Gov. run health care is fine, IF you're young..

[Jacksmyname]

An article about O's vision of health care.
If you're getting on in years as I am (60 in a few weeks), and you think nationalized health care the way it's envisioned by the creep in the White House and his gang of thugs, I suggest you read this article.
If you're still young, you should also read it. It will, one day, affect you too.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs

How ANYONE can support this lowlife is beyond me.

[ScarlettOhara]

An article about O's vision of health care.
If you're getting on in years as I am (60 in a few weeks), and you think nationalized health care the way it's envisioned by the creep in the White House and his gang of thugs, I suggest you read this article.
If you're still young, you should also read it. It will, one day, affect you too.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs

How ANYONE can support this lowlife is beyond me.
That is what I keep telling people. I was born and raised in Europe and the health care over there is fine if you are under 45 or so. It is basically like a big HMO. There is no problem getting care for the flu and infections that require anti-biotics. The diseases that are cheaply treated are also completly covered. Where you run into problems is when you have a more expensive condition to treat, the very conditions that cause people in the USA financial problems are the ones for which care is rationed in Europe.

[hillplus]

I agree. Just spent many years living in a country with socialized health care. The dirty squalor that the elderly have to put up with in hospitals is scandalous!

[Agent655]

Good thing that a huge percentage of Obama's supporters ARE under 45 and clueless to how the rest of the world works.

[RedheadedTexan]

Good thing that a huge percentage of Obama's supporters ARE under 45 and clueless to how the rest of the world works.

Don't they already have them? They are called inner city hospitals.

[MADMAX]

Typical liberal solution. Istead creating programs or policies that lift the disadvantaged, they drag everyone down to their level. Their solution is to make everyone equal, equally miserable.

[johnrocks]

Government run heathcare, look at the VA system,look at Medicare, I know people *say* Medicare has less overhead,of course those are government figures they base that on, they never mention the 30 trillion in future unfunded liabilities,physicians opting out of the program,$300 diabetic shoes that look like my $30 payless shoes,etc.

[Dale in GA]

The link doesn't link to an article, but to some ads on Bloomberg, with no clue how to get to the article you'd like us to read.

As to the quality of "government-run health care," our own Medicare system is a good example in hand. And while we're treated here to horror stories (anecdotal, of course), my own experienc with the many Medicare recipients I meet daily indicates that the vast majority are very happy with it. Indeed, of those people approaching their 65th birthday, they're unanimous in their anticipation and appreciation of the system - for some, it's the most fcomprehensive health insurance they've ever had, as well as being the most affordable.

Now, there's no doubt that as originally designed, Medicare was terribly costly and if it hadn't undergone some critical structural changes (PPS/DRG), wouldn't be around even today, let alone next decade. Those changes require a greater financial investment from Medicare participants (and their families), and that fact is also causing significant resentment.

[ScarlettOhara]

Government run heathcare, look at the VA system,look at Medicare, I know people *say* Medicare has less overhead,of course those are government figures they base that on, they never mention the 30 trillion in future unfunded liabilities,physicians opting out of the program,$300 diabetic shoes that look like my $30 payless shoes,etc.
Debbie Hirst's breast cancer had metastasized, but the NHS would not provide her with Avastin, a drug widely used in the U.S. to control such cancers. According to a report in the New York Times, Debbie opted to pay for the drug herself while getting the rest of her publicly funded treatment. NHS bureaucrats found out about Debbie's plan and informed her doctor that Debbie would have to accept the "free" care as is or, if she wanted the Avastin, she would have to pay for it and all the rest of her treatment too.

NHS officials told the British press that to allow Debbie to pay for extra drugs to supplement government care would violate the philosophy of the NHS by giving richer patients an unfair advantage over poorer ones. British Health Secretary Alan Johnson told Parliament patients "cannot, in one episode of treatment, be treated on the NHS and then allowed, as part of the same episode and the same treatment, to pay money for more drugs. That way lies the end of the founding principles of the National Health Service."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=68363

Socialism forbids the individual from doing for himself what the government cannot do for him/her.

[johnrocks]

The link doesn't link to an article, but to some ads on Bloomberg, with no clue how to get to the article you'd like us to read.

