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

[RoyalOrleans]

Now we know just how ignorant Obama thinks the American people are. Answer: Dumb as rocks.

 

All the president's men (and women) are out selling the asinine idea that Obama's government health insurance idea is going to put competition into the marketplace. This is an idea that one could only sell to a fool. Thanks to our system of government education, we are not suffering any shortage of fools.

 

Here's what Obama wants us to think. If the government gets into the health insurance business it will create such a fine and wonderful health insurance product that all other health insurance companies out there will have to tweak their products and prices in order to compete. This competition will, if you believe Obama and his sycophants, make health insurance more effective and more available across the board.

 

Like I said .. there's certainly no shortage of fools out there. Someone is buying into this load of horsesh!t.

 

Sure, the government may very well come up with a health insurance product that is cheaper (to the consumer) and more effective than those offered in the private sector. Think about this though ... Could that possibly be because the government will be under no pressure whatsoever to make a profit on its health insurance? When you can operate at a loss indefinitely you have no problem undercutting your competitors. When you can call on endless government subsidies you can run anyone you choose out of business.

 

Let's say I operate a government owned grocery store. My stated goal is to give the other grocery stores in town some competition so we can provide a better product to the poor hungry consumers and help them save money at the same time. The other grocery stores will have to make a profit or close their doors. Not me! I'm the government, and I can operate at a loss. I have endless government subsidies and infusions of cash at my disposal. What will happen? No secret: When I move into the marketplace with a below-cost product the other grocery stores will shut down and I'll have your business locked up. Then I can do whatever I want with the choice, quality and price of my groceries and there really isn't a thing you'll be able to do about it.

 

There, my friends, is Obama's goal. He knows very well that his government-run insurance option is going to run private sector insurance companies out of business. Then the only game in town will be the government. This "competition" nonsense is just a talking point created to placate the dumb masses. The average 12-year-old home schooled child could dissect this game plan in a heartbeat. The same fools who thought Obama was going to pay their mortgage and put gas in their cars will now think that PrezBO is bringing good old free market competition to the health insurance marketplace. All hail Obama, the sort-of God.

 

Now if the competition line doesn't work there's always a little class warfare that can be played. Sorry ... didn't get the name ... but I saw some ObamaBot on Fox News last night trying to sell Obama's health insurance takeover on a wealth envy basis. He referred to health insurance companies being engaged in "Sweetheart Deals that makes its executives very very rich," and referred to the private sector health insurance companies as a "cartel." On the one hand he plays directly to wealth envy and the hatred that the Obama crowd has been generating toward high-paid executives; on the other he conjures images of health insurers operating like the Mexican or Colombian drug cartels. That's the Obama concept of open discussion.

 

This is about control. Nothing more, nothing less. Obama wants control. Control over every aspect of your life. He's well on his way to complete success.

 

Wednesday, the president will hold another online town hall about heath care. They're taking your video questions via YouTube. You can try asking your questions. We'll see if they actually get answered or if they just cherry pick the easy ones.

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY7HccFXjZU&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - President Obama - Your Turn: Join the National Online Discussion on Health Care Reform[/ame]

[ImWithStupid]

Wednesday, the president will hold another online town hall about heath care. You can try asking your questions. We'll see if they actually get answered or if they just cherry pick the easy ones.

 

 

 

I wonder if he'll be doing his impression of "Carnac" again, and happen to know the subject matter of the question by the blogger placed in the audience, and "happen" to know what questions are made by his staffers that post YouTube videos.

 

Maybe he can get Kal Penn to do one.

[timesjoke]

All of Obama's policies are one lie after the other. When Obama promised to cross the asiles if elected he ment he would cross the asile to spit in the non-socialists' faces.

 

Obama is the most partisan President I can personally remember, he will not even consider Conservative alternatives to big Government controlling everything in our lives.

 

I keep saying that the leadership of the Democratic party want to transform America into one big daycare facility, with them controlling our food, our medical, our banks, and even our recreation.

 

 

I hate to say it but I believe we are close to the point of no return with turning socialist. Taxes can be changed, deficits can be slowly paid down but if Obama gets this healthcare passed that will be forever.

