Hardware·18,997 discussions

President Obama says chance for healthcare overhaul is slipping away

Locked

President Obama over the last few days has stated how urgent they quickly move forward his agenda of a government run health before the chance can slip away, not to return for generations. His words, paraphrased of course.

My question for supporters of Obama has two parts.

One, if his plan is sound, why would something that complicated be done in such a rush?

Two, if his plan is sound, why would it either pass now or not be available again for generations?

Or is he rushing things through so people don’t have a chance to see what is really in the plan, like he did with his non-stimulating stimulus package?

Topic

I refuse to comment on the political issue.

In reply to President Obama says chance for healthcare overhaul is slipping away

But healthcare reform requires a prerequisite- tort reform.

Until we visit and resolve tort issues around healthcare, there cannot, in my opinion, be any meaningful discussion about healthcare itself.

Doctors are so busy protecting themselves from specious lawsuits that they no longer practice medicine in any meaningful way. That is not to say that there are not some suits with merit. But those with merit are seriously outweighed by those without.

The goal of medicine is to treat the whole patient. The goal of re-thinking healthcare delivery should be held to the same standard. Until I hear that someone is willing to do this necessary thing, I cannot support ANY plan fro reform.

It’s time to consider the WHOLE issue, not just the minor bits that are chewing at our ankles. Only then will we be able to find any meaningful and supportable change.

EDIT- Oops

But why should it be political in the first place?

In reply to I refuse to comment on the political issue.

The man won the election, he has the majority in house, so in theory, if what he is trying it legitimate then why does it have to be a rush or nothing?

Something this major DEMANDS more than a quick vote to get political points.

And Obama will NEVER do anything to limit the damage to the system the whole tort issue causes. It is the poor people suing the evil rich doctors/hospitals.

Class warfare trumps what is in our best interests.

This SHOULD be a right and wrong issue, not a left and right issue.

This is where we differ

In reply to But why should it be political in the first place?

To me, it has nothing to do with right, wrong, left or right. It has everything to do with the fact that the wrong people are being called on once again to divine a solution. Put the same issue in front of a representing body of MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS and I will put money on tort reform coming out the best solution.

We tend to forget this important fact in this country. We elected these people. We did not confer on them Godhood.

put medical professionals

In reply to This is where we differ

in charge of if they can be sued or for how much?

Are you both missing something?

In reply to This is where we differ

Tig, of all people, who I know not to be a medical doctor, but who has gone to great and serious lengths to know medically of least herself. This “medical professionalism” of which you both quarrel, belongs only with each of us, that we may choose.

Same goes for “legal professionalism”.

Do I have to shout it in your ears?

Not really

In reply to Are you both missing something?

While never a medical doctor, I have been a licensed nurse so have a different perspective on the issue as a whole. I would go as far as to say that I may be more qualified than some others to define what might be meaningful healthcare reform.

When they start talking about reform as ONLY having one characteristic or another, it makes for a bad solution. They should be able to look at existing models to see that.

It is a wonderful thing to say that everyone should have access to healthcare. It is yet another to manage the system. Especially in an environment where doctors MUST practice defensive medicine.

In that model, the doctor doesn’t have the luxury of depending on his training to identify the proper solution to the patient’s problem, he must order any number of tests to rule out every other possible thing. That gets expensive fast and does not serve the patient.

I have no problem with opening the discussion of healthcare reform and actively solution seeking. I take issue with a politically driven solution to what is really, the wrong problem.

Put your thinking cap on

In reply to Not really

“everyone should have access to healthcare”

I would say that you have access to healthcare of the very best, hands-on kind. And who in your case is responsible? How was it accomplished? What did it take?

Why not we make your perspective universal, starting tomorrow? What would that take?

Not sure where you are going

In reply to Put your thinking cap on

I recognize that I am responsible for insuring that I get the healthcare I need when I need it. But I don’t believe that to be the issue here. I think that the present system of healthcare delivery is broken and needs to be reconsidered. But that is one person’s opinion and not necessarily a shared opinion.

There are things that I am able to do for myself to provide for some of my needs. The other side of that is that I recognize that there are some needs that I alone cannot provide.

“The issue here”

In reply to Put your thinking cap on

Being in your words “the present system of healthcare delivery”, I am not surprised you are unsure of where I am going.

I am jettisoning your entire framework, and every argument here pro and con appertaining thereto.

You will remain unsure until you let go your premise of “delivery”.

I disagree

In reply to Put your thinking cap on

While there are aspects to healthcare that one may take individual charge of, there are myriad others that do require a system of delivery, whatever that may look like. Speaking for my own case, I required someone else to excise the cancer, define the chemo protocol, and make a determination of my state of health. Even if I had sufficient knowledge to do those things, I would still have required intervention from an outside resource.

The reality is that there are going to be people who will see medicine as a service. This is not a bad thing on its face. While mostly considered a caring profession, medicine is, in fact, a service.

Regardless of how I as an individual choose to see healthcare, the reality is that my vision is not the only vision and that others see things differently. When direction is chosen to revamp the system in general, it is very unlikely that my vision will be the template.

A good (above) discussion from a nurse

In reply to Not really

I liked the disucssion from the nurse above, which I agree with exactly. HOW are we going to manage it, both financially and legally (legally meaning the red tape of how the various procedures will be handled)

How does that change? Your confused.

In reply to Are you both missing something?

In Canada we have a government SUPPORTED medical system, we still pay into it monthly just like insurance but at a fixed, regulated cost instead of the constantly fluctuating and exorbitant cost of a private insurer.

The doctors here are NOT government hired or trained, they are all skilled, independant practitioners and many run private practices and stand outside of the government subsidies if they choose.

In essence we have a choice, a choice which you are refusing to support for your fellowman.

If you want to choose to pay for extended private insurance and see a practitioner of your choice, you are free to do so here. If you wish to only pay a monthly fee to the government and still see the doctor of your liking, you are free to do so.

I can go and see any doctor, any specialist etc. It makes NO difference except the cost is regulated, neither the government nor the insurer decides who I can or can’t see, unlike the USA.

My family doctor offers private surgery, spinal surgey mostly. He is one of the most highly regarded spinal suregons in North America, director of medical boards, Children’s Hospitals etc. If he was in the US, you would have to pay some pretty high-end private insurance premiums to see him.

I can see him for the same price/premium I pay to see any other doctor I choose, $54.00/month.

So all you are doing by not supporting reform is denying OTHERS, who may not normally be able to afford premiums.

Certainly you wouldn’t deny ANYONE a right to healthcare and happiness by being able to see the same quality practitioners that you may.

Or do you want to keep the good doctors to yourself and let the other hacks let the poor suffer?

I don’t have to make that decision, a homeless person is entitled to the same care I am. How can you suggest your quality of doctors would go down when many of your doctors are Canadians?

Thank you, Oz

In reply to How does that change? Your confused.

But I master that department — the ordering of my mind’s parts.

In which connection, I guess you meant, “you’re”, wherein your mind’s parts are — disordered?

Nor, do I give a flying fluck about Canada.

Finally

In reply to Thank you, Oz

You managed to write one line in plain English, well done!

It’s not a matter of what you give a flock about, it’s a matter of your comment that quality health care will go down the chute, which is absolute horsecrap, as seen in similar systems in other nations.

You don’t exactly have a health care system worth bragging about now, just drop your ego an inch and you’ll realize that you could be better off. If you think what you have now works, why do you have a lower mortality rate and fewer people with coverage than other free nations? Uncontrollable costs and unaffordable premiums, but you should be sharp enough to see that yourself.

Tax increase, waaah. pshaw, cry me a river.

You’re welcome

In reply to Thank you, Oz

The one, plain line was that because I spoon-fed you, at your pace.

At your rate, this could take a while.

Santee

In reply to Thank you, Oz

First of all I don’t dislike you so I’ll try and keep insults to friendly banter instead.

As for you dumbing it down, I’m not the only one here who has complained of your cryptic messages. Say what you have to say in plain English, I don’t want to take time to seek meaning on your posts, if you can’t offer a straight opinion, don’t bother posting to me at all.

I certainly wouldn’t want you to feel a need to stoop to my level in order to communicate.

Try this

In reply to Thank you, Oz

I don’t much bother with opinion. That is your level, and I fear you are lost in it.

What is discussion without opinion?

In reply to Thank you, Oz

A discussion without opinion is a lesson, sorry but I’m with school. When it comes to a learned skill, yes I want formal instruction such as the years I spent at BCIT studying to be an automotive tech. When it comes to some knob posting a baited and biased opinion of presidential actions, I am going to offer my opinion, just as everyone else has, including yourself.

What else have you offered here if not conclusions and opinions based loosely on available facts? nothing.

Oz

In reply to Thank you, Oz

The method of Position and Opinion does not work — by definition — for Everything, capital “E”.

It is, rather, blasphemy. But only if you see the above.

You are sweetly innocent.

It certainly works here though

In reply to Thank you, Oz

The initial post is inflamed and baited, it is a post derived from opinion. There are no facts to explore, beyond the facts that shared opinions are based on.

I agree with you wholly in situations where we are discussing legality and people start offering opinions, which don’t fly in law. However this is not one of those cases.

This was an inflammatory personal opinion from the OP, resulting posts are going to be like minded, inflammatory opinions or just conclusions derived from opinion.

Pretend it is what you want, reality is this is a discussion thread and NOBOODY, including the president really has facts to prove anything because it has not been done.

Having lived with a similar system for 40 years, I can attest to it’s effectiveness based on my first hand knowledge of our particular system.

To me, that seems far more accurate than speculations by someone with a bone to pick with the president, an unyielding distaste for his every move and no actual knowledge of how effective similar systems are elsewhere, other than the odd snippets of sensationalized ‘news’ that hits check stand rags.

The OP of the thread has offered such keen insight before, “why does everyone in Canada come to the US for treatment?” “Why did this old man not get elective hip surgery in a hurry?” and other stupid, Enquirer style comments that are obviously related in the USA to generate support for a private medical system. However this doesn’t make such stories true or accurate in any way.

It seems some people just can’t see through the ‘sensational propaganda’ and don’t believe their nation would do such a thing to begin with. Thus the original OPINION shown here is based on fear and unqualified assertions mixed with a heap of personal bias.

You make excellent points

In reply to How does that change? Your confused.

My disagreement with both the British and Canadian systems are more rooted in specifics than generalities. Those specifics pertain to roughly 10% of the population so I can’t say how meaningful they are when the whole is considered.

It may well be that the Canadian model is the better of the options for us. I haven’t really given it the thought it is due. I will.

Keep in mind though

In reply to You make excellent points

That Canada’s system is VASTLY different from the UK’s heathlcare system, in fact our system is probably closer to your own, with the exception of premiums and insurer’s.

What’s $54

In reply to How does that change? Your confused.

based on, or does everyone pay the same amount?

What other costs do you incur?

Medical premiums

In reply to What’s $54

The highest rate of premium paid by residents of British Columbia is $54/month. That includes pretty much unrestricted access to any doctor, specialist, emergency room, surgery, and even things like physio and chiropractors (the last two do charge a nominal fee upon visiting, around $5-$10 per visit and you are limited to a half dozen visits gratis).

Medication, is MOSTLY covered also, for 30 Tylenol 3’s I pay about $7, it is basically just the dispensing fees, the drugs themselves cost pennies. There are more expensive medications of course, but again MOST of that cost is covered. A friend of mine was taking several hundred dollars worth of meds each month after a nasty accident. He ended up paying about $20 per refill, which is then tax deductible anyway.

Over the last few years, the ambulance service has privatized, so unless you have private insurance it’ll cost you $80 for the ride, but given the reduced cost of everything else, it is nothing to contend with. It’s not like its on top of other exorbitant costs.

If you are disabled, unemployed etc. You don’t pay premiums at all, if you are low income or on hardship of some sort, you get a subsidized cost that is just under $20.00/month.

Having grown up with some acute spinal issues, Sherman’s disease and mild scoliosis between my shoulders, I have been through extensive surgeries and extended hospital visits with some of the best spinal surgeons and doctors around. I have undergone numerous CAT scans, MRI, EEGs etc. Not to mention several car accidents when younger, one putting me in a come for 61/2 weeks.

To date neither I nor my parents (when I was younger) spent a single red cent on anything other than heavily discounted costs for medications and a TV for private rooms.

Even private rooms are covered by medical here, if you actually needed one. As for full hospitals and no beds, I have yet to be turned away. In fact many times I have had a room to myself, with three other empty beds in it, of course at ho additional cost.

I did find one year, during a major flu epidemic that the emergency room beds were full and they had patients in the waiting room, but those were odd circumstances and the hospital itself had many beds.

Another thing that also stands out is that no matter how often I go to hospital, whether I have a self inflicted life threatening disease or not, I am covered, I am seen to and my premiums never change, unless by a provincial hike for everyone, which is rare and minimal at that. I smoke cigars but I don’t pay more than a nonsmoker.

Even if I don pay my premiums, I STILL get free coverage. Sure I will still be billed for my monthly fees, they just get added up as a debt, but I don’t get denied or my level of care does not change. I just have a bigger debt for the $54/mo I don’t pay. (Hypothetical of course, my premiums are paid up). I do know someone who owes over $3K in premiums now though, and if he gets sick or has an accident, he is still treated as anyone else and just sent a monthly statement with another $54 added to his debt each month.

You cant opt out, which is the one downfall I see in our system. Whether you like it or not, you owe $54 every month, unpaid you just owe more and more money. But its so cheap it doesn’t even register on the expense radar. I can spend $54 in a few hours at the track, beers etc added and its even more.

There’s no way you could get me to pass that all up for a system where I paid more and chanced the level of care I could get for it.

The concept of leaving hospital or a doctors office with ANY sort of bill is just unfathomable to me.

I’m glad people see Obama the same way I do.

In reply to But why should it be political in the first place?

You will never get good tort reform or complete health plan from a tax and spend president. If you earn less than $250,000 and expect to not pay any additional taxes, what planet may you live on? Ever hear of liquor, cigarette, fuel or VAT taxes? If not, you will and more of them. I don’t drink or smoke but I do buy gasoline and products such as cars and other products which could be taxes at each level of production. This is a tax and spend class conscious president where even members of his own party are growing leery of him.

People?

In reply to I’m glad people see Obama the same way I do.

That’s plural.

His numbers are dropping fast

In reply to I’m glad people see Obama the same way I do.

as more people see that he didn’t have a real plan from the beginning.

Oh, he HAS a plan…

In reply to His numbers are dropping fast

Just not the one most people thought 🙁

And Obama will NEVER do anything to limit the damage

In reply to But why should it be political in the first place?

You seem so sure of Obama and his intentions.

How is it that, after a year of campaigns and promises and 6 months acting as the President, you have all this vast knowledge and insight as to what he thinks and what his next action is?

I woul dguess that you are just parrotign what some relublican whined about and that’s your factual knowledge about The Obama that you keep sharing. Even using the term the Obama is a republican thing.

Are you on the payroll or did they just primise you a Brave New World if you help them get back into office next election?

Youn minged and whined at me for years over being boased against Bush, which I shared with most others in the world. However all yuo do is spend your days and nights misquoting and questioning every move The Obama makes.

News flash, he’s accepted by more Americans and FAR more people worldwide, than Bush ever was.

Many years will have to pass, including the passing of many party menbers, before a Republican Administration will ever be trusted again.

America’s risk of terrorist attacks dropped instantly when Obama was elected, so whether you like him or not, wasn’t your safety a key reason Bush garnered support and why he managed to stay a second term?

With that ‘safer America’ concept being a complete failure with Bush (along with everything else he touches) and now more positive with Obama, why would you now decide that your safety is not the most important aspects of political maneuvering?

All of a sudden, your key political focus has moved from protecting America’s safety and creating positive foreign relations, to twisting economic plans.

Man, you really need to work on building some consistent values.

How two faced you are!

Dumb or just stupid?

In reply to And Obama will NEVER do anything to limit the damage

[i]”News flash, he’s accepted by more Americans and FAR more people worldwide, than Bush ever was. “[/i] You really think his numbers today which are dropping daily, are higher than Bush ever was? And you base this upon what? And no, I don’t give a ratsass about “worldwide” and people like you approving of him or having Bushaphobia before.

Nothing I put in the title or the initial post or any other post was a lie. You being to stupid or dishonest to see that is your problem.

As for my sources, you just amplify your ignorance by assuming anything, and again, show how dishonest your attempts to look cool here are.

And I base what on what?

In reply to Dumb or just stupid?

Obama’s numbers, like the same daily ticker all US presidents face, a play by play scorecard means squat. Of course his numbers are down now, he’s making changes and people in America fear government and fear change.

Your scoffing at what the world thinks, is exactly what got you sucked in to begin with, wake up for god’s sake. To proud of your nation to see relity? You don’t rememer the endless arguments about what a crock of s**t Bush was saying compared to the reality shown around the rest of the globe but selectively edited for US news networks? The debates over who was being censored and how Americans stated that other nations wer ejust showing the worst to make Bush lok bad? You lot will believe anhything it seems, unless common sense or logic is involed.

Bush had hit numers because he scared the crap out of Americans and pulled the wool over your eys for years, despite the rest of the world seeing more realistic, uncut views and calling his bluff. “We are right, we know what’s going on, you don’t know what it’s like to be terrorized!” Sure.

And so far your war has resolved……? Right, squat again.

But bush managed to yank you all along and feel he was saving your lives, in essence he lied and scammed his way into approval, just as everyone around the world was saying for 8 years.

America was like a Bugs Bunny cartoon when he screws over Elmer Fudd and Fudd turns into a heel or a donkey. EEEEaaaawwwww .

As for lies…I said you took his words out of context and parroted them like Steele.

I said you sound like Steele, however his values are so different from your own.

You can make up whatever you like to think I said though, nothing new coming from the reading impaired.

I do not know Steele

In reply to And I base what on what?

so I will just take your word for it.

Neither did I

In reply to I do not know Steele

But are you not using a computer and have access to Google? I know you are not interested, which is amusing as you both share similar views on this issue and he is just as adamantly opposed to The Obama as you are. You never know, you could have been drinking buddies!

If we have similar views

In reply to I do not know Steele

why would I have to look him up to see what he is saying?

Maybe his is reading my posts to get his information? I could see that…. 😀

Simple

In reply to I do not know Steele

Face it you just aren’t very bright at all. You wouldn’t know agreement if it hit you in the face, obviously.

I don’t think you even know what you say yourself, if he was saying the same thing as you, you’d probably call him unresonable and dismiss his comments, not knowing they were your own.

Yes, it appears you really are that dumb.

Assumptions on your part

In reply to I do not know Steele

don’t make it reality.

a question for you about the tort issue

In reply to But why should it be political in the first place?

What should liability of a doctor or medical facility be who caused harm to a patient?

10k?
100k?
1M?
2M?

What if the victim is a 25 year old mother of two who was the sole income for family while the husband was in school finishing a degree and now she is in a constant vegatative state like Terri Schaivo?

How much do you give her husband to lose the rest of his normal life with his wife?

How much do you give her kids for taking away the mother who holds them at night?

How much do you give her family to pay for 24/7 medical care and attention she’ll need for the next 30-55 years?

It’s not so easy to just say:

“Lost an arm? Oh. That’s $150,000.”

What if the arm that is lost belongs to someone like Eddie Van Halen, Tony Romo, or Heidi Klum?

Yes, I don’t think you should be able to sue a doctor for $100M. But if they permanently disable someone to the point that they need medical care most/all of the time, it shouldn’t be limited to a fixed amount like $500k. Convalescent care would use that much up within 10 years.

How about

In reply to a question for you about the tort issue

the actual, provable losses or damages caused.

I would also like to see PEOPLE held responsible for what PEOPLE do. If a doctor botches your surgery, why is the hospital responsible?

Now there could be cases where a different person could be responsible, or more than one, but we should limit such lawsuits to PEOPLE who caused the loss. Either A PERSON OR PERSONS caused it, or it was an unpredictable accident.

why hospitals get sued

In reply to How about

because they employ the staff, much like if someone embezzles your money at Chase then Chase’s insurance has to pay you, not the criminal.

Also if the hospital staff fails to maintain safe conditions for you and you get an hospital-borne illness then it is tortable.