As to the quality of "government-run health care," our own Medicare system is a good example in hand. And while we're treated here to horror stories (anecdotal, of course), my own experienc with the many Medicare recipients I meet daily indicates that the vast majority are very happy with it. Indeed, of those people approaching their 65th birthday, they're unanimous in their anticipation and appreciation of the system - for some, it's the most fcomprehensive health insurance they've ever had, as well as being the most affordable.

Now, there's no doubt that as originally designed, Medicare was terribly costly and if it hadn't undergone some critical structural changes (PPS/DRG), wouldn't be around even today, let alone next decade. Those changes require a greater financial investment from Medicare participants (and their families), and that fact is also causing significant resentment.

Medicare has a 30 trillion dollar unfunded future liability, I keep abreast of Medicare since I'm in insurance and most of my sales are Med. supps.

[Dale in GA]

Government run heathcare, look at the VA system,look at Medicare, I know people *say* Medicare has less overhead,of course those are government figures they base that on, they never mention the 30 trillion in future unfunded liabilities,physicians opting out of the program,$300 diabetic shoes that look like my $30 payless shoes,etc.

Special shoes for diabetics are designed to help circulation in the feet - doesn't matter what they look like.

Are they overpriced? Probably, but is that a function of Medicare or of the system we have in this country that watches government rapaciously and swoops in to take advantage, even underhandedly? Look at the booming business in the scooter chairs that someone managed to convince Medicare qualify for payment at 100% as "durable medical equipment."

The capitalist system we all celebrate has become perverted - instead of "Let's build something people need," it became "Let's build something the government will pay for and convince people they need it." Nobody complained about that approach when it was "Let's build something and convince people they need it," by the way.

As to "$30 trillion" in unfunded future liabilities, that's an estimated projection - the actual cost may be higher or lower. The thing is, though, that if Medicare were scrapped, that figure would still exist, but instead of being the responsibility of the Medicare system, it's be spread among the senior population, the majority of whom are completely unprepared to absorb the cost.

[Jacksmyname]

The link doesn't link to an article, but to some ads on Bloomberg, with no clue how to get to the article you'd like us to read.

I just tried the link, and it works here:

Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan: Betsy McCaughey


Share (javascript:togShareLinks('shr_v');) | Email (?Subject=Bloomberg%20news:%20%20Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan: Betsy McCaughey &body=%20Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan: Betsy McCaughey %0D%0A%0D%0A%20http%3A//www.bloomberg.com/apps/news%3Fpid%3Demail_en%26sid%3DaLzfDxfbwhzs) | Print (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs#) | A (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs#) A (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs#) A (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs#)



Commentary by Betsy McCaughey


Feb. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Republican Senators are questioning whether President Barack Obama (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Barack+Obama&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1)’s stimulus bill contains the right mix of tax breaks and cash infusions to jump-start the economy.
Tragically, no one from either party is objecting to the health provisions slipped in without discussion. These provisions reflect the handiwork of Tom Daschle (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Tom+Daschle&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1), until recently the nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department.
Senators should read these provisions and vote against them because they are dangerous to your health. (Page numbers refer to H.R. 1 EH (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.+1:), pdf version).
The bill’s health rules will affect “every individual in the United States” (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.
But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis (http://www.amazon.com/Critical-What-About-Health-Care-Crisis/dp/0312383010/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234118804&sr=8-1).” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”
Keeping doctors informed of the newest medical findings is important, but enforcing uniformity goes too far.
New Penalties
Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties. “Meaningful user” isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS (http://www.hhs.gov/) secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time” (511, 518, 540-541)
What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make.
The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.
Elderly Hardest Hit
Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.
Medicare (http://www.medicare.gov/) now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).
The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle’s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.
In 2006, a U.K. health board decreed that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye. It took almost three years of public protests before the board reversed its decision.
Hidden Provisions
If the Obama administration’s economic stimulus bill passes the Senate (http://www.senate.gov/) in its current form, seniors in the U.S. will face similar rationing. Defenders of the system say that individuals benefit in younger years and sacrifice later.
The stimulus bill will affect every part of health care, from medical and nursing education, to how patients are treated and how much hospitals get paid. The bill allocates more funding for this bureaucracy than for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force combined (90-92, 174-177, 181).
Hiding health legislation in a stimulus bill is intentional. Daschle supported the Clinton administration’s health-care overhaul in 1994, and attributed its failure to debate and delay. A year ago, Daschle wrote that the next president should act quickly before critics mount an opposition. “If that means attaching a health-care plan to the federal budget, so be it,” he said. “The issue is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol.”
More Scrutiny Needed
On Friday, President Obama called it “inexcusable and irresponsible” for senators to delay passing the stimulus bill. In truth, this bill needs more scrutiny.
The health-care industry is the largest employer in the U.S. It produces almost 17 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. Yet the bill treats health care the way European governments do: as a cost problem instead of a growth industry. Imagine limiting growth and innovation in the electronics or auto industry during this downturn. This stimulus is dangerous to your health and the economy.
(Betsy McCaughey (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Betsy+McCaughey&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) is former lieutenant governor of New York and is an adjunct senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. The opinions expressed are her own.)