 

 

 

This "American plan" Obama has for the future of healthcare is to remove all other insurance companies and have just the Government plan. Then they simply order down the costs by refusing to pay more than "X" amount for each service or item.

 

It will force the same waiting lines Canada has because if you remove the profit, you remove those who are willing to be in the medical fields. You remove any reason to invent new treatments and precedures. You close hospitals and clinics who can no longer pay their bills. You eliminate all competition because everyone gets the same money for the same procedure no matter if their good or not.

[phreakwars]

He has to be partisan, the conservatives ideas either suck or they don't have anything except complaints. So screw em, go at it alone. All they are is obstructionist. They have made that clear from the start, so no reason to try and include them in anything. Better to just let them bitch bitch bitch and group all the Dems together as one. It's the only way anything will get done.

 

As for driving insurance companies out of business... GOOD. Fukk them too. A majority of the population is in favor of a public plan contrary to what the insurance company lobbyist have convinced you Republicans of. So go ahead and bitch on behalf of the insurance industry who's been screwing us for years anyway, myself, I'll side with what the people want.

.

.

[ImWithStupid]

He has to be partisan, the conservatives ideas either suck or they don't have anything except complaints. So screw em, go at it alone. All they are is obstructionist. They have made that clear from the start, so no reason to try and include them in anything. Better to just let them bitch bitch bitch and group all the Dems together as one. It's the only way anything will get done.

 

That's odd, because every time you spout this "no plan" or "obstructionist" crap, I post the opposing idea that the media won't show, which is usually much more consistent with the current information not using data from the 2007 UN fourth assessment which itself used outdated data, like the "cap and tax" bill does.

 

http://cei.org/news-release/2009/06/25/cei-releases-global-warming-study-censored-epa

 

I know your side likes to claim that it's all or nothing, but just because someone voted against the bill doesn't mean they don't want to do anything or "hates the Earth". They just don't agree with the crappy catastrophic monstrosity that is put in front of them and they aren't given a chance to read before it gets railroaded through Congress.

 

A majority of the population is in favor of a public plan contrary to what the insurance company lobbyist have convinced you Republicans of.

.

.

 

That's flat out not true...

 

 

Sixty-two percent in this new ABC News/Washington Post poll, for example, support creating a government-funded entity to offer health insurance to those who don't get it elsewhere, a cornerstone of the plans now under discussion. But if that caused many private insurers to go out of business because they couldn't compete -- as critics charge -- support plummets to 37 percent.

 

- An overwhelming 70 percent oppose taxing benefits worth over $17,000 a year, a funding mechanism under discussion. (Raising income taxes on the wealthy, as usual, is far more popular.)

 

- Fifty-eight percent don't buy President Obama's pledge that reform can occur without forcing people to make undesired changes in their current coverage.

 

- The public splits about evenly, 49-47 percent, on another basic element, requiring all Americans to have health insurance. That varies widely, though -- as high as 70 percent support, as low as 44 percent -- depending on the terms of such a requirement.

 

- About eight in 10 are concerned that reform may reduce their quality, coverage and choice of care, and increase their costs, government bureaucracy and the federal deficit, with anywhere from 51 to 62 percent "very" worried about each of these.

While such views aren't fatal to reform, they underscore its challenges: Critical mass for change generally occurs when Americans are unhappy with current conditions, not only worried about the future. And in this poll 83 percent are very or somewhat satisfied with the quality of their care, 81 percent of insured adults are satisfied with their coverage, and 55 percent of Americans (61 percent of the insured) rate their costs positively.

Of course this data is from those crazy "right wing", "in the pocket of the insurance company" folk at ABC News and the Washington comPost.

[phreakwars]

I didn't say just NO PLAN, I said either no plans OR THEIR IDEAS SUK, read what I wrote again.

 

Now which do you think that alternative YOU posted, falls under?

 

Sixty-two percent in this new ABC News/Washington Post poll, for example, support creating a government-funded entity to offer health insurance to those who don't get it elsewhere

 

62% Isn't a majority?

.

.

[ImWithStupid]

I didn't say just NO PLAN, I said either no plans OR THEIR IDEAS SUK, read what I wrote again.