Anyways…I believe in the person being held responsible if it’s a situation where they are in use of someone else’s facility.

But say a hospitalist doctor who is staff screws up and orders you a shot of stuff your chart says you’re allergic to…and you’re brain damaged…then the hospital is liable for your actions since you are part of their “team” and not working for just yourself.

Not exactly the same…

In reply to why hospitals get sued

[i]because they employ the staff, much like if someone embezzles your money at Chase then Chase’s insurance has to pay you, not the criminal.[/i]

In Chase’s case, they have contracted with me to protect my deposits, and the repayment is simply upholding their contractual obligation. The hospital does not guarantee a certain outcome, and most doctors are independent contractors permitted to use the facilities, not employees.

[i]Anyways…I believe in the person being held responsible if it’s a situation where they are in use of someone else’s facility.
[/i]

Or equipment. If I rent a car and cause an accident, is the rental company responsible?

[i]But say a hospitalist doctor who is staff screws up and orders you a shot of stuff your chart says you’re allergic to…and you’re brain damaged…then the hospital is liable for your actions since you are part of their “team” and not working for just yourself.[/i]

Again, it’s quite possible for more than one person to be responsible, but penalizing someone who had no control over the process is not reasonable in my opinion. In your example, I assume the pharmacist was supposed to check the prescription against the patient’s records for allergies or interactions. He would be responsible too for his failure. “The Hospital” would have expected their employers to act properly, so would not necessarily be logically be responsible. Now, if this pharmacist or doctor had a known history, or if the hospital told the pharmacist not to check the order, just fill it, then they too may share in the responsibility. But most of the time a person knows or should know that something is wrong, and his share of the responsibility does not decrease, even if he is “following orders”.

As often as not, a company is targeted simply because they have deep pockets, and the plaintiff’s attorney knows that paying a settlement can often be cheaper than defending a suit, especially against a little guy, who they’d have no hope of recovering legal costs from if the company wins the suit.

Not even close, Tony

In reply to How about

They are doing the work FOR the hospital, and as you well know, that makes everything they do while on-the-job relevant.

You do know for insurance

In reply to a question for you about the tort issue

they do have a list of payouts based on the limb you lose in an industrial accident, right?

First thing to consider, what caused the problem and was it avoidable? Also, the burden of proof is often replaced with emotion and junk science. It seems the people with the valid claims get the shaft while the scammers that higher a shady ambulance chaser strike it rich.

You think everyone that ever knew the person should get a payoff? Based on what? Loss of income is one thing, but other than that…..

Obviously ALL medical costs, present and future, as well as all lost income should be taken into consideration. Beyond that is just looking for a payoff, you give me 50 mill and I will not care that you accidentally hurt daddy?

I think we need more competition.

In reply to I refuse to comment on the political issue.

Employers offer a very limited choice in coverage, and since those employees are locked in to what their company offers, the price is going to be higher.

Give the money that you are paying for health insurance to your employees and let them shop the open market. Tens of millions of new customers will drop prices dramatically, putting them within reach of millions of others.

It will also allow for more product selection than the current ‘single or family’ that most of us have. People can customize for their needs and save even more.

actually

In reply to I think we need more competition.

that would just give the insurance companies more ability to screw with each person.

Insurance carries value mass contracts, since it takes one effort to get hundreds or thousands of people from one source: their employer.

If you want more competition, get more companies to get in the mix offering coverage that is decent. Maybe that will get BCBS and others off their butts rather than negotiating financially-beneficial deals for themselves even if it reduces the covered’s benefit.

Like my insurance now…they are gonna make me meet co-pay and all before i impact my out of pocket max now. Means they pay less and I pay more, and the amount my employer is paying them is more…and my coverage gets no better.

Funny…they reduce my benefit, charge more for it, and it’s all well and good.

Oh well…nothing I can do…other than vote out the nobs in DC and Tallahassee that allow it and hope someone else gets in that will help.

A big problem currently, caused by government

In reply to actually

is not allowing to shop for coverage across state lines, intentionally reducing competition.

maybe caused constitutionally

In reply to A big problem currently, caused by government

I don’t think the federal government can tell a state who is allowed to practice business within their state and under their jurisdiction.

Not a cause of federal operation, but because of the constitutionality of states’ rights.

I wasn’t prevented from shopping across state lines for insurance BTW. I had BCBS-MI at one time, and it cost me double what my BCBS-FL cost me.

I wonder if I was paying that cause I had to pay for auto workers’ retirement insurances? lmao 😉

interstate commerce is federal control

In reply to maybe caused constitutionally

….

intrastate commerce

In reply to interstate commerce is federal control

is controlled by the state…and to practice law, practice medicine, sell insurance, etc., you usually have to be licensed/bonded/insured/registered in the state of operation when you set up a practice there.

Hence, the US government can not under states’ rights tell a state how to certify or regulate businesses operating within their jurisdiction. nor can they force them to give right to operate within a state without such approval as setup under their own law (unless deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court).

Besides that…would you really want a company from Idaho selling you homeowners insurance on a house in Florida when they have no idea of the conditions, weather, risks and hazards down here?

Same goes for health insurance. I don’t think you will ever have the risk of dying in a hurricane. And, I don’t think MI has had the big incidence of cancer clusters like they’ve had all over FL.

There’s just a lot of particulars. And if you let all this cross-state free business happen, you’d have a LOT of businesses selling stuff without doing things right…and then trying to bailout of it when big problems hit.

Florida has had that happening lately with homeowners insurance. 100,000s of people paid premiums on homes for 20-30 years here…never had a claim…and the insurer just closes up and leaves…e.g.-Nationwide, State Farm, etc.

Pretty sad there’s no accountability to make them keep their customers here til they get another provider and leave them without.

Then a guy like me pays taxes to fund the state-backed insurer because corporations come and profiteer here then pull up stakes and leave when their wallet is full.

I don’t need to pay more taxes to the system for the benefit of suits. I already gotta do that for the banks and car companies now.

Jck

In reply to interstate commerce is federal control

[i]Besides that…would you really want a company from Idaho selling you homeowners insurance on a house in Florida when they have no idea of the conditions, weather, risks and hazards down here?[/i]

They have the Weather Channel in Idaho too, you know… 🙂

the weather channel

In reply to interstate commerce is federal control

won’t tell you what parts of Florida have been more frequented by hurricanes, why hurricanes tend to steer clear of Cape Canaveral, etc.

They’re good for seeing them go in when they’re on the move tho!!! :^0

Unfortunately,

In reply to maybe caused constitutionally

States who took stimulus money have given up most of their sovereignty.

How so?

In reply to Unfortunately,

Because they can’t decide how to spend that money?

If your mom gives you money to go to the store for her to get some milk and you can’t spend it on anything else, is that losing your humanity?

Not sure why they lost sovereignty.

Ask the same question

In reply to Unfortunately,

of welfare recipients.

welfare recipients

In reply to Unfortunately,

have more soverignty than i do.

i can’t decide just to go fishing and not have to call in and ask my boss off.

so who has more freedom? me? or the welfare guy?

and you want me to work harder? yeah right. :^0

Who has more freedom?

In reply to Unfortunately,

Fistly, you make living on welfare sound like a cakewalk, fishing all day, no responsibilities, free money that others work for ? niiiice! Unfortunately that is not reality for most people collecting welfare, just those who scam the system while selling dope or working P/T under the table.

Not too many welfare recipients can afford a car, gas, cold beer, bait, a fishing rod etc.

The working class are the one’s in a better position to take a day off as needed, afford to gas up the car, buy a case of beer, a half ounce of dope and drive to a lake to enjoy a day on the water.

If you’re unable to take a day off every now and then to relax and enjoy your earnings, you may want to reconsider your position at work.

Having tried to collect welfare between jobs, lawsuits and accidents, and knowing how little they give you, not enough for rent yet alone food and a day out fishing, I can ssure you it is no walk in the park. It sucks, it’s embarassing, it’s degrading and most people cannot wait to find more to life than collecting welfare, fortunately there is a system in place where they can get job hunting assistance/support, help acquiring a bus pass, work boots and related clothing, enough basic food rations to merely stop from starving to death in teh process and, if lucky, a few packs of smokes if on a real luxury budget.

You are fooling yourself if you think its fun and easy. Just the jumping through hoops to get a check to begin with is more work than I do in a full day now, and you get paid less than the equivalent of a few days work for it.

In fact, I make the equivalent of a welfare check in less than two days. I spend more than a welfare check a day on a weekend.

workign has it’s merits, collecting welfare is not living a life at all.

people think taht because yuo are on welfare, yuo have nothign to do all day and all day to enjoy it. Reliy is, the day is usually full of trying to get work, goin gto appointments with case workers, collecting documents and jumping through the welfare hoops, wishing you could afford to do somethign other than sit at home with nothign to do, no money to go anywhere and nobody to hang out with.

I don’t know if you’ve ever had the grand privilege of needing government support to simply exist until yuo get yoru feet on the ground, but it certainly isn’t something to look forward to and fishing all day is just not in the cards.

taking welfare is hard?

In reply to Unfortunately,

Hm…let’s see.

I go out and work a full-time job.

I work part-time on the side to supplement that, because cost of living is up.

I have 2 elderly parents I have to help take care of that live 3 hours from me, so then it means I have to make sure I do all my domestic responsibilities during week nights so that weekends are usually spent taking care of them.

The people who have the hardest time on welfare are those in rural America where you have to drive miles and miles to get services and what not.

The people in urban areas on public assistance have it WAY easier, because everything is located around them and within close proximity and they have access to public transportation.

And it is degrading? Yeah right. If it was such a negative social and personal stigma to live with, no one would go on it that had any kind of personal pride.

I was unemployed for a while. I couldn’t take it being on the dole. I went out and got a job making $7 an hour (less than the unemployment pay) because I couldn’t stand sitting on my a$$.

Sorry, Oz. But, welfare is not some tasking, belittling, major effort in life to have or deal with in any sense.

And besides, I have been called a lot worse things than “welfare baby” or “scammer” or “lazy a$$” in my life.

And to be totally honest: If I could find medical doctors who’d certify me disabled and help me get Social Security disability and that beefy $2200+ a month I could draw til I die…I would do it in a heartbeat now.

Cause, then I could go do cash-only, tax-free, under-the-table jobs fixing PCs and make another $200-400 a month and live like a king.

So…yay for free rides. I might just catch the gravy train, if I can. 30 years of working is enough for me.

no one would go on it that had any kind of personal pride.

In reply to Unfortunately,

Maybe in the USA it’s a cakewalk and people respect others on welfare and they are all able and simply unwillign to work.

Fortunately that covers a VERY small percentage of our own welfare recipients. It takes a lot of runnign around, even when in the city and things are within 20kms of each other, UI forms to get stamped saying yuo are not eligible, doctors to see if you are claiming temporary/short term disability, job search reports to be handed in, traiing classes to attend and you get a whopping $53,00 a month for it, which for thse that really do need and qualify for welfare are unable to live on or even pay teh rent with. I have yet to meet a single person, livign on welfare that would say so in company, it is the most degrading system of funding known to Canadians, unless of course it’s just a scam on top of your other job.

In Toronto they get a bit more as the rent is higher, they also pay more for utilities, food, etc. how effective is a system of support for the needy if it doesn’t even help cover the most basic of needs, such as housing. That’ swhy myself and millions of other Canadians always support a rise in welfare payments, though many scam it, thos ein need to not get the help they need to get on their feet again. Most people on welfare are forced ino other acts for money now, whether prostitution, selling drugs, theft and fencing etc. It’s a damn hard rut to avoid and an almost impossible one to escape once you are there. Fun huh, fishing and enjoying the sun?

The AVERAGE price for a 1 bedroom in the Lower Mainland is $868.00/mo, a 1 bedroom in Vancouver averages $1100.00/mo. So if you are a welfare recipent, you have to move into skid row just to make the rent, and than face high crime ratesm unsafe streets, daily breakin’s of your ‘room’ etc.

Sounds like fun, right?

As for $2,200/mo plus anpother $200-$400 for side work, how can a person revert to living with that low of an income if you are used to working in a decent paying field for years? I couldn’t even get by with that as spending money for the month (including gas and related ‘luxury’ expenses).

When I am in the US, nothing is really that much cheaper than up here anymore, I simply don’ tknow how Americans live on such tight budgets yet are such heavy consumers of whatever they are told is a good deal, and still make ends meet.

I don’t know how much a welfare recipient gets there but it must be a lot more than here if people are so happy collecting it.

Does everyone there owe a lifetime of money in loans or something?

pretty much

In reply to Unfortunately,

a) Most Americans owe money. It’s the American way. Spend your ass off, give your kids ownership of stuff 5 years or more before your death (to avoid estate tax), then die and leave nothing but bills and stuff.

b) Here in the USA if you get on welfare, you get the following:

1) A check for $xxxx depending on number of dependents, etc.

2) Free medical from city/county/state health depts.

3) Housing assistance from HUD (e.g.- Section 8) that makes your rent/lease payment sometimes $0.

4) Food vouchers

5) Free meals for any and all dependent children in their schools

6) Federal school grants to get a free education

7) Assistance from utility companies to help keep them in power/water

etc etc etc.

So basically someone on welfare who gets a place to live where the landlord accepts the HUD payment as full rent payment has $0 rent cost and usually reduce cost utilities.

That’s how they afford Cadillacs and Lincolns and what not. They get things free from the system, then take their welfare check and buy expensive stuff.

Hell, the lady I bought my house from was on public assistance programs. How’d she do it?

She had a husband, but they never legally married. But, they co-habitated. So, he worked and made money to support the household.

She worked as a sub teacher, but never made more than a few thousand per year. Since they had 2 sons, she qualified for all that since she was never legally married to him.

Being “welfare” people, they had gotten the money/assistance to build that home, as well as later some kind of money a department gave them so they could buy a $14k grand piano for their son who was a classically trained pianist so he could practice and go on tours with various organizations.

Now…how is that fair to any of us who work our butts off and have less and less, and she can scam the system and get a $14k grand piano, a cheap house, and drive a Volvo?

Yeah…the USA welfare system has a lot of scammers…but, I won’t go on welfare.

I’ll get disability if anything, since I’ve paid in over 20 years into it.

The root of the current problem

In reply to A big problem currently, caused by government

Business gives health insurance as an employee benefit. Business has no control over how benefits are used, and no ability to moderate the cost.

Employees demand it, because they’re scared to death by the costs of health care. They use as much as they can, because they don’t pay more than a small fraction of the actual cost.

Insurance companies don’t mind rising costs, because they just raise the premium.

Hospitals and doctors don’t mind being paid more for more work, not one bit.

There’s not a single point in the whole chain of participants where somebody has the incentive and the option to say “no”.

For the employer there is

In reply to The root of the current problem

and that is where the companies that want to stay in business are opting for more reasonably priced packages that require a deductible on the part of the employee.

Also, more are going with the health savings account, so you see exactly where the money is going to and DO care.

People in the Auto industry and state/federal employees are the ones that have the free ride and the license to thrill that has driven the costs through the roof.

[u][i]BULLSH!T[/i][/u] — Nobody else has called it, but I will

In reply to For the employer there is

[i]People in the Auto industry and state/federal employees are the ones that have the free ride and the license to thrill that has driven the costs through the roof.[/i]

I can’t speak for the auto industry, but I can speak for everybody else.

State employees, at least in SC (and probably most other states) do [u]not[/u] receive a free ride. When I was teaching, family medical coverage equivalent to what I receive from Tricare Prime (and I pay for that!) was available for a monthly premium of $383.75/month. That was in 2000. The current monthly premium is $629.70. http://www.eip.sc.gov/publications/2009ACTIVERATES.pdf?ts=620753150 (50kb PDF)

Federal employees (except the military) also pay premiums for their health insurance: http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/rates/index.asp. The only federal employees who pay no health insurance premiums are active military, and even they have to pay premiums for family dental care.

Wind dies, sail flaps, boat dead in water.

Ok, amend that to Michigan

In reply to For the employer there is

they have a sweet package, and I am surprised that it wouldn’t be consistent with the rest of the teachers union.

I have family that will have that coverage with a full retirement in less than a year.

boat dead in water

In reply to For the employer there is

Oh ,and MAN OVERBOARD!!!!

That’s the false premise.

In reply to The root of the current problem

[i]They use as much as they can, because they don’t pay more than a small fraction of the actual cost.[/i]

They pay it, or the consumers do, however you choose to look at it, but businesses don’t pay for anything!

Rationale doesn’t work

In reply to That’s the false premise.

When companies pay for health insurance, it complicates their business plan. It’s like a big payroll tax. They can raise prices to cover expenses only just so far before consumers will stop buying.

High health care costs, like high taxes, reduce the volume of business that can be done, or make the expected profits so much less compelling that entrepreneurs will find less justification for risking their money.

Which is exactly…

In reply to That’s the false premise.

[i]High health care costs, like high taxes, reduce the volume of business that can be done, or make the expected profits so much less compelling that entrepreneurs will find less justification for risking their money. [/i]

… why business should get out of the business of offering health insurance. Give the employee the money instead.

A secret glimpse into the soul of employers

In reply to That’s the false premise.

Giving the employer’s health insurance contribution directly to the employee instead of to an insurance company will not result in extra money for the employee. The employer would simply reduce pay by a corresponding amount.

These guys aren’t suckers, you know.

Why?

In reply to That’s the false premise.

they’re paying it anyway. But if you’re concerned that employers would try to cheat, mandate it.

They won’t have the administrative costs associated with it either. Somehow I don’t think you’ll get much resistance to companies reducing their costs.

I can get better coverage now

In reply to actually

for half the cost. I can then whittle away on THAT getting rid of stuff I don’t need.

Unfortunately, that “half” is higher than the 25% I am paying now.

That’s part of the problem… people don’t realize what they’re really paying… they think they’re paying their $300 a month and the employer is “giving” the rest to them. They’re not. They’re paying for it, out of money they could be paying you!

Once insurance carriers don’t have the “captive consumer”, they will lower prices, or risk losing to the competition.

Oh, and this will mean less administrative costs for the company too.

really?

In reply to I can get better coverage now

Kinda funny.

My neighbor, who is in relatively good health (he wears hearing aids from ear damage from Vietnam, and takes a cholesterol med as a preventative measure) was denied by all insurance carriers for basically no ill health conditions.

Of course, I’m overweight and all and could have insurance because I’m on a group plan.

Individuals are getting screwed daily by insurance. Just go talk to hospitals sometime about the uninsured they have to take in for emergency treatment and get nothing for it.

Plus, I know that when I had COBRA from my last insured job I was paying over $600 a month just for health…no dental or vision or life or disability…for 1 person.

It’s crazy. It really is. And, I couldn’t have gotten insurance without the COBRA mandate.

So, the single person is getting the screws to them.

Cough gasp sputter!

In reply to I can get better coverage now

$600.00? Or did you mean $60.00/month?

$600.00 is almost my entire racing and drinking budget for the month,I wouldn’t get health insurance at all if that was the case here.

I assume you meant $60 then?

Let me clarify the amount:

In reply to Cough gasp sputter!

When I began paying COBRA for my medical plan through BCBS of Florida, I was paying:

$675.00 per MONTH for single medical coverage only

After a few months (beginning of the new fiscal year and new contract) it went to $707.00 per MONTH.

Now you see why I think insurance companies are rip off artists?

No competition.

In reply to Let me clarify the amount:

Cobra is essentially a monopoly. When I retire, my wife’s coverage jumps to $960 a month if she stays on my plan. We found some half-way decent medical/pharmacy for $199 a month for her that has a yearly “open enrollment” (no refusals for pre-existing), so I’m paying the $960 until next June… or she could just “get a job” 🙂

Pre-existing clauses are a problem, but I can see their position… Why should they be required to cover someone likely to have a lot of claims for the same price they charge healthy people with few claims. If health insurers were allowed to charge based on risk, like every other kind of insurance does, costs for those who take care of themselves would drop.

I haven’t questioned that

In reply to Let me clarify the amount:

I agree all insurance companies, regardless of industry are rip off artists. Insurance companies make money by charging people who are not claiming and using that money to outwiegh those who do, even those who pull insurance scams, your premiums pay for that too.

In that same sense, I feel it is better to have a specific amount of tax dollars allocated by the government at a controlled rate instead. People complain about taxes being used to help those who cant help themselves, however insurance companies are a far bigger rip off that tax allocation.