[The Debater]

Are they overpriced? Probably, but is that a function of Medicare or of the system we have in this country that watches government rapaciously and swoops in to take advantage, even underhandedly? Look at the booming business in the scooter chairs that someone managed to convince Medicare qualify for payment at 100% as "durable medical equipment."

That's a company in my area you're talking about, bub! See the real problem below.

The capitalist system we all celebrate has become perverted - instead of "Let's build something people need," it became "Let's build something the government will pay for and convince people they need it." Nobody complained about that approach when it was "Let's build something and convince people they need it," by the way.

Government involvement in health care is most definitely NOT 'the capitalist system' - it is the exact opposite. If government were to get out of the healthcare business, people would take more responsibility for their own medical budget. But hey, since 'the government' is paying for it, what's the motivation to consider the cost?

[johnrocks]

Special shoes for diabetics are designed to help circulation in the feet - doesn't matter what they look like.

Are they overpriced? Probably, but is that a function of Medicare or of the system we have in this country that watches government rapaciously and swoops in to take advantage, even underhandedly? Look at the booming business in the scooter chairs that someone managed to convince Medicare qualify for payment at 100% as "durable medical equipment."

The capitalist system we all celebrate has become perverted - instead of "Let's build something people need," it became "Let's build something the government will pay for and convince people they need it." Nobody complained about that approach when it was "Let's build something and convince people they need it," by the way.

As to "$30 trillion" in unfunded future liabilities, that's an estimated projection - the actual cost may be higher or lower. The thing is, though, that if Medicare were scrapped, that figure would still exist, but instead of being the responsibility of the Medicare system, it's be spread among the senior population, the majority of whom are completely unprepared to absorb the cost.

I think it's this entire quasi capitalistic system we have, we have a government program and expect people to be good stewards of that system,it never happens and I know you know but for those that don't, that estimate was made by former U.S. Comptroller David Walker, if anyone has looked at the books, it would be him and people like him.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/01/60minutes/main2528226.shtml

"I would argue that the most serious threat to the United States is not someone hiding in a cave in Afghanistan or Pakistan but our own fiscal irresponsibility," Walker tells Kroft.

David Walker is a prudent man and a highly respected public official. As comptroller general of the United States he runs he Government Accountability Office, the GAO, which audits the government's books and serves as the investigative arm of the U.S. Congress. He has more than 3,000 employees, a budget of a half a billion dollars, and a message he considers urgent.

"I'm going to show you some numbers…they’re all big and they’re all bad," he says.

So bad, that Walker has given up on elected officials and taken his message directly to taxpayers and opinion makers, hoping to shape the debate in the next presidential election.

"You know the American people, I tell you, they are absolutely starved for two things: the truth, and leadership," Walker says.

He calls it a fiscal wake up tour, and he is telling civic groups, university forums and newspaper editorial boards that the U.S. has spent, promised, and borrowed itself into such a deep hole it will be unable to climb out if it doesn’t act now. As Walker sees it, the survival of the republic is at stake.

"What’s going on right now is we’re spending more money than we make…we’re charging it to credit card…and expecting our grandchildren to pay for it. And that’s absolutely outrageous," he told the editorial board of the Seattle Post Intelligencer.

You have heard this before, from Ross Perot 15 years ago. You might have even thought the problem had been solved, when President Clinton announced, "Tonight, I come before you to announce that the federal deficit … will be simply zero."