 

Now which do you think that alternative YOU posted, falls under?

 

 

 

62% Isn't a majority?

.

.

 

I know what you said, that's why I first addressed your claim of "no plan" and then I addressed that the opposing ideas are often better and more current with both being more practical, less harmful and based on more recent data.

 

They don't seem to feel the need to hide information or bury EPA reports that show they are making a mistake like BHO and the Dems do. Wonder why they would do that?

 

 

 

62% unless...

 

But if that caused many private insurers to go out of business because they couldn't compete -- as critics charge -- support plummets to 37 percent.

And not only is there all kinds of data saying this will happen but some of the biggest Dem proponents of this saying that running private insurers out of business to obtain a single payer, government rationed care system, is their goal.

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxa4dgwnzS0]YouTube - Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI): Ultimate Goal of Health Reform Legislation is Single Payer System[/ame]

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dT4mV3R7vu4]YouTube - Schakowsky[/ame]

[phreakwars]

Damn straight !!

 

Drive EVERY ONE of those damn insurance companies out of business. It's what they DESERVE for screwing with the American people's lives.

 

I said it once I'll say it again....

 

 

FUKK EM!!

[Old Salt]

I didn't say just NO PLAN, I said either no plans OR THEIR IDEAS SUK, read what I wrote again.

 

Now which do you think that alternative YOU posted, falls under?

 

 

 

62% Isn't a majority?

.

.

But you left off the qualifier which causes the percentage to go into the sh!tter.

[phreakwars]

But you left off the qualifier which causes the percentage to go into the sh!tter.

The qualifier is dependent on the exact plan.

.

.

[ImWithStupid]

The qualifier is dependent on the exact plan.

.

.

 

The qualifier is dependent on any government plan.

 

It is impossible for private business to compete against a government competitor because they not only don't have to worry about making ends meet but can rely on never ending bailouts, like AmTrack, the USPS, Medicare and Medicaid have proven.

 

Again, you can't get past this all or nothing crap.

 

Nobody is saying health care doesn't need reform, but if you aren't going to include tort reform (this doesn't) or look at options like the CEO of Safeway did with their health care or options like Co-Opting health care (this doesn't). You're on the road to rationed care, with reduced benefits or something worse.

[phreakwars]

Good.

 

Your scare tactics only work on yourself.

 

I WANT coverage like Canada and Europe, ...hell Argentina would be even better.

.

.

[timesjoke]

 

I WANT coverage like Canada and Europe, ...hell Argentina would be even better.

.

.

 

So you want people pulling their own teeth, waiting 8 months for an MRI and people getting worse on diseases like Cancer because they have to wait for months or years just to get treatments?

 

Right now Canada ships premature births and heart failure cases out of Canada and into America because their own system cannot handle the flow. Right now hundreds of thousands of Canadians come to America to get medical treatments that are needed but not emergency because they cannot sit at home and suffer over a year to get treatments.

 

If the Canadian system is so great, why has a massive industry opend up in Canada for medical travel?

Private Medical Services ? Timely Medical Alternatives

Medical Tourism Services - Best hospitals overseas for affordable healthcare

 

.

 

The waiting list problems are so bad Canada even has an annual conferance called "The Taming of the Queue".

 

Even the Supreme Court of Canada made its feelings known by striking down Quebec’s ban on the sale of

private insurance for publicly insured services because of what it said was the government’s inability to deal effectively with wait times and allowing people to die while waiting for necessary services.

 

So even Canada's suppreme Court has openly admitted that Canadians are dying while waiting for treatments.

 

 

You think that is better medical care?

 

 

Right now America is the main relief valve for the failures of the Canadian system, once we change to their kind of system suddenly their already massive waiting times will explode, they will not have us to bail them out as we do with their premature births and such so then what?

 

Universal health care sucks universally.

 

 

Oh don't forget Canada's much worse cancer mortality rates, mostly driven by having to wait months before being able to start treatments, they litterally are killed by the waiting lists.

[phreakwars]

I won't even try with that debunking. The info has been there forever

 

canadian health care myths - Google Search

.

.