So a couple of points of your tax dollars goes into a shared medical system, that seems a lot better than an unregulated company charging you more and more to pay for other people’s health issues and banking on the fact that you won’t get sick, and thus offering you a slightly better rate due to good health.

If people didnt get sick or injured, your premiums would be next to nothing, as people actually make claims, you are therefore paying for their healthcare anyway, why not have it government regulated instead of private and exorbitant?

Is there any possibility that your MONTHLY taxes would increase proportionately to the $707.00 you pay today? i wouldn’t think so myself.

I think a lot of people whining abotu taxes and those who earned it are not realizing how much they pay already to care for others who may be careless and harm themselves (costing everyone more money) are not supposed to partake in certain activities but do anyway (injuring and costing everyone else more money) etc.

Yes, insurance is a MASSIVE scam from all angles of perspective.

You’re still missing it Oz

In reply to Let me clarify the amount:

[i]In that same sense, I feel it is better to have a specific amount of tax dollars allocated by the government at a controlled rate instead. People complain about taxes being used to help those who cant help themselves, however insurance companies are a far bigger rip off that tax allocation.[/i]

I give my money to the insurance guy voluntarily, and he is voluntarily accepting the risk that I won’t use as much as I pay in. If I don’t think it’s worth the price, I can switch to another company. I can choose not to have pregnancy coverage, or choose to have a higher deductible, or choose to pay doctors out of pocket and insure only the big things… I have choices!

With government, I have no choice… pay what they say, when they say, or go to prison. I know you’re accustomed to that and think it’s great and the way things should be… but I don’t! There is no valid ethical principle that beholds me to support another against my will.

COBRA is a monopoly???????

In reply to Let me clarify the amount:

It’s NOT a monopoly, because you have the OPTION to go and SEEK OTHER INSURANCE.

COBRA is mainly to make sure you can keep insurance if you leave a job and no one else will insure you.

That was the case with me. Because I’m not a beanpole (even tho I can walk 9 miles with the skinniest dude out there), I was “uninsurable”.

Otherwise, I would have been without health insurance for 7 months.

Next insurance executive I see trapped under something heavy…is gonna get left to die :^0

does that mean if social medical care passes, Tony…

In reply to Let me clarify the amount:

that you’ll be moving to Idaho and living in a powerless cabin? lol :^0

BTW…I have no choice either. My employer won’t give me the money for my insurance and let me shop. I have to use it or lose it.

Is that wrong as well?

And I’ll make one other point again:

No private company is beholden to you in any way to give you quality service.

Your government is, since you control who runs it by vote.

So, you DO have a choice in government-run healthcare by way of your right to vote as an American.

Enough said.

Tony<"pay what they say, when they say, or go to prison"

In reply to Let me clarify the amount:

I have had friends who owe several thousand in unpaid medical fees. they STILL go to teh hospital or doctor and get help, they DON’T go to jail as you so suggest, their outstanding debt just increases and eventually they’ll keep your tax returns to overcome the debt owed. You ‘go to jail for not paying medical premiums. As for having a choice or not, I pay in a year what a single American seems to pay in one MONTH!

I am bring forced to save money, how dare they!

You would rather pay more than 10X the amount I pay and have THAT money used to help others, who also pay a mere fraction of their own medical costs, than pay a measly monthly premium (in my case in BC it is a max of $54.00) and have the exact same coverage and the exact same people helped with it? if you can’t pay, it is reduced and you still get the full coverage. there’s no deciding what you can claim and what you cannot, you are simply covered at a fraction of your current rate.

You prefer to voluntarily pay (as jck noted $700/month) than to be responsible for paying $54.00/mo.

They also don’t TAKE the premiums, they are payable by the individual. It’s not part of my income tax, though costs are covered at my existing tax levels, it is part of a monthly payment that I make through my bank when I can afford it.

How, is it different in ANY way from what you do? Except the fact that you are bound to an unrealistic policy with outrageous costs that still goes to help others. If someone goes to hospital for a week and some surgery, do you really think that THEIR $8400/yr would cover their costs and it isn’t a matter of raising your rates to pay for THEIR needs too?

DO you have a choice who your money goes with your existing system? No, not at all, your only way out is to not hold any coverage yourself, great alternative there!

You can shop around? So one policy charges $700/mo another charges $685/mo? Much better to have such choices, why would anyone choose to pay a mere $54 instead.

You can reduce your coverage to reduce your costs? So you STILL pay 10X what I would pay and I get FULL, unquestionable coverage.

Tony, your argument is absolutely senseless from a financial standpoint, which is what you are trying to make it.

You CHOOSE to pay hundreds of dollars, where I am obligated to pay $54.00. Oh hell me freedoms are being trampled on, I only wish I had a choice to pay a lot more!

You are so set on making your own choices, even when the policy provider essentially chooses how much you pay and where they spend your money, and yet you feel that is smarter than paying a mere fraction of that money and having full care without question.

You sir, make no logical sense at all!

You simply trust a private company with deep pockets to redistribute your funds than your elected government. And somehow that’s different/better for you.

What is it? Pride? Morals?

What pride is there in knowing that you choose to pay many times what you could pay?

What morals allow you to feel that being ripped off by an insurance agent (and then being told where you can or can’t seek help and what help you are entitled to) is better than paying a mere fraction of that for full, unquestioned coverage?

You don’t see that your premiums are increased in order to outweigh costs incurred by others?
What CHOICE is that?

If you don’t like them you can go elsewhere? Then you’ll still be paying too much and doing so in order to support other people’s needs.

I just don’t know how one man can be so blind and clueless to reality, just because of strong morals against WHO takes his money from him to help other people.

SIMPLE QUESTION:
If the government offered you a car for $1,000.00 but you had to let them take out 10 monthly installments of 100.00 automatically, would you tell them to get lost because you would rather VOLUNTARILY pay 10 monthly installments of $1,000.00 for the same car at $100,000.00 from a car dealer instead?

If not, that’s exactly what you are supporting here.

I was “uninsurable”.

In reply to Let me clarify the amount:

It seems that in order to qualify for coverage, or at least affordable coverage (if that’s what you call nearly a grand a month) you have to pose no risk of every needing that coverage.

That way they can redistribute your premiums for you so that people who ARE sick can get help, which again raises your premiums. How kind of you all, but how is that any different, other than being a lot more expensive?

From reading this thread it really seems that many American just don’t understand the concept of insurance and how it is a cash grab by the provider to line their pockets. Instead they seem to feel it is a valuable industry worth protecting…how lost! insurance of ANY kind on ANY level is a pure rip off, a scam, a sham, a swindle, a con job, a fools game etc.

Oz, you misunderstand insurance

In reply to Let me clarify the amount:

Just because they charge a lot does not mean they are ripping you off. They have to collect enough in premiums to pay their claims. Many people who have no insurance only buy it because they are sure they will need to collect. It’s expensive, after all. If insurors have reason to suspect you are a costly case, then they need to charge you more, or limit risk by prohibiting payment for pre-existing conditions. Like, if your wife was already pregnant when you bought insurance, you get no OB coverage.

It is cheaper in an employer situation because of the group concept. Lots of people get a much cheaper deal because the large group has no more risk of getting sick than any other equal number of typical Americans. Also, almost all of the group participates, because the employer eats most of the cost, leaving the employee side of the bill very affordable, and a relative bargain. I pay about $4800 a year for very good coverage for the whole family, including dental, vision, drug, life insurance, legal insurance, and disability benefits. Probably $3000 is for the medical alone, and it would be half that for single-person coverage.

Group rates go up if too many healthy people take themselves out of the group. Group rates go up if too many sick people get into the group. If the group is just a statistical average, then it can be affordable. Still, the out-of-pocket amounts for Americans probably make a Canadian crap his pants.

I remember in the 1970s there was some state-funded California medical insurance for the poor that went broke. Seems their recruiters had trouble finding poor people willing to sign up, until they began to visit doctors’ waiting rooms. They had no trouble signing up folks they found there.

Don’t underestimate my experience here

In reply to Let me clarify the amount:

I am licensed to sell insurance and have done so. I know exactly how insurer’s work and how the bean counters think.

When I pay $54.00 a month, plus a portion of my monthly income tax to a medical plan, I know that I pay far less than it would evre cost for my medical bills in a year. Therefore OTHER PEOPLE’S money overcome the additional burden my premiums don’t pay for. If it DIDN’T, the government would require higher premiums in order to continue the plan.

The most popular complaint by Americans toward the Canadian system is that they shouldn’t have to pay for other people who don’t pay their way themselves.

However, that’s exactly what you do with private insurance.

Let’s assume you are healthy and have a heart attack, it happens to the best of us, do you feel that your monthly premiums cover the entire cost of a triple bypass as well as hospitalization time, administrative costs etc? Obviously not.

So where do ethe extra money come from?

It comes from the other people who pay into the system but don’t make a claim for expenses. In essence THEY are paying for your surgery, or at least the portion that your premiums don’t cover. When YOU don’t visit a doctor and still pay premiums, YOUR premiums outweigh the addiitonal expense of others.

So in essence it is no different than our own, SOMEONE has to pay the costs unless you are payign the full cost out of pocket, which you aren’t with insurance.

An insurance company is a FOR profit organization, not a ‘break even and perhaps get a little tax money to help with expenses’ type of company. In fact, insurance companies are some of the wealthiest around, besides of course pharmaceutical companies, which are often funded and partially owned/financially backed by insurers.

The medical profession in America is an expensive, overpriced and VERY profitable
business. If they find the costs outweigh the income, they raise YOUR rates so they make more profit.

However that is NOT how a subsidized system works.

The Canadian government is not out to profit from medical services, it doesn’t make money on drugs, treatments or premiums. In fact it is a low cost simply to overcome SOME of the burden, it is a non-profit/loss based system, the absolute opposite of how the US system is designed to be profitable.

Back to American complaints, if Americans complain abotu Canada’s system because they are paying for other people’s costs, even though that payment is less than 10% of what you currently pay for your own personal coverage, how do they accept paying 10X more than I do to overcome expenses other insured citizens incur?

If what we do is not morally right, isn’t paying 10X more than that an absolute rip off? How can it not be when it is in a unregulated, private, for profit system?

It costs Canadians more than $50 or $100 a month

In reply to Let me clarify the amount:

Canada spends about half what America does on health care. We spend $6714 per person (2006); in Canada the same year it was approx $3700. That’s more like $300 per month, a long way from the insurance premiums you pay.

While Canadian health care is far cheaper, and Canadians seem to be more satisfied and secure than Americans with their plan, you can in no way say you’re paying only $700 a year. You pay a much larger bundle in taxes to support your health.

You just pay, in the end, a lot less than we do.

my friend in Ottawa who works for the Canadian government

In reply to Let me clarify the amount:

pays $.28 extra every paycheck to have a supplemental plan where he can choose any dentist to go to for treatment.

For me to have that, I would have to pay an additional $10+ a paycheck to be able to get the same level benefit from out-of-network doctors as those already in-network.

Scary. Where do I sign up to pay an extra $1000 a year again for social healthcare, since I’m already paying it and not getting that option?

Oh well…it doesn’t matter…hopefully I’ll not need insurance much longer.

C’MON LOTTO TICKET!!! :^0

Delbert

In reply to Let me clarify the amount:

To be clear, I have said several times that is a cost for subsidized medical. The subsidy being the taxation part of our system. Bottom line though, even if the did away with all medical tomorrow, my taxes would remain the same, I am not going to start paying less, government’s do not do that. At best, they may make it APPEAR as if it was given back, by offering some form of rebate but that would pale in comparison to the amount taken in taxes and paid into medical support to begin with.

Like they did with hydro, we had paid a surplus so everyone got $100.00 credit.

My friend pays over that each month for his hydro (hydro is what we refer to our power as because it is hydro-electric power which used to be provided by the provincial crown corporation BC HYdro).

I have it easy, my 2 bedroom apartment costs (get this!) $17 DOLLARS every TWO months. that’s right, eight dollars and fifty cents per month (sshhhhhh!). 😉 the “Lord of the Land” pays for heat & hot water and I pay for electrical, it’s still pretty damn cheap though ,don’t you think?
So when I was rebated $100.00 lets just say I had abotu a year without paying for hydro.

Anyway, back on track…I understand our taxes are used to support the medical system, again though that wouldn’t change if it wasn’t used that way, they just allocate it to something else.

This is also why I often debate the tax issue with Americans, it seems so many Americans feel that if they dropped services, they would have more money, but government’s don’t think nor operate that way, they would just reallocate it to something else. It may be something you favour and support but millions of others don’t, it may be something else you feel is a waste of tax money but others like.

The bottom line is, we all pay taxes and that’s never going to change. For MY tax dollars I get medical coverage, how about you? More funding to help save your souls from evil Saddam’s cronies just in case they do have WMD’s and MIGHT be plotting against you?

I have health coverage and very few enemies that I need protection from. (I’d say none but I am sure SOMEONE doesn’t like Canada and as I don’t know who it is, hopefully I can be protected from them) I know which side of the border I’d rather be on anyway.

I’ll side with health care and safety assurance, over fear, sickness and arms.

JCK, Dental in Canada

In reply to Let me clarify the amount:

..is not part of government paid for healthcare in Canada, unless its for somethign like facial reconstruction or if a dental issue becomes a medical issue requiring hospitalization (absess).

That .28 cents your friend pays is like a fractional co-pay. I happen to know what my employer pays for me, they actually publish an annual statement, and its much more than that. The insurance company for my dental/drugs etc is a private company. There are caps and limits and so on, just like US plans. Having worked for a government agency at one point, I know how good the benefits were, and only wish I had that level of benefits now.

James

Political expediency

In reply to President Obama says chance for healthcare overhaul is slipping away

If Congress doesn’t act this year, it won’t act next year.

Next year is an election year for a third of the Senate and all of the House. Those incumbents will want all the campaign money they can get out, including donations from the established medical finance system (insurers, pharmaceuticals, etc). Congress won’t do anything next year that might upset those big-dollar donors.

In this respect, a health care initiative is no different from any other legislation that upsets any of the big industries.

What you are telling me, the key to TheObama policies

In reply to Political expediency

“follow the money”?

So much for all his talk about doing what is right, instead of what is easy.

Also a shame he never said to do something right, the right way.

Not at all.

In reply to What you are telling me, the key to TheObama policies

Your first sentence is right as far as it goes, but it’s not key to just Obama’s policies. It’s key to every president’s attempt to pass a major policy agenda. If it’s stepping on someone’s toes, someone who makes major contributions, it’s easier to get it done in an odd-numbered year.

Look at all the flack the administration is catching from Congress about attempting to drop the F-22. That’s a clear cost savings, but Congress is defending the program because it’s big defense industry donors want to save it.

As to Obama’s talk of doing what’s right vs. easy, I’m strictly addressing the impact of election contributions to -Congress- affecting legislative timetables. You apparently know more of his quotations than I do, and I’m sure you know better than to trust any politicians’ campaign promises.

Edited to change ‘even-numbered year’ to ‘odd’.

I really don’t know

In reply to Political expediency

what “big industries” you think are going to be upset! This legislation FORCES more people to buy their products!

They’ll make out like bandits while small employers are going to be forced either out of business, or to fire some employees to buy insurance for the rest.

Yet another illustration that the party that claims to be for the little guy really isn’t. But the sheep will follow anyway… they can’t see where the shepherd is leading them, all they can see is clouds of dust and sheep butts.

hardly an accurate comparison

In reply to I really don’t know

you make it sound like TheObama is out front leading us, when it is more accurately like the native Americans stampeding the herd off the cliff for the easy kill…..

Not under all conditions.

In reply to I really don’t know

“This legislation FORCES more people to buy their products!”

Depends on which legislation you’ve seen. I’ve seen some that sets up a government-run option, and Big Medical doesn’t want that. I don’t think there’s any chance that a ‘gov’t only, single payer’ solution will emerge, but if Uncle Sugar is providing coverage for a large minority then his ability to negotiate prices goes up.

Will do the same it did for home owner coverage in Florida

In reply to Not under all conditions.

Ask JCK how much it would be for private hurricane insurance, and what impact government had in it.

Negotiate?

In reply to Not under all conditions.

No, they’ll simply TELL them. Oh, and they’ll tell you too.

Be fair

In reply to Political expediency

That would mean JD would have to have the attention span and patience to read more than one sentence before contriving his attack.

Every Bill seemingly has to be rushed through.

In reply to President Obama says chance for healthcare overhaul is slipping away

I doubt that any of our legislators can read the full content of any Bill.
I’m all for healthcare reform. I don’t know where to start. I can guarantee you that I personally don’t want to see caps on the amount I could collect if some doctor screwed up and permanently hurt or killed my wife. That cap on lawsuits is out for me.
Hasn’t healthcare reform been sort of on the agenda for the past 30 years? Seems to me that in that period of time there were probably some good attempts to pass decent legislation. Sure, times have changed but it seems as if President Obama could empanel a large group of experts from all affected areas and have them develop a long term, cohesive plan instead of creating a slap-dash plan that is likely to cost more than it should.
From my perspective, the poor and people living on fixed incomes are going to be hurt with any more out of pocket expense. Some more than others. I know that I’m not going be thrilled to have to pay hundreds/month for insurance.
I don’t want to hear about tort reform being the solution to all of our problems. As I said, I’ll sue like a madman if someone hurts or kills the one I love. It’s going to take more than a few hundred thousand to placate ME! What if she required in-home or nursing home care for the rest of her life? She’s young yet. Should a doctor’s screw up cause us/me to go broke taking care of her? What if our house required serious modification for her to get around. Same question as before.
Speaking of tort reform, as I understand it, speaks in favor of the medical profession and not in favor of those it serves. If I’m not mistaken medical errors kill more people each year than guns do. Outlaw doctors and nurses!

The issue of tort

In reply to Every Bill seemingly has to be rushed through.

there are a lot of cases that are just BS, with junk science winning based upon an emotional case, rather than an actual case or mistake made.

In the US, we have so many scumbags that are only looking to strike it rich by suing someone, which is NOT the same thing you are referring to.

It is total BS that people can sue “big tobacco” without turning around and suing the ATF who oversees the legal sale of such. No one in North America is unaware of the dangers of smoking, yet they smoke anyways.

In this instance I’ll just take your word for much of what you say.

In reply to The issue of tort

To be honest about it, I just don’t care enough to look it up.
I only know of two malpractice cases personally. Both were settled for millions of dollars. In one case, my landlord’s wife went in for a ‘simple’ operation and the anesthesiologist screwed up somehow leaving his wife pretty much a vegetable.
The other case was one where one of my worker’s son went in for a simple tonsillectomy and was accidentally killed.
Neither case was an emotional affair as there was clear evidence that the doctors screwed up. For Daryl’s son the doctors were actually arguing in court over who was more to blame.
I totally agree with the first sentence of your last paragraph. Never thought of it myself. I’d love to see someone sue ’em. That’d make my day.

That is the point

In reply to In this instance I’ll just take your word for much of what you say.

separate the valid cases as you pointed out from the fraud and frivolous.

The bogus cases

In reply to In this instance I’ll just take your word for much of what you say.

are where they know something now that they didn’t know then but are suing knowing they can’t win but also knowing that it’ll be cheaper for the company to settle than to fight.

I don’t have a problem with tort reform.

In reply to The issue of tort

I don’t have a problem with someone suing for malpractice to recover costs of the initial treatment, or for costs to correct the initial errors.

I also don’t have a problem with a cap on ‘pain and suffering’ or punitive damages, or a cap on damages when the malpractice results in death. These are where the real dollar damage is being done. I don’t have problem with malpractice lawyers being limited to a maximum fee instead of a percentage, which I perceive encourages them to drive up the P&S damages.

Tort reform is only one element

In reply to Every Bill seemingly has to be rushed through.

But one that needs to be on the table.

I grant that malpractice SHOULD have a point of relief to the injured individual. I am not in any way arguing that doctors should be able to cause harm and be held harmless. I am arguing that specious lawsuits should not make it into the courtroom and that I should not have to worry about my license being endangered because I provide emergency care to you under the direction of a doctor.

Tort reform would look at WHY a medical professional is being sued. Did they willfully cause harm? Did they make REASONABLE effort to provide a solution? Are they negligent because they considered the possibility of zebras but failed to consider gazelles?