You could do away with the Defense budget for the next decade and not close that gap and with baby boomers retiring,there are less to replace them being born.

[Hereintheusa]

Debbie Hirst's breast cancer had metastasized, but the NHS would not provide her with Avastin, a drug widely used in the U.S. to control such cancers. According to a report in the New York Times, Debbie opted to pay for the drug herself while getting the rest of her publicly funded treatment. NHS bureaucrats found out about Debbie's plan and informed her doctor that Debbie would have to accept the "free" care as is or, if she wanted the Avastin, she would have to pay for it and all the rest of her treatment too.

NHS officials told the British press that to allow Debbie to pay for extra drugs to supplement government care would violate the philosophy of the NHS by giving richer patients an unfair advantage over poorer ones. British Health Secretary Alan Johnson told Parliament patients "cannot, in one episode of treatment, be treated on the NHS and then allowed, as part of the same episode and the same treatment, to pay money for more drugs. That way lies the end of the founding principles of the National Health Service."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=68363

Socialism forbids the individual from doing for himself what the government cannot do for him/her.

And for every story like that one we can find another one in the US about somebodys medical insurance refusing to pay for a certain treatment or someone rationing their meds because they cannot afford the monthly cost of medications and eat.

It means nothing and should not be an indictment of either system.

A NHS style system would not work in the US and the private system would not work in the UK. There are pros and cons of both systems.

Here in the US I would like to see universal health care for children but for adults we need to tweak the current system to make health care affordable but also involve consumers a lot more.

Why is it only on forums like this people insist that there is nothing wrong with our system but huge insurance companies such as WellPoint disagree and say the system needs reform.

[Tex Mex]

Whether it's socialized or not, you get what you pay for.

The problem with our corrupt system is that those in front of the line can get more than what they paid for. Those at the end of the line get screwed.

[johnrocks]

Our current system sucks and more government isn't the answer,imho.

[ND Sicilian]

Here is what factcheck had to say about the article.

http://www.factcheck.org/politics/doctors_orders.html

[Tex Mex]

Socialism forbids the individual from doing for himself what the government cannot do for him/her. That's my big objection to socialized medicine.

[old guy]

how about the government just offering a high risk pool for those unable to buy insurance on the private market,like may states offer. set premiums at 200% of the average cost and that way at least everyone has the option of buying health insurance,whether they choose to or not is up to the individual.
right now certain people cant buy insurance at any cost and that is a failure of the free market and is where the govt. should step in

[Hereintheusa]

how about the government just offering a high risk pool for those unable to buy insurance on the private market,like may states offer. set premiums at 200% of the average cost and that way at least everyone has the option of buying health insurance,whether they choose to or not is up to the individual.
right now certain people cant buy insurance at any cost and that is a failure of the free market and is where the govt. should step in

I agree, I also think it is time to end the practice of excluding pre-existing conditions.

[johnrocks]

I agree, I also think it is time to end the practice of excluding pre-existing conditions.

That is the plan.
http://www.ahip.org/content/pressrelease.aspx?docid=25126

[Tex Mex]

how about the government just offering a high risk pool for those unable to buy insurance on the private market,like may states offer. set premiums at 200% of the average cost and that way at least everyone has the option of buying health insurance,whether they choose to or not is up to the individual.
right now certain people cant buy insurance at any cost and that is a failure of the free market and is where the govt. should step in Everyone needs to be forced to invest in their own healthcare. No option to pass, no free ride, no entitlement.

[old guy]

Everyone needs to be forced to invest in their own healthcare. No option to pass, no free ride, no entitlement.

i dont think people should be forced into anything.

[Crystal]

And for every story like that one we can find another one in the US about somebodys medical insurance refusing to pay for a certain treatment or someone rationing their meds because they cannot afford the monthly cost of medications and eat.

It means nothing and should not be an indictment of either system.

A NHS style system would not work in the US and the private system would not work in the UK. There are pros and cons of both systems.

Here in the US I would like to see universal health care for children but for adults we need to tweak the current system to make health care affordable but also involve consumers a lot more.

Why is it only on forums like this people insist that there is nothing wrong with our system but huge insurance companies such as WellPoint disagree and say the system needs reform.