[ImWithStupid]

I won't even try with that debunking. The info has been there forever

 

canadian health care myths - Google Search

.

.

 

Yes it's all a myth...

 

Quads born in U.S. due to shortage

 

No space in Alberta hospitals to deliver rare identical quadruplet daughters to Calgary couple

 

 

Michelle Lang and Keith Bonnell, Calgary Herald; CanWest News Service

 

Published: Friday, August 17 2007

A rare set of identical quadruplets will be reunited today at a Calgary hospital after spending their first night apart Thursday -- two in Canada and two in the United States.

Karen Jepp, 35, of Calgary delivered four healthy little girls Sunday at a hospital in Montana, after being sent there because of a shortage of neonatal beds in Canada.

Babies Calissa and Dahlia, the strongest of the newborns, were flown to Alberta by air ambulance Thursday afternoon with their father, J.P. Jepp -- only two babies can be accommodated in the aircraft. They are to be joined by sisters Autumn and Brooke today.

Quads born in U.S. due to shortage

 

There wasn't a hospital in the entire country, to accept them, but a small city in Montana was able to.

 

 

The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care

David Gratzer

Socialized medicine has meant rationed care and lack of innovation. Small wonder Canadians are looking to the market.

Mountain-bike enthusiast Suzanne Aucoin had to fight more than her Stage IV colon cancer. Her doctor suggested Erbitux?a proven cancer drug that targets cancer cells exclusively, unlike conventional chemotherapies that more crudely kill all fast-growing cells in the body?and Aucoin went to a clinic to begin treatment. But if Erbitux offered hope, Aucoin?s insurance didn?t: she received one inscrutable form letter after another, rejecting her claim for reimbursement. Yet another example of the callous hand of managed care, depriving someone of needed medical help, right? Guess again. Erbitux is standard treatment, covered by insurance companies?in the United States. Aucoin lives in Ontario, Canada.

 

 

When Aucoin appealed to an official ombudsman, the Ontario government claimed that her treatment was unproven and that she had gone to an unaccredited clinic. But the FDA in the U.S. had approved Erbitux, and her clinic was a cancer center affiliated with a prominent Catholic hospital in Buffalo. This January, the ombudsman ruled in Aucoin?s favor, awarding her the cost of treatment. She represents a dramatic new trend in Canadian health-care advocacy: finding the treatment you need in another country, and then fighting Canadian bureaucrats (and often suing) to get them to pick up the tab.

The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care by David Gratzer, City Journal Summer 2007

 

First hand account from someone in GB posted February 18th...

 

I am pissed off, fed up, depressed, miserable and just HAD ENOUGH! I'm not asking for sympathy, just letting you know what's going in in my life.

 

Since just before Christmas I've been ill, very ill really to the point that I've lost about 20lbs by simply not being able to eat. This is especially horrible due to the fact that THIS year was going to be a good one after the repulsiveness of last year.

 

I've been messed about by the docs and the hospital, had some godawful tests and loads of dead ends, until finally, today, I got a bit of a diagnosis....I have polyps in my gall bladder.

 

I feel like , nauseous and like I can't eat more than a few mouthfuls of anything. It actually feels as if my stomach has shrunk to the size of a tennis ball. Doing anything leaves me tired and breathless due to being horribly anaemic. I look like , pale and washed out and just ill. I'm lonely as hell because I don't have any friends around here (I'm usually at work all day).

 

I can't go anywhere because I get sick in the car. I NEVER get sick, but this seems to just make me want to throw up however I move. Even walking more than a few yards is NOT good! I'm sleeping 13+ hours a day and worn out for the rest of it.

 

I want to go back to work, to have MY life back....but I can't get a specialist's appointment until 30th March! It's all taking too long and I hate it.

I'm starting to wonder if I have a target on my head saying 'Please here'.

 

Argh!

 

So anyway, if I don't seem to be my usual self....this is why.

http://www.2thejungle.com/postview_6256.asp

 

Rationed, single payer, health care.

 

Despite what your side wants to paint as myths. The facts speak for themselves. This doesn't include the stories of people who are just determined to be too old for treatment, or the women in GB with breast cancer denied lifesaving drugs for breast cancer because it's too expensive.