I think that defensive medicine can do more harm than good but anymore, that is the only way that the medical professional can protect themselves.

Tort reform should be exactly that. Reform. An examination of the criteria that permits a medical professional to be sued out of existence. I don’t think that caps are a reasonable answer. If the doctor has done something that will result in requirements for ongoing care, those costs should be borne by the doctor. But being able to successfully sue a doc because he/she intervened in a suicide attempt and saved the patient’s life? Isn’t that what he was SUPPOSED to do?

Believe me, there is plenty of room to examine and reform that doesn’t reduce the rights of the patient and still provides for a less expensive delivery of care.

Punitive damages

In reply to Tort reform is only one element

You need to make a choice.

Standing outside your system and watching we see medical malpractice litigation with huge punitive or other non-economic damages unrelated to the future cost to the plaintiff awarded by juries who have no concept of the fact that they are going to be paying these damages themselves by increases in medical charges to cover the Doctor’s insurance. Nothing is free…

So long as the main beneficiary in your medical system is lawyers, you have no chance to reform anything.

Neil 🙂

I found a way to bugger you neil.

In reply to Punitive damages

Don’t worry you won’t need a butt plug.

I was looking at my dental costs from last year and my proposed work thsi year, full veneers etc. and as it is elective I won’t get good coverage form my insurance. (we pay private dental here, though dentists are regulated for time and charges and can’t rip you off)

So I was also lookign at options should i say, move back to England in March 2010. Right now, if i moved back without work, I could collect the pogey and it would get me a full set of free veneers! From YOUR back pocket! It only lasts 6 months when I move back, after that I have ot take care of my own, but it would be good for a year than move back here if I missed the endless trees, lakes and mountains too much.

Hey, I’d even promise to send you a postcard of my new, perfect smile! (or sh** eating grin whatever you want to call it).
;D

Ah, but

In reply to I found a way to bugger you neil.

If you can find an NHS dentist – one that will do it for “free” – within six months, then you’d be a very, VERY lucky fella!

Dentists have mostly opted out.

😀

Actually

In reply to Ah, but

I did a little digging and as I would be landed and veneers require a specialist, I am allowed to arrange it ahead of time, even with a private practice.

Loopholes, kinda odd, but a buddy that just went back for a few months prearranged to get a new bridge and elective oral surgery from private practitioner at no cost, thanks to you kind hearted folks at home that look after ex-pats out of the warmth of your hearts.

Completely agree

In reply to Punitive damages

But then I have always known that you and I see eye to eye on this.

And it’s the same with anything else,

In reply to Punitive damages

Any cost or tax imposed on any company is going to come from YOUR pocket. All these people who chant “Tax the rich. Tax the rich.” are too stupid to know they’re shooting themselves in the foot.

You know what it is… too many people today weren’t spanked as children… That knocks the blood back up into the head, and children become smarter 🙂

Yes, but

In reply to And it’s the same with anything else,

lawyers don’t actually “add value” to any product. Their major contribution to your medical system is to ramp up the costs and indirectly force inappropriate or unnecessary treatment.

As for the spanking, I was never spanked as a child. God help us all if I had been and were any smarter.

🙂

hehhehheh

In reply to Yes, but

Okay. I’ll give you that one.

Neither does

In reply to Yes, but

[i]lawyers don’t actually “add value” to any product.[/i]

… government! You could tax everyone in the US who made more than a million dollars (about 258,000 of them in ’06) at 100% and it STILL wouldn’t pay for Obama’s $2+ trillion health care plan!

But you spend more than that already!

In reply to Neither does

US healthcare spending was $2 trillion in 2007. If you took that money – it’s probably closer to $3 trillion by now – and just directed it properly, it would more than pay for what you need and, probably, what most of you all want as well.

🙂

I do, however, see a few problems in “just” and lots of problems in “properly”.

The $2.1 trillion

In reply to Neither does

(more like $3.5 by the time it gets going) is just for those who currently are not covered!

That’s over $50,000 ($80,000 using the $3.5 trillion estimate) a year for each uninsured man, woman, and child in the country.

That is not affordable, by ANY country!

So what was your excuse?

In reply to And it’s the same with anything else,

Blood clot in your arse?

reasons

In reply to President Obama says chance for healthcare overhaul is slipping away

[i]President Obama over the last few days has stated how urgent they quickly move forward his agenda of a government run health before the chance can slip away, not to return for generations. His words, paraphrased of course.[/i]

Of course… 😉

[i]My question for supporters of Obama has two parts.

One, if his plan is sound, why would something that complicated be done in such a rush?[/i]

Well, it might be to perhaps get it through Congress before Pelosi, Graham, Boxer, et. al., have time to put their grubby mits on it and put in pork that their “constituency” (put in parentheses, because I really meant to say … PACs/SIGs/lobbies/etc) influences them.

[i]Two, if his plan is sound, why would it either pass now or not be available again for generations?[/i]

Probably because if we don’t take the tax monies that will be raised by the $1+ put on a pack of cigarettes by the US government, Congress will figure out a way to blow that on something like they have Social Security’s funds.

[i]Or is he rushing things through so people don’t have a chance to see what is really in the plan, like he did with his non-stimulating stimulus package?[/i]

Could be. But like I said, it is probably more likely to push it through before too many committees have time to write absurd pork into it.

Of course, I don’t like it either way. It needs to be done right, if we are going to have social healthcare. Otherwise, we’ll end up with a system like Canada has…rather than something better done like the Dutch, Italians, or Australians have.

Can you imagine being in another country, and rather than having to wait til the next morning to get your child’s prescription for antibiotic like you have to in the United States (even at some hospitals the pharmacy closes at night), you can go to the local foreign pharmacy and call a number on the wall and the pharmacist lives less than 5 mins away and will drive down anytime to fill your order day or night?

Well, that’s how it happened for Gary Dell’Abate (Howard Stern’s radio show’s executive producer) when he was in Italy. Free medical care for sick tourists, $4 antibiotic, and a pharmacist who was there and filled the prescription within 15 minutes late at night.

If we do social healthcare, we have to make sure it’s done well. Otherwise, we’ll end up with 1-2 year waits for needed surgeries.

Walgreens is 24 hours

In reply to reasons

in most of their stores, you can fill a prescription 24/7.

This is to complex an issue to rush it through, and is amazing that anyone would support TheObama’s attempts to approve a half baked solution.

strange

In reply to Walgreens is 24 hours

There is no 24/7 Walgreens here, and there are about 6 or 7 within 10 mi of me.

CVS is the only 24/7 store near me, and their pharmacy hours are 10am-9pm.

As for half-baked solutions: Well, Congress actually writes up those half-baked solutions. The concept from Obama might be a good one. Whether or not Congress can do their job and do it right is another issue all together.

I just can’t wait to see in 5 years what Congress has spent the tobacco tax money on by then. Probably a new office complex and gym for themselves.

yeah, go for a hospice

In reply to strange

because the last year of life is the most expensive, TheObama is recommending people march into a hospice instead of end of life medical treatment.

Who would have thought it, TheObama, getting his healthcare ideas from MontyPython?
[b]
BRING OUT YOUR DEAD! (CLANG!)

I’m not dead yet!

He says he isn’t dead yet….

Actually

In reply to yeah, go for a hospice

Hospice isn’t bad.

My old boss went into hospice with terminal cancer, and she was taken care of well and not made a pin cushion by a medical industry that will poke and prod you and feed you another $12 500mg Tylenol Plus when they know they can’t cure you just to make another buck.

Besides that, should we really put an uncurable AIDS patient in a hospital bed that could be used to treat a child who needs to have facial reconstruction from a car accident?

At least Obama isn’t suggesting you give up your liver prematurely :p :^0

Prefer the hospice notion

In reply to yeah, go for a hospice

in the event of final stage terminal whatever. The hell with the hospital and questionable bs ‘treatment’ for purpose of generating extra dollars from my final moments.

I’ve watched people pass from both hospital and hospice. There is at least some level of dignity – if that can be attributed to dying – in going quietly amongst family and friends via hospice.

yep

In reply to Prefer the hospice notion

I watched my ex-boss wither away. She came in a couple of times to see us. She seemed happier being at home with them coming to see her from the hospice than she had when she was getting all the crap treatment in the hospital.

I point too to Farrah Fawcett. Her treatments in American hospitals did her absolutely no good at the end. In fact, things progressed after they did some treatment her doctors in LA had said was effective in most patients with her type of illness.

She went home to be comfortable after all their crap failed. I felt bad for her. Not only did what they do at the end of her life not work, but they gave her so much false hope. At least in her last months she got to be with the man she loved in the comfort of her home.

Anyways, I’ve seen and am seeing way too much of cancer and terminal disease lately.

On to another topic for me.

yes and no

In reply to Prefer the hospice notion

I know when my grandma lost her fight with cancer it was a bitter fight up to the point nothing more could be done. She then went into a hospice.

I don’t want someone in government controlled insurance making that call as a way to save money.

I mentioned naught but my preference.

In reply to yes and no

My preference, my call.

Government calls too much as it is. We don’t need babysitting.

why not?

In reply to yes and no

Evidently, you are complacent with letting private enterprise do it daily and you have no say-so who runs corporations.

Why not have people telling you that from a government whose people you have a say in electing?

At least you have some control of government.

Or, don’t you agree?

(BTW, I think doctors should decide what is best medically…not bureaucrats or businesses)

And who says the government would make that choice

In reply to yes and no

I’m really kind of tired of this fear mongering.

Really the rest of the western world has government assisted health care in one form or another.

Do you know of any instances where those nasty government people keep people out of hospitals and put them into hospices?

It certainly does not happen in my experience in Canada, in fact its usually the other way around, but for reasons that have nothing to do with cost. Doctors like to win, and they want to keep patients in hospitals right up to the end so they can exhaust every possible option. Here at least the patients decide whether or not to go to a hospice, and frankly I doubt that in most situations anyone at a hospital would even mention that alternative. Personally, we all die, and in many scenarios I can see hospices as a preferable alternative to a hospital room. But it isn’t my place to decide that for others.

Edited to add:

A fundamental misunderstanding of how our system works is this. Unlike the HMOs in the US, it is the Doctors who make decisions on what treatments are needed, what specialists are required and so on. No one calls a government official and asks for approval on a procedure. That and the complexity of billing is why the administrative side of healthcare is so much more expensive in the US than elsewhere.

James

They have been for years

In reply to yes and no

[i]who says the government would make that choice [/i]

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/399219_evicted07.html

What do you think an extra month or year of life is worth?

In reply to yeah, go for a hospice

Suppose you have an irreversable brain cancer, with three to six months estimated time to survive, during which time you will progressively deteriorate, and the last half of your time you will be bedridden. Suppose you can get radiation treatments, which will cost $12,000, which won’t cure you, but may give you an additional three months of survival. In a still-deteriorating state, mind you. And, all survival estimates are seat-of-the-pants guesses by physicians. Should the public pay $12,000?

Suppose that for $250,000 you can perform neurosurgery, radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and physical and occupational rehabilitation, which will probably push your survival out to 12-18 months, but will also leave extensive and inevitable brain damage. Should the public pay $250,000?

Suppose doctor X has developed a stem-cell treatment, who works with cells grown from the patient using exotic living media, and who proclaims “with great confidence” that the treatment will prolong life at least as long as the surgical option, with reduced likelihood of immediate brain damage, and up to a 2 per cent chance of the patient surviving five years. The cost will be ten million dollars, and more for every year the patient survives. Should the public pay $10,000,000 or more?

Keep in mind that “the public” can be a government, but can also be those people who keep all the health insurance companies of this country afloat.

Where do you draw a line? Is it moral to draw any line at all, and instead just pay up for any patient who will say “yes” who can also find a doctor who agrees to take the business? Is it moral to pay out, for one patient, as much as it takes to keep a school district in operation for a year?

There are already treatments that insurance companies refuse to pay for. Isn’t that rationing? Isn’t that bureaucrats (private company ones) making life and death decisions? When you’ve got one in six dollars spent on health care already, do you think that the time has come to make such decisions is unavoidable?

If someone has their own money or health plan

In reply to What do you think an extra month or year of life is worth?

then it has to be their own call, doesn’t it?

Are you going to be the one to tell all the old people they have outlived their usefulness and should go off to pasture to die and save us some money? Will you at some point be willing to look your parents in the eye and tell them it costs to much to keep them alive? (I do hope they are both alive and well)

You go into the nursing home and ask the people there if they are ready to unplug in order to save you some money.

And end of life care is not the same as a no not resuscitate order.

Logons run, here we come.

Their health plan is somebody else’s, too, and thus, borrowed money

In reply to If someone has their own money or health plan

It seems obvious that if somebody is in the same insurance pool with you, you pay their expenses. And, since the insurance company can’t go broke, they get by with either raising prices to you or denying expensive care to somebody else.

You, and others, have got this delusion that every problem in health insurance is caused by greedy union and government employees soaking up the benefits. Not everybody with a bargaining agreement has a rich insurance deal. The ones that do can’t explain why one dollar in six of our national account goes to health care.

The heart of the problem is that nothing works well, it all costs too much money, and the present private insurance system only provides incentives to spend more.

Can’t look my parents in the eye and deny them end-of-life care; mom died from a brain tumor this year, and dad from kidney failure, a complication of type 2 diabetes, 12 years ago.

But, here’s a question you really should answer: when would you deny, based on cost, treatment that would give somebody one more month of life? At $2,000? $20,000? $200,000? $2,000,000? $200,000,000? Pretend you are in charge of the payment authority, whether it be an insurance company, or Medicare, or Medicaid, or some future government health expenditure guideline writing agency. Pretend you have a responsibility not only to the sick person asking for 200 million dollars, but also to every other customer of the insurance plan. If you’re a government bureaucrat, pretend you have additional responsibility to the whole society; if an insurance bureaucrat, to your shareholders. Where does JD the Magnificent say no? Never?

By the way, most insurance policies have a lifetime cap of between $500k and $1 million, beyond which you have to resort to your own checkbook. So, the most expensive patients are already price-rationed to the graveyard, unless they have recourse to a whole lot of cash.

Delbert

In reply to If someone has their own money or health plan

That’s one way to blast apart this whole clusterfuck of policy wonks.

So explain this Del,

In reply to If someone has their own money or health plan

50 million uninsured (that’s probably a little high)

Private insurance: Pretty good can be had for $12,000 a year. That’s $600 billion. Democrats want $2.1 trillion. What’s the other $1.5 trillion for?

Tell me what this 2.1 trillion is about

In reply to If someone has their own money or health plan

Is that everything the country currently pays for health insurance or something? Is it a budget number for a single year or multiple years? I don’t know where this number comes from or what it describes.

That’s the amount

In reply to If someone has their own money or health plan

Congress says it will cost.

actually

In reply to If someone has their own money or health plan

I think I read that the independent auditor at the budget office estimated 1 to 1.5 trillion over the next 10 years.

Were those

In reply to If someone has their own money or health plan

the same auditors that said NASA wouldn’t pay more than $20 for a toilet seat? 🙂

no

In reply to If someone has their own money or health plan

they were the same ones that said “China can never do a better, more cost-efficient job at manufacturing than us.” in the 1970s. :p

2.1 trillion seems to be the current money spent on health care

In reply to If someone has their own money or health plan

I guess if you assume that the federal government collected everything that we currently spend on health, then it would be the case that $2.1 trillion was the federal health care budget.

I googled the following:
“2.1 trillion” health obama

The first hit that came up, believe it or not, was my post in Tech Republic asking you what the 2.1 trillion was about.

We have 24 hour pharmacies in Canada

In reply to Walgreens is 24 hours

It isn’t every store, but I know there are 4 in my city.

I once went in the middle of the night and though they filled my presciption, they couldn’t bill to my insurance, so I had to come back the next day when the system was on line. Thats all private BTW.

James

“Too complex to rush”

In reply to Walgreens is 24 hours

Last time I checked, the congressional leadership controlled the pace of legislation. Sure, a president can ask to have something fast-tracked, but he has no direct control over the legislation introduced or the speed it moves through the houses.

Edited – if the Republicans don’t like the legislation, they can certainly filibuster it in the Senate. The Democrats’ grip on the 60 votes needed to end debate is rather tenuous, especially with two members out on medical leave (ironic).

Is your rhetoric mis-targeted? I could understand taking a Speaker or Majority Leader to task over this.

As to half-baked, health legislation has been introduced during most sessions for over two decades and three administrations. I think it’s pretty well baked and badly in need of coming out of the oven before it burns.

and another…

In reply to “Too complex to rush”

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!! :^0

Paraphrased? Try fabricated.

In reply to President Obama says chance for healthcare overhaul is slipping away

That’s not paraphrasing, you are perhaps paraphrasing Michael Steele but not Obama.

Why should it be done in a rush? Obama merely said it needs to regain momentum, ‘RUSH’ is just your own word to generate the wrong impression for Obama’s comments, thus the paraphrase instead of quote.

His actual words were quite short, why not simply quote him accurately or is that less effective in pursuing your cause?

Especially after half-witted Michael Steele and his cronies run an ad campaign against it.
Of course he needs to push and keep momentum, in politics things dissolves under such a barrage of counter attacks quickly, whether warranted or not.

You gotta look at the guy who echoes you own comments too, Steele.
Most of what he supports you oppose, however you jump right on board with him and the RNC here. While he takes baseless shots at the theory without addressing the actions themselves.

[b]Michael Steele[/b]
He’s a conceptual flake, on the fence and just a puppet that plays lip service.

He opposes a law against gay marriage and feels it is a state issue, he supports stem cell research if no embryos are destroyed. He supports a gas tax, but opposes the THEORY of GW (suggesting it’s cooling instead) because Greenland had to get its name somewhere, what a nutter! He supports greater gun law enforcement but not tighter laws but he does oppose the need for assault weapons. What a flake!

He is on the fence and so careful with his every word so as to retain the broadest demographic possible without showing any commitment to his comments. I thought you were one who was proud of convictions and values. Yet you echo the comments of a virtual moron, I mean this guy is ready to take on Bush for most the blatant idiot of the century award.

Did you get to act in his anti-health care advertising campaigns too? There is such a push on by this right wing nutbag that Obama HAS to act now of the program loses momentum. It’s not for fear of a weak plan, when the opposition is creating BS ads against your ideas. You seem to forget, politics is not about facts and proof, it is about fear campaigns. Create any sort of fear or doubt in people’s minds, whether valid or not, and nothing moves forward.

So to quote Obama:

Obama said [i]”seize this opportunity — one we might not have again for generations — and finally pass health insurance reform this year, in 2009.”[/i]

You asked: [b]Why such a rush, why would it either pass now or not be available again for generations?[/b]

YOu just needed ot relax and read on instead of getting all excited about your post instead.

“[i]”Reforming the United States’ $2.5 trillion health care industry is Obama’s signature domestic issue, [b]but he is running out of time to get the enabling legislation passed this year.[/b] A delay to 2010, a congressional election year, could make it harder to win a final deal.[/i]

Suppose you didn’t read that far?

Surely you have the capacity to work that out for yourself though and are just adding more s**t to the pot to stir up.

Bureaucratic red tape stops so much advancement in the world as it is, Obama KNOWS that, to get things done, you just have to sit down and get things done.

Would you prefer a president who makes claoms and offers promises but doesn’t act upon them and see them through to fruition?

It seems that when ever Obana acts on his promises, you question why he is acting quickly.

But when it was Bush forcing issues in haste (as he has did numerous times despite multi-national requests)you find a way to support his hasty action.

You are so politically two-faced you want have your cake and eat it to. Bush can have all the lenience he needs, Bush can act out without explanation (hey, it’s national security and all that mumbo jumbo afterall).

Obama can’t make changes at all. if Obama makes a change it is ot the detrmiment of teh nation so he has to do so quickly before people realize he’s screwing them over.

Man, you need Lithium to sort out all the voces and contradicting thoughts in your head.

Or at least just start trying to be consistent with your values.

blah blah blah

In reply to Paraphrased? Try fabricated.

you feel better now?

he’s actually right, jd

In reply to blah blah blah

You do put a spin on things to make any action Obama takes seem to be the gloom and doom and the apocalypse cometh to humanity because of it.