Every single drug company in this country has plans that will cover someone who needs their medication and cannot afford to purchase it. Yes they do take into consideration when someone is choosing to have cable tv and internet instead of paying for their drugs but that is as it should be. They do not make people choose between eating and getting their medications.

[Tex Mex]

i dont think people should be forced into anything. I sympathize with your thinking and would like to agree with you but I also have to live in the real world.

[johnrocks]

i dont think people should be forced into anything.

That's the problem or one of them, a good idea would be just what Tex mentioned except I too don't like people to be forced into anything so what's the answer, it can't be government, they are the "Frank and Jesse James" of robbery,force and coercion,imho. In a truly free society, we must be prepared to step over those who make bad choices, allow charity to help or simply allow them to perish.

[Dale in GA]

That is the plan.
http://www.ahip.org/content/pressrelease.aspx?docid=25126

That's part of the problem - fifteen years ago, when healthcare was on the front burner, the insurance industry bombarded us with all sorts of scary stories about how we wouldn't be able even to choose our own doctors! (Remember John and Louise?)

And as soon as the incredibly complex and topheavy Clinton healthcare reform proposal bit the dust, the insurance industry trotted out HMO's, one of the main features of which . . . guess what? . . . dictated doctor choice!

Now, fifteen or so years later, with the national mood decidedly different, the insurance industry is talking about undergoing reforms that they should have instituted decades ago. Their foot-dragging and rapacious lust for profits were instrumental in creating the current mess, but just like the GOP in pleading with the American public for another term in power, they insist that they're the ones most qualified to fix the problem.

And I'm in the insurance industry too!

[Dale in GA]

Everyone needs to be forced to invest in their own healthcare. No option to pass, no free ride, no entitlement.

How to determine the amount of the investment? Should someone in relatively good health have to pay as much, either as a flat dollar figure or percentage of income, as the person with lung cancer or AIDS? Or chronic conditions like diabetes or asthma?

Or should we do away with insurance altogether and just have everyone pay their own bill?

[chip]

Everyone needs to be forced to invest in their own healthcare. No option to pass, no free ride, no entitlement.

:rolleyes:

And let the idiots in DC tell me whats best for me and my family?

No thanks.

[johnrocks]

That's part of the problem - fifteen years ago, when healthcare was on the front burner, the insurance industry bombarded us with all sorts of scary stories about how we wouldn't be able even to choose our own doctors! (Remember John and Louise?)

And as soon as the incredibly complex and topheavy Clinton healthcare reform proposal bit the dust, the insurance industry trotted out HMO's, one of the main features of which . . . guess what? . . . dictated doctor choice!

Now, fifteen or so years later, with the national mood decidedly different, the insurance industry is talking about undergoing reforms that they should have instituted decades ago. Their foot-dragging and rapacious lust for profits were instrumental in creating the current mess, but just like the GOP in pleading with the American public for another term in power, they insist that they're the ones most qualified to fix the problem.

And I'm in the insurance industry too!
I know you are, you do know then that the problems of today have manifested themselves over the years, The HMO Act of 1973, The Great Society with Medicare/Medicade, employers offering group insurance as a benefit during FDR's wage and price controls, etc.

We're probably not that far apart in our "madness" Dale, the devil is in the details.:lol:

[Tex Mex]

:rolleyes:

And let the idiots in DC tell me whats best for me and my family?

No thanks. If you can demonstrate the ability to cover your personal heathcare needs then I have no problem with you telling the government to take a hike.

But for those who make no effort to be responsible for their healthcare and still demand the free entitlement (and get it) I say they should forfeited their freedom to choose.

[Tex Mex]

How to determine the amount of the investment? Should someone in relatively good health have to pay as much, either as a flat dollar figure or percentage of income, as the person with lung cancer or AIDS? Or chronic conditions like diabetes or asthma?

Or should we do away with insurance altogether and just have everyone pay their own bill? You are asking critical questions that can't be ignored. Insurance for someone with lung cancer or AIDS is a deception. Insurance for pre existing conditions is idiocy. That's not insurance and it shouldn't be sold as such. But the money to pay for the treatments has to come from somewhere. For those that don't have all the money needed, they still need to have some level of investment in their personal situation, even if it involves a radical change in lifestyle.