 

Keep dreaming of your SP eutopia, but pray to the God you don't believe in that you never get terminally ill or need major care at an advanced age.

[ImWithStupid]

The final health status measure examined is the incidence of chronic conditions like high blood pressure, heart disease, and asthma. These measures are less subjective, but also are known to be influenced by behavior and other factors outside of the health care system. The authors find that the incidence of these conditions is somewhat higher in the U.S. However, respondents with these conditions are some-what more likely to be treated in the U.S.-in the case of emphysema, the treatment rate is twenty percentage points higher in the U.S.

 

Turning their attention to the availability of health care resources, the authors examine the use of cancer screenings including mammograms and PAP smears (for women), PSA screenings (for men), and colonoscopies. They find that the use of these tests is more frequent in the U.S. - for example, 86 percent of U.S. women ages 40 to 69 have had a mammogram, compared to 73 percent of Canadian women. The U.S. also is endowed with many more MRI machines and CT scanners per capita. The authors find evidence of the possible effectiveness of higher levels of screening and equipment by examining mortality rates in both countries for five types of cancer that could be affected by early detection and treatment. Because the incidence of cancer may differ for reasons other than the health care system, they compare the ratio of the mortality rate to the incidence rate - a lower ratio corresponds to a lower death rate for those with the disease. They find that the ratio is lower in the U.S. for all types of cancer except cervical cancer, suggesting that the U.S. health care system is generally more successful in the detection and treatment of cancer.

 

The authors also examine wait times, which are often cited as a problem in Canada. Though comparative information is limited, available data indicate much longer waits in Canada than in the U.S. to consult a specialist and to have non-emergency surgery like knee re-placements. The authors can also draw some inferences from a question about unmet medical needs. While the incidence of unmet needs is slightly lower in Canada (11 percent, vs. 14 percent in the U.S.), it is interesting to note that waiting time is cited as the reason by over half of Canadians who report unmet needs. By contrast, cost is cited as the reason by over half of Americans. The importance of long waits in Canada was recently highlighted by the Chaoulli case in Quebec which successfully challenged the government ban on private provision of medical services covered by the Canadian system. Private services are expected to alleviate shortage of facilities under the system and reduce wait times. Cases are being brought in other provinces.

 

In the final section of their paper, the authors consider several measures of the success of the two health care systems. The first and perhaps simplest measure is the level of satisfaction reported by patients. Americans are more likely to report that they are fully satisfied with the health services they have received and to rank the quality of care as excellent.

 

Finally, the authors examine whether Canada has a more equitable distribution of health outcomes, as might be expected in a single-payer system with universal coverage. To do so, they estimate the correlation across individuals in their personal income and personal health status and compare this for the two countries. Surprisingly, they find that the health-income gradient is actually more prominent in Canada than in the U.S.

 

The authors conclude that while it is commonly supposed that a single-payer, publicly-funded system would deliver better health out-comes and distribute health resources more fairly than a multi-payer system with a large private component, their study does not provide support for this view. They suggest that further comparisons of the U.S. and Canadian health care systems would be useful, for example to explore whether the higher expenditures in the U.S. yield benefits that are worth their cost.

 

Comparing the U.S. and Canadian Health Care Systems

[hugo]

We are actually headed toward more of a French style healthcare system, with private healthcare paid with public funds.

[timesjoke]

I won't even try with that debunking. The info has been there forever

 

Then how do you explain why the Canadian suppreme court said the waiting times are killing Canadians?

 

Forget al the other stuff, this was their suppreme Court, are you trying to say they are telling lies too?

 

 

 

You cannot claim their system is not broken, IWS posted some facts too that prove some medical cases overflow into America but are you really interested in the facts or just what sounds good?

[RoyalOrleans]

Now we have this story out of Canada where private for-profit (the horror!) clinics are becoming a booming business. While Barack Obama seeks to implement a universal healthcare system like Canada, the Canadians are trying to emulate a system closer to the United States.

