on 4 right wingers on this site and 3 on another, like I'm gonna keep up with all this .
I have no choice but short summary's. But I DO however have an advantage...

♠

My thoughts on health care are STILL felt by the MAJORITY of people and that's all I need. Doesn't matter how many ANTI-PUBLIC HEALTH complaints you wanna try debating. Democrats STILL win. HAHA.

.

.

Appearantly in your own mind, because I've proven that statement false.

 

[phreakwars]

You have? WHERE? i SEE NO PROOF ANYWHERE TO BE FOUND.

.

.

 

[ImWithStupid]

I guess I can't help a blind squirrel find the acorn that is put before him.

 

[phreakwars]

An Email from a person down under.

Posted on Democratic underground.

I'd be interested to hear Anna Perenna's take on health care down under. She's not exactly the "POOR" class and probably has to buy her own.

But anyways, from

Email from my cousin in Australia about their health care system - Democratic Underground

An email from my cousin in Australia, about their health care system.

She grew up in New Zealand, now lives in Australia, and her siblings (my other cousins) still live in NZ. Keep in mind she is 49 years old. Names disguised for privacy sake.

My question

> I was reading on the internet that NZ has "public" health care where the

> government pays for much of your

> visits to hospitals and or for surgery? And that if you want "speedier"

> health care, you can purchase private health insurance.

My cousin's answer:

That's right, NZ's government has always been 'for the people', our healthcare system is very good indeed.


I'ts been a long time since I lived in NZ though and I don't have the most recent information on their services .


But when I was growing up in NZ everything was free, schooling, (except private schooling and University),


medical care, dental care, prescriptions, ambulance etc however once a person becomes a wage earner they must pay


for their own dental care although for low income earners or other people in diffuclt circumstances,


the government will subsidise the cost of medicine and treatment. Housing is subsidised too.

 


A couple of years ago A--- and I went over to NZ with C---- who had picked up a virus at one of the airports,


when we arrived in NZ we took him to the local hospital and they gave C---- the very best care,


they provided us with medicine, an after care programme and it cost us absolutely nothing!

My question

What is that like?

My cousin's answer:

NZ and Australia have a similar system, most hospital care is free however if you want elective or cosmetic surgery you must pay for it.

 


Medical insurance is a good thing to have, here the government actually pays for some of it as a tax refund.

 


A---- and I have private cover, so we have more choice, I can either go to a public hosptial for free or I can choose


to go to a private hospital and my medical insurance will pay for it.


The advantage of medical insurance is you don't have to wait as long for treatment and the medical care is often better as a paying patient.


.


.

 

[phreakwars]

What I got from that, is first of all, it debunks TJ's claim of less money for his brother in law. He would not be forced to be a public provider working on a government check. He would have the option of doing what many Dr.'s in America NOW do already, and that is be a private practitioner who caters to only insured people. He is then free to play this "suck the insurance companies for more money" game that keeps that BMW in his garage like he always wanted, over providing legitimate care to humans because he wants to help them.

It also debunks the myth that it drives out private insurers. Obviously, there is motivation to buy private insurance.... better care.

Would long waiting lines and rationing be an issue? Yep, they would, and I have long contended that WOULD be the case on a public option. SO WHAT IS ONE TO DO? Duh, go buy private insurance.

Of course Dr's will be in short supply from the start. That's why we need that pesky pork program of educating people. All that **** stimulus spending into the trillions for generations, doing these pork like things giving Dr's degree is thinking LONG TERM for the health of our country.

So to anyone complaining about "COMPETITION BEING OUTED" and in the same breath complaining about "RATIONED HEALTH CARE"

How do you get rationed health care from a private practitioner you would be paying for and only catered to you and not that riff raff government subsidized type?

.

.

 

[RoyalOrleans]

What's funny is listening to people fear rationed health care, yet in the same breath, these same people wanna ration health care for others who aren't in their class.