[Tex Mex]

That's the problem or one of them, a good idea would be just what Tex mentioned except I too don't like people to be forced into anything so what's the answer, it can't be government, they are the "Frank and Jesse James" of robbery,force and coercion,imho. In a truly free society, we must be prepared to step over those who make bad choices, allow charity to help or simply allow them to perish. John, you are blowing my arguments for some level of socialized medicine out of the water. The fundamental flaw in my ideas is that we can't trust the government to do what's best. But that exposes a bigger issue. Why can't we trust our government? What's the problem?

But to argue against socialized healthcare as if we don't have it already, is a folly in and of itself.

[Rurudyne]

Seeing that the young would be defrauded of their means so the federal can provide such services, it isn't even the good deal some may allow it to be.

[MR. MISTER]

Here is what factcheck had to say about the article.

http://www.factcheck.org/politics/doctors_orders.html
I like this part -

Actually, the legislation doesn't call for any kind of "rationing board," nor does it say the government can, should or will "deny" the public any medical treatments. In fact, the final compromise legislation includes additional language to make this even more clear. Yet, various conservative politicians and commentators have made such claims.

[chip]

If you can demonstrate the ability to cover your personal heathcare needs then I have no problem with you telling the government to take a hike.

But for those who make no effort to be responsible for their healthcare and still demand the free entitlement (and get it) I say they should forfeited their freedom to choose.


And theres the rub, you will have to rely on the idiots in DC to determine whats adequate.

Again, no thanks. I dont trust em and quite frankly neither should you. And thats leaving out the fact that they have ZERO constitutional power to be able to do so.

[johnrocks]

John, you are blowing my arguments for some level of socialized medicine out of the water. The fundamental flaw in my ideas is that we can't trust the government to do what's best. But that exposes a bigger issue. Why can't we trust our government? What's the problem?

But to argue against socialized healthcare as if we don't have it already, is a folly in and of itself.
lol,sorry. Your right,we do have it,45% or so of our healthcare is socialized,there lies the problem,imho,throw in ignorant ass group and that is our quagmire of a mess right there for the most part,again,imho.

[chip]

I like this part -



What do you think "reasonable use'' means when speaking of medical procedures?

I know what in means in the UK, Ive got a friend who needs an ankle replacement but they wont do the procedure because the powers that be dont feel its needed.

Thank God for private insurance or he would be wheelchair bound.

[Tex Mex]

lol,sorry. Your right,we do have it,45% or so of our healthcare is socialized,there lies the problem,imho,throw in ignorant ass group and that is our quagmire of a mess right there for the most part,again,imho. I say private hospitals should be allowed to refuse patients who do not have the ability to pay for their treatment. But then where do you dump theses people?

In order to free up private hospitals to offer better service, there needs to be community run hospitals that can be used as a receptor for those who won't take care of themselves.

[johnrocks]

I say private hospitals should be allowed to refuse patients who do not have the ability to pay for their treatment. But then where do you dump theses people?

In order to free up private hospitals to offer better service, there needs to be community run hospitals that can be used as a refuse for those who won't take care of themselves.

We have a system in this state that has worked pretty well, the LSU Health system,Charity hospital system, we've actually have had a charity system in this state since the late 1700's, Huey Long expanded it and it's actually a descent system,imho, Medicade really messed it up though from my reading on how well it worked up until the 70's as opposed to now though.

[Sun]

Senior cititzens - watch your back - and you can do that when you VOTE next time!

[Sun]

Tom Daschle, who anticipated being the Secretary of Health and Human Services head at the time, helped write the health care restrictions and said health care reform: “will not be pain free and seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them."

Friends, write this in a letter to the editor, so the more elderly senior citizens who might not use the internet can be informed, and tell them to vote for candidates who are AGAINST socialized medicine.

[Tex Mex]

Tom Daschle, who anticipated being the Secretary of Health and Human Services head at the time, helped write the health care restrictions and said health care reform: “will not be pain free and seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them."

Friends, write this in a letter to the editor, so the more elderly senior citizens who might not use the internet can be informed, and tell them to vote for candidates who are AGAINST socialized medicine. Why yes. Vote for candidates who are AGAINST Medicare.