 

This article says, "Facing long waits and substandard care, private clinics are proving that Canadians are willing to pay for treatment." Yep, that's the future of the United States. In fact, under the Canada Health Act, private facilities are not allowed to charge citizens for services that are covered by government insurance. That was until 2005, when a Supreme Court ruling in Quebec ruled that patients facing unreasonable wait times could pay out of pocket for private treatment.

 

Now you are going to love this. Here is the explanation from the Ontario Health Coalition as to why private clinics are bad for Canadians: "Private clinics don't produce one new doctor, nurse, or specialist. All they do it take the existing ones out of the public system, make wait times longer for everybody else while people who can pay more and more and more money jump the queue for health care services."

 

This, my friends, is why the left is eventually going to have to forbid you from seeking your own doctor with your own funds. That was Hillary's plan .. it will soon be Obama's.

 

PRIVATE HEALTHCARE BOOMING IN ... CANADA?

[phreakwars]

Look at all those attacks on Canada!! For every rebuttal link I can find a counter rebuttal exists. So like I said, I'm not even gonna give a counter rebuttal. But I will say this. No matter how you look at it, they STILL have better care for the people then what we could ever hope to have. The will of the people demanded new leadership, new reforms. Complain all you want but it's what the majority of people want. I hate the politics of it all because I see Republican representatives who have the insurance company lobbyist funding their "OUTRAGE" about private insurance going down with a public plan. I look at that and think to myself... so OK... who do the DEMOCRATS have in their pockets telling them to provide a plan for everyone....hmm... the answer is... THE PEOPLE.

 

To you Republicans out there complaining about private insurance being run out.... what do you REALLY give a shiit? They have been screwing you over for decades now, why give the private providers the benefit of the doubt? Even if insurance never existed, people STILL need basic medical care. Tell me I'm wrong.

 

I say cut this damn middle man of debt between us and having to get medical care provided to us.

 

OF COURSE these damn insurance company lobbyist are gonna be all over that sucking ass with the Republicans reps to keep their damn scheme going where they can charge you outrageous premiums, deny you coverage, and run you into permanent debt all for some of the simplest and common of care procedures, like say a premature birth of a child.

 

Your worries about rationed health care, waiting lines, and all kinds of other things are complete bullshiit complaints. It's like saying "I'm against it, because people will want to go to the Dr." Now what kind of heartless crock is that? Well DUH people will want to go to the Dr. What you think only YOU are deserving of getting and staying healthy? The same fukkwits who complain about people living off the system don't have any god damn common sense to realize if you make people healthier, the less chance they would be frikken useless.

 

Watch an awesome UNBIASED documentary on this shiit once in a while, it's good for ya.

 

FRONTLINE: sick around america: watch the full program | PBS

.

.

[timesjoke]

I notice you refuse to even try to address the facts Bender, and there is the problem.

 

 

Can't you even admit the point of how the Canadian suppreme court said the same thing?

 

That the long waiting lists were killing Canadians?

 

 

Imagine this, you injure your knee, it is not life and death but your in severe pain and cannot work. Can you really wait two years for treatment? Can you afford not to work? That is the Canadian system in a nutshell.

 

 

Your refusal to admit that some emergency care cases are even shipped to America because they do not have the capacity is because you cannot defend the problems that your plan offers all people.

 

 

Once it is free, nobody respects it, I don't care what it is, if you give it away for free it will be abused.

 

You ever hear the old saying "You get what you pay for"?

[RoyalOrleans]

So you want to know the truth about Barack Obama's healthcare plan? How about 118 million people switching their healthcare from the private sector to the "free" government option? Does that sound like it is going to provide much in the way of competition? No. But that's what the politicians keep claiming. Look no further than Great Britain to see what will happen when the government gets involved in healthcare. This is from the Washington Examiner.

 

This is precisely what happened in Britain. The state provides most health care, via the National Health Service. Patients have almost no say over which physician, surgeon or hospital they can use, while professionals have to conform to government plans and targets.

 

After its birth in 1948, planners soon found that "free" health care multiplied demand. NHS founder Lord Beveridge predicted free health care would cut spending as health improved.

 

The opposite was true. Between 1949 and 1979, it tripled in real terms. The service now costs twice as much as it did 10 years ago, with productivity down 4.5 percent.