Economics 101 tells us that, ceteris paribus, as the price of something goes down, demand goes up. So when healthcare becomes "free," the demand goes through the roof, and so does the cost. The government can only take in so much in taxes, so at some point care must be rationed. Rationing comes in many forms. Long waits, denied services, etc. If you don't pay with your own money, you will pay in long waits, poor service, and, in some cases, with your life.

"WELL THIS PERSON SMOKES, THIS GUYS TOO FAT, THESE GUYS ARE TOO POOR, THIS GUY DOESN'T HAVE A JOB" Therefore THEY don't deserve the same health care YOU get, oh no... if they were included then YOU might have to worry about your care being rationed. Heaven forbid if you have to pay for some of that care... but then.

If the government is going to MANDATE health coverage for every person living in these here United States, then I want my tax dollar to pay for only the healthy and sound. I'm not paying for some trash's smoking cessation paraphenalia, or lyposuction for the human compost heap, or the lazy ******* unwilling to work to change his situation.

This way, the healthier will use less of my money, and I can hopefully eek out some life for myself with my own earned income.

The truth is, you are ultimately obligated to take care of your own **** self. It's not up to your fukken neighbor!

WHAT WOULD YOU DO if you lost your job or became too sick to work and didn't have the money for insurance? Get subsidies? As in let the government help you stay well, and your kids stay well so that you CAN go out and get a job.

I wouldn't put any faith, hope, or trust in a government run healthcare system!

Like I said before, private providers will STILL have a place in a public insurance system.

It is the very nature of competing businesses to try to run each other out of the marketplace. Government health care will be no different. The bureaucrats and politicians behind the government health plan, recognizing that every switch from private sector to government insurance increases government dependency, will fight to destroy the private market. This won't be hard to do, after all the private insurance market will have to earn a profit. The government insurance scheme will not.

Ask anybody who is living off subsidized medicine now if THEY can get that heart transplant, or surgery for the knee, and other such things... the answer is **** NO. And in a public insurance system, it would be the same way. That isn't rationing, it's what you get for your money.

Barbara Bush recently had open-heart surgery. She's fine. This should be of interest to you however. As soon as we get the Democrat's nationalized medicine your chances of getting open-heart surgery at her age will be somewhat similar to my chances of waking up tomorrow with my fukken mortgage paid off!

Commissar Obama is really pushing this nationalized medicine thing. Remember .. in Obama's mind America's greatness comes from government - on only government can provide us with a great health care system. Private sector? Forget it. If there are any certainties in our life - one would be the certainty of rationed health care in our future.

Inferior care... sure is, but, for people who don't even qualify for subsidized care, it would be a great alternative. You don't need MAJOR MEDICAL COVERAGE to survive. Just the basics like Dr. visits covered, dentists to pull teeth, not put in gold grillz or work that is made for show like breast implants, crowns, etc...

Barack Obama says that his thoughts on healthcare are "evolving." Oh really? Well what are they "evolving" toward? It seems as though Obama is okay with the idea of mandating that individuals purchase health insurance. Of course, there would be a waiver for the poor, poor, pitiful poor. Where in our Constitution does it give the federal government the authority that private citizens buy anything, let alone health insurance? I've tried, but I just can't find it there. Then I suddenly realized what an idiot I was for trying to find a Constitutional justification for an Obama plan.

Now get this ... this is his explanation as to why he thinks that mandates for all people are a good thing: "People have made some pretty compelling arguments to me that if we want to have a system that drives down costs for everybody, then we've got to have healthier people not opt out of the system." Ohhhhh ... that's ObamaLogic for you.

So, in the World According to Obama, even if you are healthy and/or could afford to pay for your own healthcare costs as they arise, the government still wants to force you into its system. Why is that? Not because you need their health insurance, but because they need your money. Duh. If you are a healthier person that is forced into paying for health insurance, naturally you are going to choose the least expensive option, which in this case may be the government option. Now you know you aren't really going to use the services, but hey .. at least you are avoiding that pesky government fine. So now, your payments can be used to subsidize the healthcare of some government leach.