Why is that? Seriously?

Bush went and spent trillions and it was not worth making a fuss over, and the capitalistic corporate America was allowed to run amuck during his administration and stretch, bend, and break every rule and/or reasonable business practice to maximize profit…and that was okay.

But, Obama spends monies on trying to encourage people to buy more efficient AC systems, greener cars and household appliances, more fuel-efficient cars, etc., and it’s the bane of existence.

Then Obama tries to rush to get Congress to pass health insurance reform…and he is doing nothing but wrong in your eyes to make our country a healthier place to live.

So, why is it okay for Bush to spend $690B in Iraq alone fighting terrorism and WMDs that were never there?

But, it is wrong of Obama to try and improve healthcare, the environment, and the economy of our own country instead of some other country?

Bush did no wrong…Obama can do no right.

I just don’t understand that. Honestly.

What is hard to understand

In reply to he’s actually right, jd

is why you, in your bloodlust for Bush only care enough about what he did, to bring it up when someone talks about ANY Democrat?

And I don’t think the way TheObama is going is improving anything, and yes, I think McCain would have been horrible as well. I didn’t vote for either of them.

you weren’t talking about just ANY Democrat

In reply to What is hard to understand

You keep talking about “TheObama”.

Is it so bad people had a high opinion of him? Why so? Because he’s young? Because he thinks outside the box? Because he’s…*gasp*…half black?

BTW, Nasdaq and S&P 500 have trended up since Obama won the election.

So, I guess Obama is improving something in the business sector. Maybe confidence?

Honestly…you preach about how people need to work for things.

Obama never took a handout. The guy worked on things whenever he wasn’t in law school doing internships and what not. And, you bash him for anything.

Yet, Bush would have failed out of college if not for his family donating huge sums of money to the university he went to.

So, why not bash Bush? Cause he’s a gun-toting, good-ole Southern Christian? Cause he seems clever? Why?

I just don’t get it. You preach for people to have a work ethic and earn what they get.

Yet you bash the current president for doing his job and having attained a law degree on his own.

And, you give a past president a free pass even tho he had more given to him in his life than either the president before or after him.

And honestly, I agree. McCain would have been a puppet for the GOP, just like Palin.

I think next time, we vote CaptBillyOneEye in as president and let him go up there and kick some arse!!!! ARGH!!!!!! 😀

you step up and defend him, regardless

In reply to you weren’t talking about just ANY Democrat

well, actually, you rarely attempt to rationally defend what TheObama says or does. You just make excuses based upon others actions.

rarely?

In reply to you step up and defend him, regardless

I’ve tried to make sense to you.

You always criticize the man.

Yet he has had barely 6 months of time to do things.

You haven’t given the programs time to work.

And you have consistently (as has been said many times) use fear mongering of the unknown and incomplete to drive fears that all he is doing is trying to ruin things (like TheBush hadn’t already).

I gave you a case where an ARRA highway project in FL was driving new jobs, local economies, etc.

If you think that’s not rational defense and a real-world example of how it’s doing good, then you need to go see someone about learning rational thought.

Jck get with the program

In reply to you weren’t talking about just ANY Democrat

If yuo are going ot have yoru own opinion and not simply agree with jdclyde’s rant, you will just have to accept the fact that your ocmments are deemed irrational unil you agree with him, then you’ll be speaking clear volumes of common sense.

JDClyde – I can’t believe you even take yourself seriously sometimes. Such baseless opinions full of personal disgust towards the man you chose to vote against, yet you consider all other supportive comments unrealistic.

Get a life you sad, sorry, pathetic excuse for a human being.

i have never

In reply to Jck get with the program

been one to go with “the in-crowd”. That’s why I have never been to a Republican or Democratic fund raiser, precinct meeting, etc. Because, I don’t believe in conforming like a lemming to one ideology.

We have the right to free thought…both from government…and public idealisms.

I never would think to totally agree with jd or you on everything.

But, jdclyde just has this abhorance for Obama that seems to have no rational basis. Obama has been in office 182 days, yet jdclyde thinks that all the things passed since Jan 20th, 2009 should have cured 8 years of Republican presidency and 6 years of Republican control in the United States.

Sorry jd, but it’s gonna take Obama more 6 months to turn around 8 years of actions by another administration.

Really Oz?

In reply to you weren’t talking about just ANY Democrat

since when do you take anything posted in a web discussion seriously? You have repeatedly vented how it doesn’t mean anything and derailed people that think otherwise.

If you don’t take it seriously, why would you expect me to?

Ahhh, so your whole defense is an admitted joke?

In reply to Really Oz?

Seeing as this whol ethread that you started is a joke, how about you add that to your original post so others know too. It certainly seems like yuo are taking it VERY seriously and are PO’d at anyone who doesn’t take it seriously, I mean doesn’t agree with you.

I have to defend myself from you now?

In reply to Really Oz?

no, I just recognize what you are doing and decided to not play your game.

Oh wise man

In reply to Really Oz?

Who says he is beyond it yet continues to reply with more and more BS as if it will instill your pointless assertion based on personal opinions of government and not fact.

As for defense, when someone puts forth an argument and you continually post and debate it, you are thus defending your views.

Seriously and with all the sincerity I can muster, you really aren’t too bright, are you? I suppose you are probably a college grad too?

Are you still there?

In reply to Really Oz?

way to funny dude, here is another hoop for your bitchass to jump through.

What hoop?

In reply to Really Oz?

A spelling test?

A grammar test? I don’t see what ‘HOOP you are asking be to jump through.

Way to funny who?

well done

In reply to Really Oz?

jumped like a good little bitch should.

OKay JD

In reply to Really Oz?

You have proven you have nothing more to add to the thread. You are just running around like a spoiled child now, while accusing others of being childish.

So f**k off, get a life and let others participate in a discussion.

My, how mature of you

In reply to Really Oz?

and you will have noticed, I am having conversations with others.

You were not conversing from the beginning, just attacking, so not worth the effort.

I win.

How amazingly amusing

In reply to Really Oz?

After you have acted like a trailerpark dweller on the Springer show, you are going to pretend that you were the calm, reasonable one all along? No one sees what a joke you have been making of yourself on a regular basis, really…. your secret is safe……

If you wish to at some point have a reasonable discussion that involves Americans, Politics, or world events, it would be a refreshing change. But as you have repeatedly told everyone here, you just don’t care enough to bother.

I didn’t vote for either of them…

In reply to What is hard to understand

and thus democracy has failed you! What a terrible system of letting a majority vote go against your personal wishes, it just isn’t right!

The reason people bring up Bush the former president of America, and in this case you are not talking about ANY democrat but the current President of America, is because some people that supported Bush through his sheer madness are now looking for ANY reason to misquote or take Obama’s comments out of context to show him saying what he has not said.

You didn’t like it when people opposed Bush’s actions but you’ll create your own sensational twists on what Obama says in anyway you can to muster to discredit his actions. Try looking up, hypocrite.

You show such concern over national spending by Obama which is aimed at the betterment of the nation he presides over, yet defended Bush’s wasting trillions as if he was the grand-pooh-bah with all the answers. He didn’t even have ot have reasons or explanations, you just write it all off as a national security secret.

Kind of like people explaining the unexplainable as “it’s God’s way, we don’t need to question his motives.”

You mean to tell me that if I had mentioned something I thought Bush did wrong, that you wouldn’t retort with something you thought Obama did wrong?

I don’t know who you are used to conversing with, but nobody here is quite stupid enough to believe such a pile of rot.

I wonder

In reply to I didn’t vote for either of them…

is all your ranting just a copy/paste from what you post to Dawg? Sounds like you are just repeating the same thing over and over, no matter who it is you are trying to show that you are superior to.

Oh yeah, it isn’t working either.

You mean ‘worked’

In reply to I wonder

There’s no present tense intended, based on your inability to understand what you post yourself, it is clearly accurate. I’m not suggesting something to come, it is a clear observation of something that simply is.

hmmm

In reply to I wonder

[i]is all your ranting just a copy/paste from what you post to Dawg? Sounds like you are just repeating the same thing over and over, no matter who it is you are trying to show that you are superior to.

Oh yeah, it isn’t working either.[/i]

If Oz is saying the same thing over and over, I wouldn’t call that bad…I’d call that consistent.

At least he doesn’t say “Mission Accomplished” and grin impishly…or do you, Oz???? :^0

JCK

In reply to I wonder

I have an evil laugh and a cheeky grin, so I am told. ‘impish’ doesn’t really work for me as I have a rounder face and can’t pull of the almond shaped eyes and pointy nose bit.

People don’t like it when I stick to my guns it seems. I do accept changes and am open to exploring each issue as being unique, which many people here seem to think displays a lack of values.

In fact it is my values that stop me from applying a blanket opinion to all issues, whether related or not, and instead I look at individual cases and issues separately.

Values? Hardly.

In reply to I wonder

If you actually had some values, you would debate someone on the issues discussed instead of stomping up and down like a spoiled child, screaming that everyone is lying, just because you don’t agree with them.

I will leave you two to your love fest.

hmmmm

In reply to I wonder

[i]If you actually had some values, you would debate someone on the issues discussed instead of stomping up and down like a spoiled child, screaming that everyone is lying, just because you don’t agree with them.

I will leave you two to your love fest.[/i]

I hear the pitter-pattering of the stomping off of another pair. :^0

Actually, Oz…he’s right…it’s not your values that keep you from placing judgement in blanket statements.

It’s a lack of narcissistic piety.

Okay

In reply to I wonder

I suppose I can’t say “thank God for that”, then!

I heard this one Republican on the radio the other day

In reply to I wonder

He was claiming what a good father he was compared to other fathers on the show.

The other fathers said they read to their kids every night, take them out to play every day when they get home, go on vacations to places their children want to go.

They asked the Republican “How many nights a week do you go right home and spend time with your kids?”

He says “About 3, but that doesn’t mean I’m not as good a father.”

And then one of his co-workers said “Yeah, 3 is about right. Any more than that, and it would interfere with his golf times.”

Such piety to think that having your children do without spending time with you so you can indulge personal wants…is good parenting. :^0

You mean that’s all it took?

In reply to blah blah blah

I didn’t think you’d see your comments as mere blabbing; had I known that, I would have just said blah, blah, blah, as that’s all that your mindless comments, again and as always taken out of full context, illustrate.

you missed the point

In reply to You mean that’s all it took?

that it doesn’t matter what I say, your desire to argue outweighs your ability to have an intelligent conversation.

Someday you will learn to express your views in a logical fashion instead of thinking every post has to be a flame/attack.

Until then, enjoy yourself.

No, you missed the sarcasm.

In reply to you missed the point

Not the sharpest tool in the shed, are you?

MY desire to argue? Of course your baited post had no such intention of stirring controversy, not you, noooooo.

Who the hell are you to talk about expressing onesself in a logical fashion?

You took a typical one sided view in order ot generate comtroversy and hit it home with your selectively worded title.

I can’t believe you think anyone can’t see it, I’m not the first to point it out here either.

Now when others play your little game, you grab your bat and ball and run home to sulk.

Didn’t go anywhere

In reply to No, you missed the sarcasm.

and having reasonable conversations with reasonable people. And then there are the posts from you.

You are a piece of work

In reply to Didn’t go anywhere

YOu start a purposely inflammtory thread, by takign yuor presidents words out of context and raising questions that wer clearly answered in his speech. Then get all poopy pants when someone calls yuo on your game.

Reasonable people? You mean those who agree with you. You aren’t clever, you aren’t ‘above me’ you are just another Yankee peon who thinks his s**t don’t stink and the rest of the world who opposes his views are all wrong. Narcissistic putz/textbook American, comes to mind.

Of course you are wrong

In reply to Didn’t go anywhere

But we are used to that.

No need for you to reply

In reply to Didn’t go anywhere

You are far too predictable, not very clever and surely everyone knows what you are going to do, deny anyone who disagrees with you.

You never have anything semi-relevant to say in your replies, ever. You just reply, end of.

If someone agrees you go to great length to keep them posting down the line with you, agreeing with you all the way like some sad teenager seeking approval of peers. If someone disagrees, you simply shoot down their comments as baseless and unqualified no matter how well supported or qualified they may be.

You are just an idiot, face it, curl up in bed and cry; you are simply pathetic and worthless to anyone in the world, at least that’s America’s downfall not mine though.

What a complete moron and utter putz you illustrate yourself as. You contradict yourself, you show nothing but sheer hypocrisy and lack of true values, you take biased opinions and put them forth as qualified and reasonable judgements, yet you aren’t even qualified to be the village idiot, far too ignorant and unaware of your own words for that gig.

I seriously don’t know how you can sit there all day, believing nobody sees just how ridiculous your senseless and childish arguments are, how weak your rebuttals are and yet you still post and think you are actually being clever or witty (half-witted more like it).

If I was your mother, I’d tell you to get out of the basement and do your homework before you embarrass the entire family with your complete drivel.

I can only imagine that poor woman’s constant embarassment and dismay as she raised you.

I actually don’t know whther to believe that you take yourself seriously or not, you must be just knobbing along with this, knowing how completely idiotic your replies are. I know you don’t read or comprehend too well, but still, your lunacy is in plain English you should be able to see the flaws and gaping holes in your one-sided but two-faced claims.

If you can’t see how your efforts to discount other opinions essentially discount your own, then you are beyond help but that’s not news to me, I’ve unfortunately read loads of your codswallop for long enough now.

I would reply to this myself, on your behalf, but to echo such senseless drivel and blatant hypocrisy is best left to yourself. That way your little brain will actually think you are one up and got the last word in as you drive so hard for.

Very honestly, and IMHO, you really are the asolute dumbest poster I have ever read on TR. I’ve seen some real nut-jobs try for that spot over the years but nobody could take that way from you when you post such pointless crap as you have here.

Sweet

In reply to Didn’t go anywhere

I am number one!

Top of the world, ma!

Top of the world?

In reply to Didn’t go anywhere

If I remember, the utterance of those words is usually followed almost immediately by a large, self-immolating explosion…

There’s only one way to go from there.

In reply to Didn’t go anywhere

Crashing down to reality.

Hot discussion – Heated Comments…

In reply to Didn’t go anywhere

Ice cold water bucket waiting to dump over a few heads 😉

Now now boys (men) – let’s each go into our corners and then come out and just agree to disagree.

Geeee… what’s a gal got to do? :p

-Tammy [_]3

Speaking of hot…

In reply to Didn’t go anywhere

Hey Tammy…want a diet Coke? 😉 lol

I sure know how to sweet talk a girl ]:)

Tammy.

In reply to Didn’t go anywhere

So sexual innuendo is out but insulting people’s Mothers is in. Check.
Just want to be clear.

Listen for yourself.

In reply to Paraphrased? Try fabricated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kC-wrDhbVU

I’ve already read the whole thing.

In reply to Listen for yourself.

But I have other stuff to check on youtube so thanks for the reminder.

Why the rush

In reply to President Obama says chance for healthcare overhaul is slipping away

1. This is not an election year. In an election year, it is not possible to pass any law that significantly changes anything. And American health care takes one dollar in six in the American economy, so a lot of people have a vested interest in no change. It is possible to vote major change really in only the first and third years of a presidency. Other times, re-election concerns sideline everything else.

2. He’s rushing because his popularity (he won the election, remember, as did a majority of democrats in both houses) will fade quickly with time, and passing anything this big will require the commitment of the full personal and political strength of the presidency. Senators and congressmen will become more divided and parochial as time goes on, and will feel less of the cohesive force of the mass popular wave that created overwhelming majorities.

3. Even a sound plan will not pass Republican oversight. Republicans see it in their interest to disable any major Democratic program they can, even if it leaves the country weaker, because they sense that if the Democrats get stronger, THAT would make the country weaker.

yep

In reply to Why the rush

[i]3. Even a sound plan will not pass Republican oversight. Republicans see it in their interest to disable any major Democratic program they can, even if it leaves the country weaker, because they sense that if the Democrats get stronger, THAT would make the country weaker.[/i]

Unless it comes from the divinely-blessed GOP, then it’s Satan’s work in the making.

God, I love the arrogance sometimes. It’s almost worthy of a Comedy Central special. :^0

Almost? :D

In reply to yep

Dems and Reps both are deserving… 😀 😀

Not really…

In reply to Almost? :D

I don’t think they are worthy of a special. Maybe worthy of a wall and firing squad though. :p ;\

HERE HERE!!!!

In reply to Not really…

Cheers *raises a mug*

all I can say is

In reply to Almost? :D

AMEN!!!!!! :^0

Nit picking, but

In reply to yep

It works this way when the executive and legislative branches are in different hands, regardless of which branches each major party holds. Read the whole thing again, swapping the party names and replacing the final ‘weaker’ with ‘crueler’.

The Republican health plan: spend trillions more

In reply to yep

http://healthguideusa.org/health_statistics/national_health_expenditures.htm
http://healthguideusa.org/health_statistics/projected_national_health_expenditures.htm

Health care has increased from 13% of US GDP in 1997 to over 16% today. At this rate the share will be over 20% by 2035. Do you think it can last? Evidently the Republicans do.

The Republican initiative is to do nothing and let stuff happen. Anything that might actually do something to slow the rate of increase is decried as government control, socialism, putting the nation’s health care in the hands of out-of-control spenders… any scary notion that will make the idea go away for a few more years, they bring up.

There is no Republican policy. There is only the instinct to shoot down any other policy.

The day there is reform to the existing programs

In reply to The Republican health plan: spend trillions more

such as medicaid / medicare / VA, or even the Social Security program, I will believe that “The Government” is better able to run something such as the proposed single payer system.

They have shown (ALL political parties) that none of them are willing to make any meaningful changes because they will lose their stumping material.

How is “The Governments” war on poverty or drugs going?

PLEASE name ANY program that was taken over and run by “The Government” that LOWERED it’s costs.

How are public schools doing on per student spending vs private schools, and which as the better results?

This will be more of the same, and it will all be bad.

Some questions in response to your question

In reply to The day there is reform to the existing programs

[i]How are public schools doing on per student spending vs private schools, and which as the better results?[/i]

Which schools are allowed to pick and choose their students for academic ability?

Which schools are required by law to accept all applicants, regardless of mental, physical, or emotional handicap or the corresponding costs?

I went to a private school

In reply to Some questions in response to your question

that did NOT cherry pick their students. Sure, it was through the church, but non-members could and did attend the school with me. It was for grade school. The next two years in high school were pretty much review from what I had learned in 6th thru 8th grade.

And yes, we had some “problem children” that didn’t do well, but the majority did excel, while the “problem children” were not kicked out of the system. They did get an occasional crack on the a$$ when needed though.

No government funds were used either, no vouchers.

So, I am referring more to religion based schools that have been around for [b]generations[/b], not “charter schools”. Three generations of my family went to that one.

You tell me, what schools do? Any references you have, I would happily read.

What are the requirements?

Searching…

In reply to I went to a private school

But I did find related articles:

School Choice Movement Must Fight Restrictions on Private Schools – http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3089

Court says public must pay for private special ed – http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gzxsVAYHwaGjGyXVQAilpK4rfREAD98VQ4J80

The links were not about restricting who could attend

In reply to I went to a private school

and neither showed any short comings of the private option. Ask any teacher and you will hear how they hate standardized testing (NCLB).

The advantage of the private over the public is the expectations on the kids is higher and the more you expect, the more you get.

In the public we hear about how school systems are getting away from having a class valedictorian because it makes the kids that don’t achieve high grades feel bad. Awwww.

http://www.mlive.com/flintjournal/index.ssf/2008/04/no_more_valedictorians_in_lind.html

I said they were related

In reply to I went to a private school

I didn’t say they made my point.. The requirement that public schools accept all applicant exists in US Code. The only exception are those students expelled for misbehavior.

I should probably tell you at this point to do your own research, but I’ve already seen how much you did on this subject.

wow

In reply to I went to a private school

hostile?

You made a point, implying an unfair advantage private has over public about being able to cherry pick only the best students, leaving the undesirables in the public system. If you don’t have anything, either references or personal experience to back that up, that is fine. I have not seen such practice.

Wrote it during a sugar crash

In reply to I went to a private school

Might have been a little hostile, but then you’ve shown often enough that on certain issues it’s your way or the highway and public schools (because of teacher unions?) is one of those issues.