 

One way government tries to limit demand is to decree which new drugs can be prescribed. Many drugs, widely available in America and continental Europe, are denied to British patients.

 

State mismanagement has also created waiting lines for hospitals, on average causing 8.6 weeks of waiting. Once inside, budgetary cutbacks on cleaning and maintenance mean higher rates of an antibiotic-resistant variety of staph infection. This "superbug" has turned even routine surgery into a lottery of death.

 

Not enough for you? Continue reading. You can hear about the wonders of government regulation in France. The fact of the matter is that Barack Obama's healthcare reforms are just the beginning. Like France, it will be a slow decline into a system of government controls, regulation and bureaucracy. A system that is not about your healthcare but about power.

 

By the way ... if you want the government to take over responsibility for your health care you have no business waving little American flags this Saturday.

[RoyalOrleans]

Look at all those attacks on Canada!! For every rebuttal link I can find a counter rebuttal exists. So like I said, I'm not even gonna give a counter rebuttal. But I will say this. No matter how you look at it, they STILL have better care for the people then what we could ever hope to have. The will of the people demanded new leadership, new reforms. Complain all you want but it's what the majority of people want. I hate the politics of it all because I see Republican representatives who have the insurance company lobbyist funding their "OUTRAGE" about private insurance going down with a public plan. I look at that and think to myself... so OK... who do the DEMOCRATS have in their pockets telling them to provide a plan for everyone....hmm... the answer is... THE PEOPLE.

 

To you Republicans out there complaining about private insurance being run out.... what do you REALLY give a shiit? They have been screwing you over for decades now, why give the private providers the benefit of the doubt? Even if insurance never existed, people STILL need basic medical care. Tell me I'm wrong.

 

I say cut this damn middle man of debt between us and having to get medical care provided to us.

 

OF COURSE these damn insurance company lobbyist are gonna be all over that sucking ass with the Republicans reps to keep their damn scheme going where they can charge you outrageous premiums, deny you coverage, and run you into permanent debt all for some of the simplest and common of care procedures, like say a premature birth of a child.

 

Your worries about rationed health care, waiting lines, and all kinds of other things are complete bullshiit complaints. It's like saying "I'm against it, because people will want to go to the Dr." Now what kind of heartless crock is that? Well DUH people will want to go to the Dr. What you think only YOU are deserving of getting and staying healthy? The same fukkwits who complain about people living off the system don't have any god damn common sense to realize if you make people healthier, the less chance they would be frikken useless.

 

Watch an awesome UNBIASED documentary on this shiit once in a while, it's good for ya.

 

FRONTLINE: sick around america: watch the full program | PBS

.

.

 

Why is it that all of the uninsured folks talking about their astronomical health costs seem to be obese? Of course they are not all obese, but tobacco, alcohol, and food are the top 3 preventable killers.

 

Is it the job of the federal goverment, on the dime of the American taxpayer, to take care of these sloths?

 

I'm sure you'll give me a good answer, Komrade.

[Old Salt]

One of the simplest actions Congress can take is tort reform. Cut down on malpractice suits except in the most blatant cases. This will cut down costs for BOTH doctors and hospitals. A cut in malpractice insurance costs will (should) reduce health care a great deal.

[ImWithStupid]

One of the simplest actions Congress can take is tort reform. Cut down on malpractice suits except in the most blatant cases. This will cut down costs for BOTH doctors and hospitals. A cut in malpractice insurance costs will (should) reduce health care a great deal.

 

 

That's what I keep saying. You can't be serious about health care reform without addressing tort reform.

 

Who in their right mind would want to be a doctor or stay in practice if the government is going to limit how much you can charge, but you still are open to the same amount of lawsuits, and effectively have spend the same amount for malpractice insurance.

 

Like the example I have given before. I know someone who is an anesthesiologist, who makes about $400,000 per year, but they have to pay out somewhere around $180,000 per year for malpractice insurance.

 

Now the government tells you that you can't charge as much and you are now only making $320,000 per year but still have to pay $180,000 for insurance.

 

You'd be better off going back to school for two years, get a law degree and sue doctors and hospitals for BS reasons hoping for a settlement.