THAT is what people want. But of course Republicans gotta fall for the lobbyist scam getting played on them by the insurance companies and believe that the care proposed is something different. Myself, I don't fall for the scare tactics of the lobbyist that Republicans have so foolishly done only because they wanna play politics.

Ohhh soooo typical, Komrade.

Keep playing politics and ******** about rationed this, and drive out business that. I still side with the people. Not my fault the people majority happen to be Democrats.

You forgot the cleverly placed "rollseyes" emoticon next to Democrats, Komrade.

Ohhh... and was Obama ******** about the rationing of healthcare.

Ruin Your Health With The Obama Stimulus Plan

 

[RoyalOrleans]

In addition to that article:

Proponents of socialist healthcare here in the US virtually never cite any of the realities of any of the existing "socialist" systems, be it one in Canada, Sweden, France, Germany, Japan, Taiwan, etc. Their system is always based on some non-existent, utopian system where all the treatments and outcomes will of course be "fair and equal".

How can that possibly happen when by its very nature all services under such a system will have to be rationed? Its just common sense that any service, if its perceived to be free, is going to be exploited.

In a 2005 ruling Canada's federal and provincial governments tried to fix the long wait times by issuing new targets one being a 26 wk wait for hip replacements. What is the reality? I have an uncle in his late 70's, who lives in Regina, SK which is literally the "cradle of socialized healthcare" in North America given its introduction in the province back in July 1962. He finally got a hip replaced ~ a year ago, but only after hobbling around with a cane for 2+ years.

And that's with a system that already has "rationalized" supply and demand for medical services. Think about what will happen here in the US when “universal coverage" will be extended to the estimated 37 million who have no insurance.

Nowhere in the discussion have the proponents of socialized healthcare in the US mentioned that key in the Canadian system, is the use of a "premium" or "deterrent fees". It serves as a kind of hurdle to dampen demand for unnecessary services, notably for hypocondriacs and the proverbial "little old ladies" who reason "that if its Tuesday its time for their regular doctor visit", which is in fact a disguised social outing. That scenario represents a very real attracted cost to any socialized system.

Another result given the politics and turnout of old people in elections, has been the setting of an "appropriate" deterrent fee which has been a factor to varying degrees in virtually every Canadian provincial election since late 1962 when socialized healthcare was introduced across the country. Don't think that would happen here? Think again!

Make no mistake about the limousine liberals and the ObamaBots motives in promising "universal healthcare". It has already started with the recent backdoor passage of additions to the existing "State Children’s Health Insurance Program" ("SCHIP"), which is now geared for families making up to $80K. Its to be paid for by an increase in taxes on tobacco products. SCHIP represents the political "thick end of the wedge" for the Dems to get real socialized medicine in this country.

Its not so much a case of apparent liberal "concerns about the apparent lack of universal healthcare coverage" for children as it is about liberals wanting to exert ever more control over all of us, making us ever more dependent on big government as the solution for everything. Future votes for Democrats can then be assured. And that's what its all about.

 

[phreakwars]

I can rebut that in one sentence for every complaint you have about it.

BUY HEALTH INSURANCE.

Don't want rationing, and long lines.. buy health insurance. Unemployed, your kids are hungry, and you just know your not gonna

put any faith, hope, or trust in a government run healthcare system!

EVEN THOUGH your out of a job, then BUY HEALTH INSURANCE, come on, even though your unemployed, you can afford it. Remember, you are ultimately obligated to take care of your own **** self.
Afraid of competition being tossed out?

BUY HEALTH INSURANCE. Keep em in business.

The funniest part about Nebraska, is the majority of people who complain about the governments version of caring for them, can usually be found in waiting lines at the store with their Nebraska food debt card complaining about socialism, illegals, and liberals.

Makes me wonder if it's like that in the other states as well.

.

.