Allow me to qualify the statement about public schools: they are required to accept all students [u]who live inside their attendance area[/u]. In practice, of course, highly desirable schools in districts that allow parents to choose the school, often turn students away because they are at capacity. School choice fanatics use such incidents to show the “lie” in the claim that public schools must accept all students.

School choice is ONE answer, but there is no single answer. One of the primary requirements for fixing public schools, IMO, is to get the parents involved. Regardless of income, regardless of school, regardless of anything else, the children who are succeeding in public schools (and there are many) are succeeding because their parents are involved in their education. It’s not so much that private schools can cherry pick, but that the parents who care enough about their children’s education to pay for private schools were already involved in that child’s education in public schools.

I’ve been there. Some of my worst students lived in named subdivisons with houses starting at $250k-$300k and some of my best students lived in trailer parks that I wouldn’t keep my dogs in. What was the difference? The parents of my successful students worked with me because they saw the opportunity; the parents of the failing students gave me crap because they saw “public school.”

There are many games being played

In reply to I went to a private school

Like for meeting the NCLB testing, so the “best” students can get grouped together for a favored teacher while another gets what is left.

An overpriced administration that sucks up a lot of the money that should go to the kids.

A teachers union that blocks every attempt to improve schools that continue to do worse and worse every year.

School of choice forces schools to compete. The private ones I was referring to (as I said a few posts back) was actually the religious based schools. They focus the basics while public schools worry about “social education”.

I had stepped in a year ago because the SCIENCE teacher was showing ThingTwo’s class the AlGoreShow. It has known inaccuracies, yet she was letting it all go out as if it were true and a fact. When I demanded she set the record straight, instead she stopped showing it. I have seen many dishonest examples such as that.

I have been the concerned parent, giving my cell number and email address in case there is ever an issue, never hear a word, because many of the teachers just don’t care anymore.

Yes, there are a lot of good teachers that still care and try to make a difference, but the system is corrupt and with the alliance with the Democratic party and the only offered solution is to continue to throw more and more money at the problem, it just isn’t going to happen. THAT is what makes the dollars spend per student at the religious schools very relevant to what the public schools do and the results that are achieved.

Yes, I have heard of schools filling up, but have never heard of it being anything but first come, first serve? I drive my boys 15 miles to school because of the issues at the school that is 2 miles away.

What IS the solution? There are a lot of useless people that just don’t care about their kids. Do we write them off? Or instead of worrying about hurting their little feelings, so we challenge them to be more? The current trend is to challenge them LESS, and that is the road to destruction.

The South doesn’t have teacher’s unions

In reply to I went to a private school

At least not with the political strength of those in the North. How, then, does that explain the failing schools in the South? I’ve been there and still have no idea.

I think, though, that you and I agree on at least one point: [i]The current trend is to challenge them LESS, and that is the road to destruction. [/i]

Private schools & Delbert

In reply to I went to a private school

I spend $20,000 a year to put my kid through high school. Never thought I’d try something so foolishly expensive. It works well for him. The school, by the way, can’t cover expenses on tuition alone; it depends on gifts. And, they don’t take any certified special ed kids, but they bend over backwards to make sure their rich clientele gets its kids educated, even when the kids are far more rich than bright. And, they kick out the troublemakers.

I do it because the public schools suck so awfully.

I’ve had some experience with kids in Catholic schools. Usually, if you’ve got a parent spending a few thousand a year on education, the kid has got some parental interest. If parents ignore kids, they come out rotten a lot more often, and make education more difficult.

I don’t know for sure, but I doubt the Catholics do special ed… dyslexia, disruptive, mildly retarded, can’t speak English, etc. Another big savings. I had my boy in a public magnet school in the third grade. I sat through a day with him to see how he was getting along, and noticed a kid in the back of the room who had a woman sitting next to him. After a couple of classes, I asked her what she was about. She was a paid assistant teacher, and the kid had some kind of explosive, intermittent, disruptive behavior. She sat with him all day, and when he was about to blow his cork she would take him out to the hall to calm him down. I was amazed at the expensive treatment being put out for one kid. Public schools do this kind of thing; private schools don’t.

At Central Catholic (where Dan Marino attended,) you can get a pretty good education for around $13,000 per year, subsidized by churches. The admissions director told me it was hard to get in as a freshman, but easier after that. Apparently it’s common for parents to get disgusted with spending money on a kid who won’t work, so after freshman year they put him in public and save the cash. It leaves Central Catholic with an above-average crowd.

Also, there’s governance. Private schools are still sensitive to parental mood, but they don’t have to dance to the whims of a vote-seeking school board the way publics do. Private schools can be run by educators who focus on education, and not be captive to whatever extraneous initiative seems to be working its way through the electorate. Like, for example, people who want to protest Al Gore’s movie, or the absence of gay topics in the curriculum, or the slightest mention of gay topics.

There are a lot of ways when you pay money for school, you get a better product.

If I have kids

In reply to I went to a private school

I am gonna home school them.

I’d say 80% of the time (even in college), I was smarter than my teachers.

Like the time a Ph. D. in Mathematics graded my paper at 99% when I didn’t miss anything.

I asked “Why did I get 99%.”

He said “I don’t give perfect grades, because no one is perfect.”

So I ask him “What is the percentage of the fraction 10/10?”

He said “Well, that is 100 percent.”

I said “Exactly. And, that should be my grade.”

He didn’t argue and changed it when I mentioned we could take the mathematical dilemma to the department chairman for a decision. :^0

It’s not that I don’t trust public schools to educate my child.

It’s that I don’t trust other parents to teach their kids how to behave…and make them behave.

Delbert & Private schools

In reply to I went to a private school

Is it the place of the school, public or otherwise, to push a pro or con gay agenda? I don’t think so. They have real things to teach and if they waste their time on someones social agenda it takes away from the time available to teach real subjects.

As for the AlGoreStory, if there are parts that are known to be factually inaccurate
(wrong), does an instructor that presents this not have an obligation to teach the truth, not a political agenda? Once the teacher knows something is wrong and continues to push it, it goes from being wrong to being an intentional lie. Should teachers teach intentional lies in the classroom?

As for disruptive kids, I do recall people getting suspended and expelled from public school for being so, exactly as it should be.

The problem child you mentioned should have to go to special ed class or summer school, but should not be allowed to WASTE so much of the public funds, not be allowed to be a distraction to the rest of the class. you don’t let one loser take the ship down.

But that’s just it, jd

In reply to I went to a private school

[i]The problem child you mentioned should have to go to special ed class or summer school, but should not be allowed to WASTE so much of the public funds, not be allowed to be a distraction to the rest of the class.[/i]

That child is in that classroom because the school district is [u]required by federal law[/u] to accept that child. That teaching assistance is there because that school district is [u]required by federal law[/u] to provide one.

Here are your links, JD. Basically, the Supremes held that “the deprivation of free public education to disabled children constitutes a deprivation of due process.”

The applicable laws are Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1974 and the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act of 1990. Since public schools accept federal assistance…

http://maricopa.edu/legal/dp/inbrief/lawsprotdisab.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individuals_with_Disabilities_Education_Act

serious emotional disturbance?

In reply to I went to a private school

what a crock of …….

yeah, quacks in the alleged mental health “profession” have an ailment and a drug for everything, including making excuses for poor behavior. I bet like many other alleged illnesses there is not a medical test of any kind for this either.

By making it a “condition” it removes guilt from the child for their actions, as well as from the parents.

Definitely a case of too much government in our lives.

Don’t go there, JD

In reply to I went to a private school

My youngest son has Tourette Syndrome, diagnosed not by mental health, but by a pediatric neurologist. He doesn’t make the animal noises, shout profanity, or have the gross muscle tics that the movies have popularized, but he does have tics, some of which can be disruptive in the classroom. He can usually suppress the tics for a while when he needs to, but if he suppresses the tics too long, he can have explosive outbursts of temper.

One of the accommodations in his 504 plan was that he was allowed to leave the classroom, go to the nurse’s office, and release a few tics when he felt close to an outburst; all he had to do was show the pass to his teacher. The one time he had an episode in the classroom, the teacher refused to let him leave the classroom because she felt it was “an excuse for poor behavior”.

There were consequences for my son, of course, but there were also consequences for that teacher.

No matter how much you want it to be otherwise, the world doesn’t work in black or white, but in shades of gray.

Show me where we’d be without those programs

In reply to The day there is reform to the existing programs

Medicaid, Medicare, the VA, and Social Security meet national needs. If you didn’t have these programs you’d have old people suffering poverty in increasing misery, and every illness would be a disaster. Same with disabled veterans. If you think an America without these safeguards would be humane or agreeable, then I admit we have irreconcilable differences about civilized life.

The biggest problem with Social Security is that so many people are retiring, we don’t know how to pay for them all. The talk about 401k plans or private accounts being reforms that would make it possible to finance Social Security without pain is just so much moonshine. Look at it from a systems point of view: if you have people cashing in savings to pay for food and rent in their retirement, where does it come from? Out of the American economy, displacing the food and rent or other uses of money that currently working people would otherwise be enjoying. Very similar to what a payroll tax does. One difference: when it comes to disbursing money and paying costs of administration, Social Security is far more efficient than any mutual fund.

The biggest things in need of “reform” among your programs are Medicare and Medicaid, which pay health care costs for the old and poor. And guess what the problem is? Out of control health care costs, brought on by a private insurance system that drives up consumption and has no means of putting on the brakes.

Things that make you go “Hmmm…”

In reply to The day there is reform to the existing programs

At the time of Social Security’s enactment, it it was to start paying at 65, but at the time, the average life expectancy was 62.

Yeah, that’s a big factor

In reply to Things that make you go “Hmmm…”

People used to conveniently die and stop drawing Social Security after a couple of years, if they even survived to get on it at all. I think the average person spends close to 15 years on Social Security these days.

A lot more retire early than actually plan to. More than half of the people who retire before 65, I read somewhere, do so because health problems tripped them up and forced them to stop working.

I won’t be eligible for “full” benefits until I’m 66; my wife, not until 67. The benefit payment keeps rising with every year that you continue to work, though, even past your full benefit year.

yeah

In reply to Yeah, that’s a big factor

SSI is getting to be pitiful.

Of course, it doesn’t help that congress leveraged more and more debt over the decades against the SSI trust.

That’s why I’m looking to either get into a better paying job with better benefits at some point and start throwing as much money into the bank (around $25k a year probably) as I can so that by age 60, or move overseas and get onto a 2nd retirement plan like in the UK.

I already worked almost 30 years here. So maybe a 2nd full pension would work best for me. Especially if the pound/euro stay as strong against the dollar as they have been.

What a tool!

In reply to The day there is reform to the existing programs

You find flaws in two systems and equate that to a flawed government.

Are you suggesting public schools are a bad thing and that private schools are the answer? Only the rich get educated, well I see from your own lack of intelligence that not all private schools are a worthy investment, but then again there’s just no hope for some. To think of teh money your parents pi$$ed away on private schools when the MacDonalds playground would have been just as effective.

The sky is falling, it will be the end, in fact I think the best thing you can do for yourself as well as America, is to move out of the country and off to a far away land where someone just MAY buy into your crap.

What does this say about you?

In reply to What a tool!

as you have already stated what I waste of time my posts are for you, yet you hunt each one down and post to them all?

You love me, admit it.

I know one thing

In reply to What does this say about you?

Now that Oz has declared JD to be the dumbest poster on TR, Balthor, Nodice and others will just stop trying. Sad isn’t it….

James

Not quite, don’t bother flattering yourself

In reply to What does this say about you?

And zip up your trousers at work.

I make a comment and you rush right in to shoot it down with lies, BS and then some hyporcisy sprinkled on top.

Balthor and nodice

In reply to What does this say about you?

are light years ahead of this whackjob.

I would suggest …

In reply to What a tool!

[i]Are you suggesting public schools are a bad thing and that private schools are the answer?[/i]

… that it’s the parents’ responsibility to educate their child, not the government’s.

If you are going to make society pay for something, you should give them a say in the process. So, for example, if you want society to be responsible for the cost of a child, they should, rightfully, have a say in whether you are allowed to procreate.

[i]Only the rich get educated,[/i]

More money doesn’t equate to better education. Evidence the graduation rates and test scores of schools that spend $25,000 per year per pupil vs. those who spend $8,000 per year per pupil.

And in most cities, there are private schools that actually cost LESS than public schools. The problem is the socialist types want those who choose private school to pay for the public ones too!

You see it all comes down to that… getting something they didn’t have to work for… thinking they have the right to create burdens for another against his will… They will learn… by the sword if necessary.

Get back on track mate

In reply to I would suggest …

It had NOTHING to do with the government providing education.

JDClyde was talking about his going to private school, as if it afforded him a better education, that’s all.

I’ve already given the solution to the war on poverty

In reply to The day there is reform to the existing programs

If someone is able-bodied and won’t work, let them starve.

If they have kids and can’t feed them because they refuse to work, then take the kids away and give them to people who will care for them and feed them.

Lazy a$$ syndrome is cured REAL F***ING QUICK by starvation.

Nuff said.

And that carries on to

In reply to I’ve already given the solution to the war on poverty

people that choose not to buy their own health care?

Nope

In reply to And that carries on to

More convoluted thinking from your mind.

I said:

[i]”If someone is able-bodied and won’t work, let them starve.

If they have kids and can’t feed them because they refuse to work, then take the kids away and give them to people who will care for them and feed them.

Lazy a$$ syndrome is cured REAL F***ING QUICK by starvation.

Nuff said.”[/i]

It’s a cure for people not working when they are able…not healthcare.

And if my big carcass that likes to stay in bed and watch Jerry Springer and drink rum and cokes can get out of bed and go to a job every day, then so can every other able-bodied person who is living on the dole.

The mentality we need in this country is:
***
Don’t wanna flip burgers or stock shelves or sweep floors to make a paycheck?

Okay…go broke, starve, and be homeless…but we won’t pity you unless you make the effort to work for what you have.
***

Hard work doesn’t kill you. Trust me…I know. When I was younger and I didn’t have a job, I mowed the lawn, fixed toilets, trimmed trees, fixed light switches, re-stained furniture, etc. My parents didn’t let me be a lazy a$$. I have actually worked pretty much since I was 7 when I mowed yards and what not for money. But, I worked for others starting at age 11 when I started carrying over 100 papers in a town of 14,000 people (the local paper had a circulation of about 5,000, so I distributed about 2 percent of their total print run on a bicycle).

As for people that choose not to buy their own healthcare?

First of all, you don’t go shopping for healthcare. You shop for the insurance.

“Pardon me…Columbia Medical? What’s your rate for an emergency appendectomy?” :^0

Second, most people don’t have the choice of having medical insurance or not. Because of:

A) their employer provides them insurance but won’t give them the funds with which they purchase insurance under their group plan

B) their employer doesn’t offer insurance.

I am one of the case As. My employer puts up the money for my single coverage medical, dental, and short term disability insurance. If I want to opt out, I can not get that amount given to me. It is non-negotiable as part of my employment. Either I accept free insurance, or I don’t.

A lot of people are case Bs though, working either part time or in hourly jobs where they get no insurance. And quite often, those jobs pay so little that they can not afford any type of insurance.

Besides, it’s already been proven that corporations can’t run the medical or insurance operations right. Medical malpractice is rampant, insurance fraud is rampant, and quality of patient care has gone to the wayside in lieu of maximizing profits.

Trust me on this one. My mom is in the hospital right now. They found that her PCP was dosing her with too much thyroid, and that when they started to take her off it her heart rate dropped.

Then, the (quack that works for the hospital) cardiologist they brought in said he had to do a surgery right away. But, I insisted she get a hold of her own cardiologist. He transferred her to a bigger hospital, and he did tests and said “I think we can treat this all with some medications. There’s no need at this time for any invasive procedures.”

Go figure. Her first cardio was like my cardiologist: wanted to cut to make more money.

Then, there’s the CT scans dilemma. She first went in the ER, they did a CT scan to check for any abnormalities. Saw nothing. Then, I noticed mom was having trouble thinking through things or remembering words. Then, she told me she couldn’t tie little ribbons now with her hands. I told the nurse to tell the doctor that she needed a neuro study done. 2 days later, they did another CT scan and…voila…all the sudden there was a tumor on my mom’s brain lining.

Wow…a tumor just magically appeared in a week? Lucky of Lucky Charms must have made it just appear with blue moons and yellow diamonds.

Most things now are just done by a playbook in medicine now. People aren’t allowed to think (including doctors) about how patients are treated because insurance mandates what is “allowable”, unless your doctor wants to get on the phone for an hour or two and argue with some insurance company employee about why it’s needed treatment.

And, health insurance is the big driver in that.

It’s piss poor at best here in most medical facilities, and I can attribute to that. It took me going through 2 hospitals to get in one that would look at my symptoms and treat me right and get me somewhere so that I didn’t end up paralyzed.

Now, I’m watching another cardiologist try and talk my mother into an unnecessary, risky procedure too like mine did me.

I’m watching them misread CT scans.

And I’m seeing them bill Medicare and my parents’ supplemental insurance for all this like they did their job right.

So, maybe…just maybe…don’t you think that government might be able to do this better and setup a system that is accountable to the people that it serves (that would be me and you), rather than a bunch of shareholders who just want a profit in their portfolio?

I’m willing to take the risk. I want social medicine. I am willing to pay an extra $2000-3000 a year in taxes to get rid of health insurance and get that $4000 a year in my check that my employer pulls out.

And I don’t care if Aetna, BCBS, etc., go broke and bankrupt. They’ve screwed people for years and made billions in profits, and now it’d be karma for them to get screwed back.

Just understand one thing that you probably wouldn’t think:

I think the healthcare reform thing has gone too fast too. I want it done RIGHT. I want the system to hold doctors accountable, hold hospitals accountable, and hold patients (yes…for when they try to defraud the system) accountable.

If we had a system where United Healthcare wasn’t making $3-4 billion in profit in a year, and those profits were going back into our government instead of private hands…wouldn’t that help pay for other things? Like schools? Roads? Lower taxes?

I want them to do it right, make sure everyone get free, basic care (doctors visits, immunizations, etc.) and treatment.

No free body contouring or liposuction tho. Sorry. 🙂

well…

In reply to The Republican health plan: spend trillions more

That’s what they did with the banking system here.

Look at all the good it did.

It is a comedy special

In reply to yep

This Hour has 22 Minutes, great for a laugh and nearly enough to make you cry at the reality they open up.

YouTube and Google it, it’s hugely popular and quite funny. though it is mainly aimed at canadian politics, they dig the US and UK all the time too, the ‘Speaking with Americans’ segments are the funniest.

So, Republicans are acting like Democrats

In reply to Why the rush

Anything that is bad for the country is good for the party out of power?

So, you think that there have not been any valid objections to the proposed changes?

Valid objections?

In reply to So, Republicans are acting like Democrats

Sure, there have been plenty of valid objections… at least, every one of them has been valid-sounding. Otherwise, the Republicans wouldn’t have been squirting this stuff out.

I am fundamentally conservative at heart. I don’t see any indelible need in society for police to control free people… but wait! There’s crime! Guess we better have cops. I don’t see any need for financial regulation… but then there is securities fraud, and screwball games that bring on a depression! Guess we need some regulation. And then, there’s health care. Who wants government fiddling with your health? Isn’t that what the doc is supposed to be doing, when he’s got his finger wriggling up inside you?

But we’ve gotten to a state where one dollar in six in this huge economy is spent on hospitals, doctors, insurance company bureaucrats. We spend about double per capita what other advanced countries do, yet our life expectancy is lower, and we’re less satisfied with our care than most others. A fifth of our people are uninsured, and get less consistent care.

A sixth of what we earn is spent on just keeping ourselves going. Think of it as a tax, and maybe you’ll start to see it as a problem.

Interesting

In reply to Valid objections?

One who decries so loudly is quickly dispatched…

One point that is rarely surfaced is that there is a good number in the US that choose not to carry insurance. I carried no insurance until I started a family. My medical needs were so low that I could simply place into savings what I needed. Many of my single peers still do the same. Therefore, the number of uninsured is useless. Frankly, I wish we were all uninsured. We would then be more responsible and probably live better lives.

But again, most of the surge in healthcare cost has come from insurance and law suits.