[SnowSquirrel]

An article about O's vision of health care.
If you're getting on in years as I am (60 in a few weeks), and you think nationalized health care the way it's envisioned by the creep in the White House and his gang of thugs, I suggest you read this article.

How ANYONE can support this lowlife is beyond me.
Although it's only a minor reason why I oppose nationalized health care, I stand to suffer from it even though I'm young and healthy. After all, it's people like me who will be forced to pay into a government system to support those whose costs are high.

[ScarlettOhara]

Or even print it out and hand it to your older relatives. Make several copies so that they can hand it out to their friends.

[Sun]

Why yes. Vote for candidates who AGAINST Medicare.

It's too late for the elderly folks. They PAID for Medicare all their working lives, and were FORCED to pay.

Universal healthcare, aka nationalized social medicine, will stick it to seniors - TELL them.

[Sun]

Or even print it out and hand it to your older relatives. Make several copies so that they can hand it out to their friends.

Good idea.

[Tex Mex]

It's too late for the elderly folks. They PAID for Medicare all their working lives, and were FORCED to pay.

Universal healthcare, aka nationalized social medicine, will stick it to seniors - TELL them. And if those seniors weren't FORCED to pay, what would they have to cover their medical costs? If Medicare is good enough for the seniors, it's good enough for everyone else.

[Sun]

And if those seniors weren't FORCED to pay, what would they have to cover their medical costs? If Medicare is good enough for the seniors, it's good enough for everyone else.

Do your research and you will see that nationalized medicine for all is not doing so well in other countries.

[Jagergeist]

Elderly people are kind of screwed no matter what system we have. If we privatize the system completely and go for personal policies the older folks will either be uninsurable or have staggeringly high premiums. If we go with nationalized care they will go to the bottom of the necessity pool since they are old and care would go for more viable people, like kids. The current Medicare/Medicaid system is going to hose them since the fund is going broke and no matter how you twist the numbers will need a massive infusion of cash in the near future.

[janer]

[QUOTE=Dale in GA;54208161]That's part of the problem - fifteen years ago, when healthcare was on the front burner, the insurance industry bombarded us with all sorts of scary stories about how we wouldn't be able even to choose our own doctors! (Remember John and Louise?)

And as soon as the incredibly complex and top heavy Clinton healthcare reform proposal bit the dust, the insurance industry trotted out HMO's, one of the main features of which . . . guess what? . . . dictated doctor choice!

Doctor choice may also be dictated by the number and location of doctors practicing in the field a patient requires. The underlying flaw in the universal health care argument is that it promotes the notion that insuring people is the problem and that once everyone is insured, they will be covered for necessary procedures. But who's going to perform those procedures? How do you convince a talented young person to train for 10-15 years of his/her life for a government job, when any number of government and private sector jobs can be had for a fraction of the investment in time and money?

[Impenitent]

How do you convince a talented young person to train for 10-15 years of his/her life for a government job, when any number of government and private sector jobs can be had for a fraction of the investment in time and money?

gulags

[Tex Mex]

Do your research and you will see that nationalized medicine for all is not doing so well in other countries. I take then that socialized healthcare for a select group is OK but socialized healthcare FOR ALL, is wrong.

So special interest groups can use the system to their advantage by voting themselves government entitlements that are denied others and justifying their cause by saying, "If we let everyone else in on the deal, that will mean less for us."

[Rurudyne]

I take then that socialized healthcare for a select group is OK but socialized healthcare FOR ALL, is wrong.

So special interest groups can use the system to their advantage by voting themselves government entitlements that are denied others and justifying their cause by saying, "If we let everyone else in on the deal, that will mean less for us."
Good point.

But since the federal has no lawful power to provide such a service to the general public anywhere a State has jurisdiction, I would opts for: "federal health care for no one is proper and right."

[Sun]

I take then that socialized healthcare for a select group is OK but socialized healthcare FOR ALL, is wrong.

So special interest groups can use the system to their advantage by voting themselves government entitlements that are denied others and justifying their cause by saying, "If we let everyone else in on the deal, that will mean less for us."

Medicare is in big trouble financially - even more than social security. Did you know that? So why do you want to add more govt. healthcare to the system, a health"care" which DOES NOT WORK in other countries. Again, do your research.