Another thing that has ruined healthcare is the belief that it is a right. Healthcare, especially as good as it is here, is a privilege.

TheObama is trying to change that

In reply to Interesting

as his followers want to add that to their list of entitlements they have never earned, but demand at the expense of others.

A couple of things made it easier for you to hold no insurance

In reply to Interesting

Apart from being young and strong, and being less likely to need expensive medical care, you knew that if you got smashed up somehow, your society wouldn’t let you die just because you’d chosen to skip paying.

It’s unlikely that money you banked instead of paying premiums would have been sufficient to cover anything beyond office visits. I remember in 1987, when my daughter broke her femur and was in traction for three weeks, the bill was $20,000. I was stunned that a broken leg could cost more than half my annual pay, but luckily I was insured then. It would probably be $60 or $100k today. Actually, when we had the daughter in 1977 we were uninsured. Then, the doctor was only $300, and the hospital $1100. I scraped together money from odd jobs and sold two guns and paid it.

Most Americans today don’t believe in socialized medicine, but don’t believe in letting uninsured people suffer or die from inattention, either. That means that most of the country, at some level, believes health care is a right.

Actually

In reply to A couple of things made it easier for you to hold no insurance

my stepson (can’t be on my insurance) broke his ankle last spring and the total cash cost was only $1,700. Of course, that was at Urgent Care rather than the ER.

Many health professionals give a discount for cash. My doctor charges $45 for an office visit without insurance, $115 with. There was one not far from here just retired, but offered visit, prescription, and even x-ray, all for $25! He refused to accept insurance.

There are problems in the system (most of them CAUSED by government), but it’s not as dire as the alarmists make it out to be.

Nice assumptions

In reply to A couple of things made it easier for you to hold no insurance

But 100% false.

I did it because I was willing to accept the risk with the understanding that if something catastrophic came up I would either be in debt for ever or dead. I made no assumption on any safety net or assistance.

If you chose humbly not to die, would you have considered bankruptcy?

In reply to Nice assumptions

It’s within the law…

Incidentally, it appears that half the bankruptcies in the country lately are due to medical causes.

Nope

In reply to Nice assumptions

I have spent the last 10 years digging my way out from under 50K worth of debt. Most my financial analyst friends prodded me to take the bankruptcy route.

I am a man of my word. I signed a contract stating I would pay for X, and I will. Granted, not the easy way, but it is the honest way.

(Before some panic and jump all over the honesty bit, there are limited circumstances where it doesn’t apply)

Most would consider a medical catastrophe just cause for bankruptcy

In reply to Nice assumptions

without even thinking twice.

He has to have it pass sooner rather than later

In reply to President Obama says chance for healthcare overhaul is slipping away

Otherwise, it will never get done when he becomes bogged down in other issues.

His plan is, at best, a work in progress. Too big, too expensive so far. Private companies could do it better.

I think this is too fast for me.

AV

Other issues?

In reply to He has to have it pass sooner rather than later

who is it that sets the agenda, to allow other issues take a priority? President? House speaker? Both are in the same camp, and I don’t see one of them defecting on the other.

Obama sets the agenda

In reply to Other issues?

But think about all the issues he faces. Two wars, the economic meltdown, jobs, housing crisis, healthcare, immigration, etc.

The bag.

AV

Too fast?

In reply to He has to have it pass sooner rather than later

This brand new concept that has never been given consideration in America before? This old horse has been eaten a thousand times with no resolve, its about time someone did something other than wade through
beaurocratic red tape for a change. He;s finally getting something done instead of cowering and playing lip service until election time.

People in America don’t ssem to realize that this IS in the better interest of othrer nations too. The sooner your country is back on it’s feet, the sooner you start paying fair prices for your imports, instead of playing the sick brother in need role and crying for lower prices on life.

just doing something is not always good

In reply to Too fast?

if what you are doing is not going to be a workable solution, but that is a little more thought into this than you are willing to invest.

Making sweeping changes, damn the price, will not improve our situation financially or medically and we end up with just one more government poorly run program heading for destruction.

New to whom?

In reply to just doing something is not always good

You? You haven’t been privvy to his plans and ideas all along? Does he owe it to you to let you sit and ponder/qualify his every move ? What makes you think this hasn’t been a focus from day one of his campaing, I fnot before. Perhaps all he needed to see was a revision of actual stats and numbers unavailable to him until in office.

Do you really think he just took office, had an idea and is now throwing it into unplanned action?

Yuo throw out all of these baseless arguments as if yuo know what he is doing, thinking and working on.

What do yuo base such opinions on other than your own personal bias towards him?

And you call that reasonable discussion? Get real. It’s only reasonable if people agree with you, if not you will make up whatever you need to to instill yoru own views in a pathetic attempt to show you are right and they are wrong, as if you have even the foggiest clue to begin with.

Too fast

In reply to Too fast?

to study the consequences of this specific legislation.

BTW, do the math. 2.1 trillion divided by 40 million uninsured. That comes to $52,500 per person per year. $4,375 per person per month.

How many people do you know who would require that much medical treatment in a month? I’ve personally only had about twice that in my entire life!

Now try again

In reply to Too fast

try it again with some real numbers, your simplistic math doesn’t cut it.

Even then your numbers are wrong, in 2005 there were over 46.6 million Americans uninsured, which is an increase of mroe than 15% that year, even higher than the previous years increase of 14%. So with an increase of uninsured Americans of 15+% when there was a greater empolyment rate that number will escalate again, realistically you are looking at about 16-17% ANNUAl increase today. Which puts you at over 50 Million, more than teh entire population of Canada is uninsured, unale to afford insurance in teh USA. You have an increase of approxinamtely 330,000 additional CHILDREN each year that are uninsured, and yet you feel confident that your system is effective and doesn’t require fast action to turn it around, nice ot see it works for you as an individual anyway. Why should anything in YOUR life change for the betterment of others in your nation. That would be unselfish!

I was using the numbers

In reply to Now try again

Obama used in his speech.

I’m not saying people should be uninsured, I’m saying it can be done a lot less expensively than with $2.1 trillion dollars of tax money!

So let’s use really bad numbers… say 100 million were uninsured. Let’s say a that 10% are single, and the rest required family coverage.

Now, what’s decent private insurance cost, $8,000 a year for single, and $12,000 for family?

So that’s 10 million times 8 thousand plus 90 million times 12 thousand… That comes up to a little over 1.1 trillion. What’s the other trillion for?

To better understand your point

In reply to I was using the numbers

Are you actually equating a total cost of providing insurance to people with a cost per person for teh actual premiums? Or are you also allowing for administrative and development costs in yoru tally? Personally I think that would be a great part of such an expense, well beyond each individual’s personal costs.

If a company took on 10 people to work in a warehouse and the estimated cost was 800,000yr. Would that be a number to illustrate simply their wages at 80K a year or would it include administrative costs, pension costs, computer costs, sick time, training costs etc. and a wage of around 25K/yr? if so, where does the other $15K go? Work that out and it should answer your question.

I’m equating

In reply to To better understand your point

the private insurance industry charging $1.1 trillion to insure 100 million people vs. the government charging $2.1 trillion to insure 46 million (the number you provided and I’ll assume is correct).

For private that’s $11,000 per person. For government that’s $45,652.17 per person.

It appears that government is less than one fourth as efficient…. or four times as corrupt!

It’s a great concept

In reply to To better understand your point

But that’s what you do today, you simply buy insurance if you can afford to. Do you really think the solution is to just have the government pay for people’s premiums instead? Why would YOU continue to pay premiums yourself?

While you often mention the horrors of tax dollars supporting others who scam the system and don’t NEED help, how well do you think such a system would work if it wasn’t government regulated? Insurance companies falsify documents all the time, that will be effective at a government level! Why would ANYONE pay insurance premiums if they were paid out by the government?

It would be no different than people scamming the government system, except on a much grander scale.

Wasn’t condoning it,

In reply to To better understand your point

just pointing out that it would cost less…

Personally, I’m for barring employers from offering insurance… pay the employees the money instead. Then with 70+ million new customers on the open market, competition would be fierce, and prices would plummet… to the point where more people could afford it.

It works for us

In reply to To better understand your point

At $54.00 month, no matter who the employee is, companies usually don’t have issues offering medical, If they don’t offer full coverage, they will often offer extended medical coverage and the employee pays the basic. The differences being extended coverage pays you for time you miss work, additional elective surgery costs, such as cosmetic surgery, etc.

Some companies will offer a 50/50 plan where you each pay half, a whopping $27.00 a month, which they will deduct form your check and pay out on your behalf to save you the effort.

We really don’t have the horrific system it is made out to be in the USA, it works quite well, though not perfect of course.

Medical is an issue VERY few people worry about or need to discuss here, it comes up when the news is on about provincial medical costs, hospital beds, doctors and nurses wanting more money etc. But it is does not see the same focus on daunting issues the US system does.

It’s not a matter of ever being uninsured, because EVERYONE is ALWAYS insured.

We just assume medical, you screw up and get hurt, or someone else screws up and you get hurt, and you go to hospital, closest one and see whoever you want without calling an insurer or anything. I don’t worry if I am properly covered, if I don’t have a medical card with me and don’t know my number it’s no problem, they’ll see to me and look up the details themselves.

Coverage and costs are just a non-issue really. If you need help, you get help and don’t get a bill.

Do you really think that $54 a month

In reply to To better understand your point

is all it costs for all of everybody’s health care? Or that that’s all you are paying?

Your system isn’t cheaper… The real costs are just better hidden.

Oh it isn’t

In reply to To better understand your point

In Ontario, the number os much higher, but neither reflect the true cost of providing the services.

But it isn’t all taxes either. Our hospitals may be government regulated but they are private and they do fundraise and make money from concessions(Food, flowers, parking, private room fees etc). Teaching hospitals get some funding from med students tuitions. Some of the bigger hospitals make money doing medical research in conjunction with private companies.

James

Tony, in contrast

In reply to To better understand your point

As I just posted at the bottom of the thread, jck pays just over $700.00/month.

Whether he is sick or not, his $700.00 a month goes towards paying other people’s medical costs, people who also only pay $700.00 a month and may face $50,000 – $100,000 in medical expenses, which your premiums pay for as they only pay 8,400.00/year themselves.

So now matter how careful and responsible YOU are, your premiums are still based on seeing to others who may blatantly risk injury, people who work when they are not supposed to and further existing injuries etc.

You STILL pay for other peoples medical services, insurance companies don’t start little savings funds for everyone who pays into it, otherwise your coverage would be limited to $8,400.00 a year, which I am sure you understand is not even covering your most basic medical costs in a private system, should you require medical attention.

So where does the extra money come from, to support Cindy when she breaks a leg ice skating, to support Gord when he almost pokes an eye out while dirt bike riding? YOUR pocket!

Now, in contrast, a system that REGULATES costs is not simply in it to make a profit but break even at best, is a system you scoff at because others who don’t pay for it may get your money?

Our overall costs are much lower as they are also regulated and doctors don’t get to just randomly make up insane figures for practicing medicine. Your actual costs for medical attention trump our own by miles. Our system is funded in many ways, as Jams has described, as opposed to an insurer the simply raises everyone’s rates when the CEO needs a new yacht.

Taxes, my total monthly income tax deductions from my daytime employer are not much higher than your monthly health insurance costs by themselves, which covers ALL of my taxes for ALL services provided, not just medical, so your issue of taxation falls on deaf ears.

No matter how much you THINK i pay in taxes, no matter how little you think i pay in medical premiums, I STILL pay a fraction of what you do each month and I get the whole kit and kaboodle included. No matter who the money is allocated, bottom line is I pay less than you do and I get more for it because it is regulated and controlled, unlike the insurance con artists.

Back to the others you are helping with your premiums; Cindy never covered HER $26,000 in health costs with her private insurance premiums, neither did Gord cover his $52,000.00 when he got into a dirt bike accident, but your insurance company charges you enough that they can help cover the additional costs incurred by Cindy and Greg, they thank you for being responsible and allowing them to play carelessly on your dime.

Overcharging you privately to pay for others seems better does it?

Just the simple premise that ANY insurance agent in ANY industry (as they all are in business to become wealthy at the expense of policy holders) is even comparable to a much lower priced and regulated system, is simply lunacy.

Private insurance is never a better way to spend your money, it is unregulated, overly expensive and is in place simply make the business owner (or investors) rich as hell while helping others, responsible or not, on your dime.

Did Cindy and Doug send you a Christmas card last year thanking you for the help?

Or better yet,

In reply to Now try again

In the 2,000 census, 93% of the “uninsured” said that their health was either excellent, very good, or good. Let’s say that that number has dropped to 80%

So let’s pay for 3 well visits per year, at $200 per, that’s $600 a year plus 1200 a year for “catastrophic coverage” making $1800 a year for 80 million people, that’s $144 billion, and $10,000 a year for traditional insurance for the other 20 million, that’s 200 billion, for a total of 344 billion. That’s a hell of a lot less than $2.1 trillion!

I llove it when you crunch numbers

In reply to Or better yet,

they are so speculative that you can find ANY end result you choose.

On another angle though, it’s like making fine measurements along a 40′ length, if you are out by .08 inches at one end you will by out by several inches the time you are done.

You must realize that such made up figures mean absolutely nothing and hold absolutely no weight at all.

93% SAID their helth was excellent, they also don’t have insurance or see a doctor, how many are really sick or in early stages of cancer and simply don’t know it ecaus ethey can’t afford to find out. Such a claim has no bearing at all, it is an unqualifie dconclusion on your part, thus making all subsequent calculations irrelevant and inaccurate also, but it was a ncie excercise all the same. Where do you estimate the figure of $1200.00 for catastrohpic coverage? Based on whom with what catastrophe? Heart transplant? Ongoing care for a head injury? Loss of a limb?

You facts and figures are not even qualified speculation.

When Bush would constantly ask for more and mroe of your money to support his war in Iraq. I never saw you crunching HIS numbers and questioning the ridiculously exorbitant amounts of your tax dollars that he wasted there.

When it comes to saving lives and increasing the average life span of Americans (which is nothing to brag about as it is) out comes your little mental calculator to calculate fictional figures and question the amount and motives. Why?

I seriously doubt you see the flaw in such action though.

You didn’t know, nor take a moment to begin to question why he needed THAT much money in Iraq, you just support it regardless, ‘he knows’ and that’s all that matters; but you feel you have it all worked out as to how much health care will cost and seeing as it costs less than your fruitless efforts in Iraq, how can you justify your complaint, or even your sudden concern for spending.

How much did the nearly 700 billion spent on Iraq increase your taxes and step on your livelihood?

This is too important an issue to do in haste

In reply to Too fast?

Getting a healthcare bill done before the August recess of Congress as Obama had planned is unrealistic. Maybe the end of this year is more like it. I admire Obama immensely for his focus on the hard problems and his sincerity.

I like “eaten a thousand times with no resolve” because that describes our healthcare dilemma in this country. The biggest consideration is how we will pay for it.

AV

Just raise taxes on the top 10 percent

In reply to This is too important an issue to do in haste

after all, “they” can afford to foot the bill for this as well.

And that is a big key to the Democrats, using words like “they” or “the rich”. A faceless group, ripe for the plunder. Ripe until they get chased off shore like Dems did with many businesses with their punitive taxes. It all started as a tax break. It wasn’t till later that the outsourcing to get rid of the Democrat mandated benefits and lower wages and no unions that the actual labor was moved off.

Yeah, but

In reply to Just raise taxes on the top 10 percent

where do the top ten percent get their money?

From the other 90%

Raise their taxes, raise your prices… dollar for dollar!

no no no

In reply to Yeah, but

clearly they have done something dishonest to gain this undeserved wealth or they would not have earned the title of being the evil rich, right? they are greedy because they work hard and have been successful, so they need to be punished to reward those that have not put in the same efforts.

There is not a single independent watchdog that is agreeing with the price tag for all the mana from heaven TheObama is promising will rain down on the commoners….

But, you see,

In reply to no no no

the “evil rich” aren’t who you think they are.

No. The super rich are mostly big name Democrats, and are not “evil” at all. They deserve their riches because of their self-proclaimed ability to know what’s best for everyone else. The “evil rich” are those who dare try to climb the mountain that the super rich are atop of.

I don’t think thats gonna work

In reply to Just raise taxes on the top 10 percent

The super rich will just find new creative ways to hide their money. I don’t feel sorry for them if they do get taxed.

I do feel sorry for those at the lower end of the rich ladder. Probably most of our small business owners. $250,000 a year is not rich where I live.

You know what I would like to see? Dems and Repubs working together on a more reasonable healthcare bill. I know, silly me. Republicans need to contribute more than just criticism and snipes at Obama. They have better ideas that are more fiscally conservative. They also have friends in the blue dog Democrats. Instead, Republicans would rather wait it out until the 2010 elections and hope that Obama will fail so they get re-elected.

Who gets screwed in the end? The people. Again.

AV

There’s a problem with patience

In reply to This is too important an issue to do in haste

The longer the subject is debated, the more disjointed the Democrats in Congress become, and the less able they become to fight the professional and corporate interests. The program will have more and more giveaways attached to it, will become less effective at controlling costs, and will lose Democrat votes from those who worry about deficits foremost.

Meanwhile, the Republicans will be able to repeat their message longer, and build doubt about the program. The problem with the Republican vision is there is none at all. The Republican view is that no program is better than a bad program, or even better than a good program. They just want to stop it, period, and they will sound reasonable and prudent until it stalls, and then they will say nothing at all.

American medical care is already consuming a sixth of the economy, doesn’t cover 20% of the people, and is delivering mediocre results to the other 80%. The longer it goes on, the more expensive it becomes. If we don’t hustle, we probably won’t get a fix in this time around. If the bill gets worse, it won’t be worth passing, but that will leave us in a sorry (and steadily worsening) condition.

So, it is urgent

In reply to There’s a problem with patience

because of the lack of following through on something the party claims to be a lofty goal?

That, and force it through before the details can get out to the public.

He’s backing off a bit…

In reply to President Obama says chance for healthcare overhaul is slipping away

Now it’s the end of the year….

In other news, over 40 Republicans co-sponsored an addendum that would require members of congress to use whatever single-payer plan they voted for… not one Democrat would sign on.

Gee, I wonder why not!

Of course they won’t sign it

In reply to He’s backing off a bit…

because they know it is going to be crap, and while they expect US to downgrade to it, they sure as hell aren’t going to.

I’ve just realized the solution…

In reply to President Obama says chance for healthcare overhaul is slipping away

Raise the minimum wage to about $60 an hour. That’ll fix it!

No

In reply to I’ve just realized the solution…

set EVERY wage at $60 an hour.

That way no one will feel left out that someone is better than they are at something.

It will solve every problem in the world, minimum wage, if you are dumb.

I personally don’t care that someone doesn’t make a “living wage” working at burgerworld as a cashier or pulling fries.

Dude…

In reply to No

don’t turn into a commy!!
]:)

Not enough?

In reply to Dude…

ok, $70 an hour? :p

Ok

In reply to Not enough?

80 bucks an hour and you don’t even have to do anything.

That will fix it.

Wouldn’t

In reply to Ok

that be boring though??
]:)

Sadly I’m sure some people would love that though wouldn’t they.

of course they would love it

In reply to Wouldn’t

until they found that the currency would be valuless and while they have a higher dollar number on their check stub, they still can’t afford to get anything more than before.

That is what happens when people that feel instead of thing start being generous with other peoples money.

Yup..

In reply to Wouldn’t

So..the idea of everyone making the same amount disturbs me 🙂

I’m all for the whole “you get what you work for” type of thing.

Word hard..get pay raise, make more..
Learn new skills, move up, make more..

I could have waited tables all my life, but i wanted something more..

somedays i think it would be nice if i didn’t care and got a job where I didn’t have to think..or work very hard..but I’d quit in a week..just isn’t who I am

Don’t knock commies!!

In reply to Dude…

Picard, Riker and Janeway were all commies!!!

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Trek-Marxism.html

:p

HELL YEAH!!!

In reply to Don’t knock commies!!

Star Trek RULEZ!!! :^0

Mmmmmmm…I’d let 7 of 9 make me a Borg anytime ]:) :^0

7 of 9 and the Presidency

In reply to HELL YEAH!!!

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/22/ryan.divorce/

If this doesn’t come out, Barrack may not have won here in Illinois.

So, if you believe Obama is out to make us a socialist country, 7 of 9 may very well be responsible for assimilating you!

:p

Dear God

In reply to 7 of 9 and the Presidency

I only wish she would :^0

I’d like to byte her baud ]:)

Yabba-dabba-do- me

In reply to 7 of 9 and the Presidency

Okay she’s hot, if I was in a foreign country and thought she was a little edgy in her ways, I’d drag her in for a floor show too. Not into it? Okay lets go get lunch then.

Either way, what I don’t understand is how this “news” would effect a man’s abilities in a political role.

It’s like judging someone based on personal religious preference or lack of. Bush was a Christian; big deal, it shouldn’t have any bearing on his role as a president, beyond helping him retain personal faith and strength. However when he reverted to his religious beliefs as a reason for not supporting same sex marriage, it had gone too far. A specific religion cannot become a basis for governmental decisions. If you cannot separate your personal freedom to choose your religion from your role as president, you should not be in that position. Of course someone’s faith will illustrate how they live their life, but to make a political decision based solely on yoru own faith is wrong.

The same goes for the public judging political figures, his sexual exploits, legally and with his wife, are absolutely irrelevant to his ability to perform his political work.

That said;

Why is it that, in America, people are so quick to judge people’s moral and religious stance when considering their ability in a a political role?

Why is someone’s private life, or sexual adventures with his wife something the public considers before voting?

My only answer is that people let their own personal religious faith intervene with their ability to accept others for who they really are. A religious bias?

If he/she has a political record of costly mistakes, then that is one thing and certainly a question to ask when considering a vote. What a politician, or hopeful politician does when on vacation with his wife illustrtates nothing of political relevance whatsoever.

Character? It has nothing to do with his chracter on a political platform either.

Why is it important?

The interesting thing about the doctrines

In reply to Don’t knock commies!!

ever notice how closely they match Democrats of today?

“Democrats divided on health care overhaul”

In reply to President Obama says chance for healthcare overhaul is slipping away

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul

[i]”The president also has vowed that the legislation will not swell the deficit, although a senior administration official told reporters Tuesday that the pledge does not apply to an estimated $245 billion to increase fees for doctors serving Medicare patients over the next decade.”[/i]

of course a certain non-American will snivel about this being a lie too…. :^0

What Republicans want

In reply to “Democrats divided on health care overhaul”

(BTW…I typed this verbatim from his speech.)

[i]”I’ve always believed that if you’re gonna do healthcare, you’ve gotta do it right. You can’t just do it partially.

You can’t have a conversation with just trial lawyers and insurance companies. You gotta include patients and doctors. You can’t…you can’t have a conversation without including the pharmaceutical companies. You can’t have a conversation about healthcare without including everyone who is touched by the issue.”[/i]

Michael Steele, Republican Party Chairman, at a National Press Club speech, July 20, 2009

That’s from the man’s own mouth.

Thing is, Bush sat in office 8 years and never tried to do anything to reform healthcare. Why didn’t the Republican party light a fire under his arse if they were so opposed to the way it is to get change happening?

Then also, these are the sticking points that Steele says should be dealt with:

[i]He reeled off a list of ?simple, common-sense fixes? backed by the GOP. Most of the reforms address costs, which he called the health-care system?s biggest problem. Among the reforms:

* Requiring doctors and hospitals to post on the Internet the prices of all tests, treatments, procedures and office visits.
* Requiring insurance companies to offer simple, understandable contracts and one-page reimbursement forms.
* Protecting doctors from frivolous, expensive lawsuits.
* Enabling employees to take their health insurance with them when they change jobs.
* Supporting paperless, health-care IT systems
* Emphasizing prevention, wellness and disease management programs.
* Offering tax credits for health-insurance premiums.
* Imposing tougher penalties on companies, physicians and others who abuse the health-care system.
* Enabling small businesses to form cooperatives to offer employee health plans.
[/i]

-From a synopsis of items on the National Press Club website.

My questions are this:

a) why can’t most of those, if not all, be worked into the plan Obama is trying to get worked through Congress?

b) tax credits for who? companies? why?

c) why just only help everyone down to the level of “small business”? why not allow everyone to get decent, affordable insurance? including individuals and families?

I like most of what he said, but the tax credit thing just sounds like a way for big companies to get another huge tax break. Give the tax break to the PEOPLE.

But all the bickering is really silly. Stop pandering to Corporate America and getting them tax credits. Stop pandering to insurance corporations and get this thing rolling.

Whether it gets done by August 1 or not, I would like to see a good framework with delineated items of legislation pre-worded and ready for debate and resolution and vote come Jan 2010 for HR 1 and SB 1.

Most importantly, it has to be done right.

edited

In reply to President Obama says chance for healthcare overhaul is slipping away

just because

Obama May Have to Wait for Health Care

In reply to President Obama says chance for healthcare overhaul is slipping away

http://news.aol.com/article/obama-health-care-plan/579277?cid=12

To many Democrats have seen they were heading for a cliff and are no longer willing to rubber stamp these programs. Who would have thought it?

The public polls show the general population is against the direction TheObama is going. They disagree with most of his programs, but like him personally. Nothing like having a popular person drive you over a cliff?

another skewed view by your absolutely biased mind

In reply to Obama May Have to Wait for Health Care

[i]”A new poll suggests public approval of the way President Barack Obama is handling health care reform is slipping.

The Washington Post-ABC News survey says since April, Obama’s approval rating on the issue has declined from 57 percent to 49 percent, with disapproval rising from 29 percent to 44 percent.

The president’s overall approval rating stands at 59 percent positive and 37 percent negative. It’s the first time Obama’s approval rating has fallen below 60 percent in Post-ABC polling since he took office.”[/i]

-Fox News

According to real poll numbers, about half of America still favors it. So, your “general population” comment is incorrect.

BTW, when did you get a crystal ball? You seem to be able to tell the future and that Obama is going to “drive you over a cliff”.

I wish you’d have been telling the future when Bush took office. I’d have stayed in Ireland in 2004 and risked arrest. :^0

Nothing like having a popular person drive you over a cliff?

In reply to Obama May Have to Wait for Health Care

It’s definitely different than having a very unpopular person send you off to die by yourself for something you don’t even believe in. At least Obama is along for the ride.

Is he?

In reply to Nothing like having a popular person drive you over a cliff?

[i]At least Obama is along for the ride.[/i]

Is [b]he[/b] willing to use the health care plan he’s trying to set up? Not one Democrat in Congress is! Why do you suppose that is?

In Medieval times, it was common for the king to employ a ‘tester’ to taste the food before the king ate it… both to make sure it was palatable and that it wasn’t poisoned.

Perhaps, since the people are supposedly “king”, Congress, the President, and all employees of the public should be required to ‘taste’ this plan before giving it to us to ‘eat’… for the same reasons 🙂

Oh Gawd, here we o again!

In reply to Is he?

He is along for the ride because he is the president and knows he will be responsible if it fails and it will lose him any hopes of reelection.

I honestly thought you’d see it as opposed to some absurd comment about his choice in policy.

The food taster garbage? Kings aren’t elected, I won’t even answer such rot, you need to come up with more accurate and reasonable analogies in order for them to hold any weight.

The people,

In reply to Oh Gawd, here we o again!

the king in the analogy, aren’t elected either. It’s a perfect analogy!

[i]He is along for the ride because he is the president and knows he will be responsible[/i]

What responsibility? If he messes it up, he won’t be re-elected, and will have to suffer with a generous lifetime pension package and perks?

Poor guy!

Let me ask again:

Not one Democrat in Congress is willing to use the plan they’re setting up instead of the one they have now. Why do you suppose that is?

I see three possible explanations:

1. They’re stupid to turn down such an incredible offer. The problem with that is,if they’re that stupid, do we really want them messing around with health care?

2. They KNOW that the plan they’re creating isn’t as good as what they have, whether coverage-wise or cost-wise. Which begs the question, If it’s not good enough for them, why should the people be forced to accept it?

3.They’re trying to poison us! 🙂

Perhaps you could think of a reason I hadn’t thought of… care to try?

Try facts instead of fables

In reply to The people,

“Not one Democrat in Congress is willing to use the plan they’re setting up instead of the one they have now. Why do you suppose that is?”

You wold be referring to the ‘blue dogs’ who fear losing their position in their relative electione.

“That, because not only have Blue Dog (conservative) Democrats discovered that his health care plan will push this country deeper into an already massive debt, but if health reform passes, Mr. Obama will have pushed those Blue Dogs out of office in 2010.

The Blue Dogs come from shaky, as opposed to safe Democratic districts, where a wrong step on federal spending or taxes could whisk them out of office easily.”

That is not saying there isn’t a single democraty on congrss that supports him not in any way, no matter how many times you repeat it, you are still incorrect.

From another news source: “President Barack Obama may rely only on Democrats to push health-care legislation through the U.S. Congress if Republican opposition doesn?t yield soon, two of the president?s top advisers said. ”

Hard to rely on them when not a single one of them will support him.

Reuters:”The first of five congressional panels to act, the Senate Health Committee approved on a 13-10 party-line vote legislation that would set up a government-run insurance program to compete with private insurers”

Yeah must have been all, hmmm, not republicans and you say it can’t be democrats? Who the hell supported it then?

Face it, there are conservative ddemocrats that don’ support it as it will be too expensive and any financial loss will hinder their ability to retain office in a poorer state, and there are even some liberal democrats that think it’s not ENOUGH money.

But nowehere, not one single, biased blog on the web, except your own words and I’m sure JD would jump in to spoon with you, is there any mention that “not a single democrat in congress” supports it.

That’s just pure buIIshit.

No,

In reply to Try facts instead of fables

[i]You wold be referring to the ‘blue dogs’ who fear losing their position in their relative electione. [/i]

‘blue dogs’ are conservative Democrats. It was Republicans (Senator Coburn) who offered the amendment requiring Congress to use the plan they voted for.

The blue dogs helped Republicans force another amendment… one that requires the elimination or duplicate programs created by the plan, but lost the amendment banning illegal immigrants from using the plan.

[i]”President Barack Obama may rely only on Democrats to push health-care legislation through the U.S. Congress if Republican opposition doesn?t yield soon, two of the president?s top advisers said. ”
[/i]

They have the votes even if every Republican voted against it, so it’s all a show.

The only way it can possibly fail is if several Democrats vote against it. But if by a Blessed Miracle it does fail, I GUARANTEE that the media will blame Republicans!

That has nothing to do with what you’ve been saying though

In reply to Try facts instead of fables

You said, not a single democrat in congress supports it.

Proof of your assertion woul dbe needed, as I illustrated, that is false it is just asegment of Conservative Democrats in congress that have to fear losing their seat in office. the only reason THEY don’t support it is due to personal interests.

Spending your tax dollars

In reply to President Obama says chance for healthcare overhaul is slipping away

After commenting with jck, I realized just how badly your current insurance system rips you off, I am sure most if not all of you feel insurance costs are out of control and are ripping you off.

Of course, you understand that the reason your premiums soar uncontrollably is due in part to a lack of regulation (no limit as to what they can charge you, besides competitive pricing)and also the fact the you are paying for other people to get help from yoru own pocketbook.

JCK mentioned paying just over $700 PER MONTH!!! for his insurance premiums, for a single person.

People have continually questioned how I can accept a government taking my money and using it to help others who did not earn it, in my case a whopping $54/month, which is less than 8% of the cost jck pays for private insurance.

I think a lot of people feel that if you pay for insurance, you are not paying for others who did not earn the money, which is only PART of the equation. Insurance companies charging $707.00 month, cannot afford your own health bills paid only by you if you need surgery or extended care, which is when insurance is needed the most.

I am sure everyone else is in a similar situation, insurance companies are private, FOR profit companies, they are in it to take your money and HOPEFULLY you won’t get sick and make them pay out for you and instead they can use your money to pay for other people’s medical costs and STILL come out with millions for themselves.

so how do they pay for Jane Graham’s surgery and hospital bills, totaling over $60,000 when she only pays $700.00/month?

YOU pay for her health care, AND you still pay taxes too AND you pay your own ridiculously high monthly premiums to protect your own arse should you need medical help and are lucky enough to have the right coverage.

However, paying twice at a rate many MANY times what a government subsidized system would charge is a preferred system?

That’s sheer lunacy simply because of so called “values” where you don’t think the government should be in control.

The problem with unmanageable insurance costs is that they AREN’T regulated and are NOT controlled. However a system that IS cost regulated and controlled is not seen as a more feasible solution?

I simply don’t understand how anyone can convince themselves that private insurance is a better deal. The only explanation is an ignorance towards even investigating options and a stubborn attitude towards freedoms and taxation, which results in costing you more, not less.

DISCLAIMER: jck I merely used your figures as an example, not to make fun of what you pay or what your preferences are.

That $707 is fairly normal for COBRA

In reply to Spending your tax dollars

Here are some other rate charts that would substantiate the $707 number:

http://www.noao.edu/cas/hr/hr_forms/Rates%202007%20COBRA%20Retiree.pdf

https://hr.depaul.edu/ContributionFolder/Documents/Benefits/2008PremiumsforFull-timeFacultyandStaff09_24_07.pdf

Also, when I switched jobs last year, my former employer sent me the COBRA forms. I could have elected to keep my family covered for the price of about $1200 or so a month (in fairness, that would have covered vision and dental, too…not just health). My understanding is that you are getting the health insurance at the same rates that the former employer did (which underscores how much private companies shell out on this, too). Fortunately, my insurance with my current employer started day 1.

You can elect not to use COBRA. However, if you have any sort of condition, you run the risk of getting rejected for coverage, or paying even higher rates than those under COBRA. So, it is a d@mned if you do (high price, but definitely covered) or d@mned if you don’t (may find cheaper coverage, but not be entirely insurable) scenario.

Another bummer about insurance (particularly switching) is that not all doctors accept all insurance providers. I have had to change my primary care physician 6 times since I left my old job due to my former doctor not being covered (some of the new PCPs were no longer covered, either…and a few were just curmudgeons). I’m seeing my new PCP in a couple of weeks for a physical, and just hoping that it goes well (both in terms of my health and rapport).

I could have gone with the PPO option, so I could see any doctor of my choosing, but the price is almost double what I pay for Point of Service (or POS…somewhat ironic acronym), and with a wife about to get laid off, I couldn’t justify that extra cost for a pretty healthy family.

See thats one nice thing here

In reply to That $707 is fairly normal for COBRA

We can see whatever doctor we want. My mom was told by her GP to get a good surgeon, so she asked who was the best in Canada, and called his office and got an appointment in 3 weeks. She was operated on 6 weeks later (non urgent case).

But that also extends to the things not covered by our government funded system, like dental. Today only those on welfare get help with dental, the rest of us often have private insurance, but I’ve never seen a case where the private insurer could dictate which dentist we see.

James

Seems to be inefficient

In reply to See thats one nice thing here

Develop a rapport with a doctor over a period of 6 years.

Doctor establishes a solid baseline for your health, and can tell when something isn’t right without it being mentioned.

Now you have to up and start anew.

Even with transferring the medical records over, a good deal of knowledge about my health is getting flushed down the tubes for no better reason than my doctor and the new insurance not being able to negotiate payment terms.

If the same thing happened with auto financing (sorry, your credit union and Honda couldn’t agree to the worth of the car, so you’ll have to settle for a GM), people would be lighting torches and carrying pitchforks.

The big boondoggle in Ontario these days

In reply to Seems to be inefficient

Is over the creation of a db to store medical records, so doctors/hospitals don’t have to ask for paper or electronic records to be sent to them (with patients permission of course). Its cost alot with no results yet.

We’ve been in the same place 15 years, and I’ve had a number of jobs (3), been unemployed, but have only had 1 doctor. He came to the delivery of my youngest, not because he was needed, but because he wanted to. He has shepparded my wife to many specialists. When my wife has needed urgent attention from a specialist, he has picked up the phone and made calls on our behalf.

Its too bad you have to lose that.

James

Whaaaat?

In reply to Seems to be inefficient

Who’s doctor changed after 6 years?

I’ve seen many GP’s that have sent me t o a specialist for further diagnosis, it ensures that people with the most knowledge of a condition work on that condition.

As for changing doctors, I was just told by another American peer that he HAD to change several times because his policy changed and THEY decide where you go based on what you pay.

I can see the same doctor or specialist as a multimillionaire, it doesn’t cost me a penny more either. I don’t trust GP’s for much other than basic issues anyway, I don’t need to I as have equal access to the nation’s best specialists instead.

Sound slike a winner system

In reply to That $707 is fairly normal for COBRA

Too bad I don’t have to go through all that, i can’t make decisions that may jeopardize my health coverage, I can’t choose to pay hundreds more than I do now. Sux really, I want the freedom to waste all my money on insurance too!

I pay $143.00/mo in vehicle insurance and THAT pi$$s me off as I have a choice to find a different policy holder but only save money if I get less coverage or higher deductibles or greater restrictions in what I can and can’t do. Kind like your screwy medical system.

These people telling me they pay $700+ for a month, can’t think of more important things to do with that same money? the argument is that it is TAKEN from you otherwise?

You have a choice of two thieves:

Thief number one “asks” you for $700.00 and keeps coming back each month for more and will raise that amount if he should so desire.

Thief number two just lets you leave $54.00 for him each month and leaves you alone.

Actually, $700 per month represents a bargain

In reply to Spending your tax dollars

The $700 was what his employer pays to put him in a group, and what he would have to pay to continue in that group. Group rates are lower than individual rates. $700 is what it costs to insure an individual who is no more likely than anybody else to get sick. That is, for a certain palette of benefits… the better the benefits, the higher the price, per normal individual.

If you are an individual seeking medical insurance, it’s a fair bet that you think you’ll really need it. In other words, you are likely to file expensive claims. If you didn’t think there was a strong chance you’d get sick and need help with your bills, you probably would just risk going it alone. The insurance company is not in business to lose money by taking the burden off of sick people, and if you are willing to pay for insurance, it’s a sign you are risky, so they will price you for risk.

Go look for insurance alone, and you are likely to spend $1000 to $2000 per month, with no coverage allowed for pre-existing conditions. Welcome to America.

What a scam!

In reply to Actually, $700 per month represents a bargain

Thank god that when I worked there I was still covered by Canadian medical. I could visits a US hospital and they just billed it out to Canada, not me.

I know some people say that isn’t fair.

However do they REALLY think that their monthly costs are for them only? If you don’t get sick that year you get your money back? If you get sick, the insurer uses other people’s money to pay your medical bills too.

Either way, the government takes and redistributes your money, or you choose to let a private company take many times more and do the same.

Actually

In reply to What a scam!

up until about five years ago, yes, if I didn’t use above my deductible, I got the the premiums back. That is the reason why I paid my doctor in cash instead of him billing the insurance. Yeah, I paid $45 instead of $10, three or four times a year, but if nothing major happened, I got a check for $800 or so. They still do it, but now it’s applied to the whole group as a unit… if nobody has a claim in a month, the entire group gets that month’s premium returned. Granted it’s a lot tougher but, perhaps amazingly to you, it’s happened four times in the last 5 years… and my “group” is almost 45,000 people!

I think there’s a psychological thing… some people use something more if they think it’s free.

Yeah

In reply to Actually

I busted a leg just last week because I knew it would be fixed for free. I think I’ll go for loss of sight next month, that’ll rack up some free mdeical for me!

” I got a check for $800 or so”

Didn’t you just say you pay upwards of $1000.00 a month unless subsidized by teh company?

That’s like people who say, ‘take mroe tax off my check than you need to, I’ll just get it back at the end of teh year. Not realizing that you will only get SOME of it back.

Unless of course you are referring to paying 800 and getting 800 in one month.

5 years ago it was cheaper

In reply to Yeah

I was paying about $70 or 75 a month for family plan, my employer was paying nine times that. I was refunded about $800, they about $7,000.

Now it’s different. They don’t pay for family plan unless you have children you are required to support, and the ratio has changed to 70/30 instead of 90/10. So I’m paying $260 and change plus the difference between single and family ($130) and they’re paying $620 or so.

What I was suggesting is them giving me the $620, the $260, and the $130 and I’ll get my own coverage for less than $500 (hospital, and inpatient/outpatient testing only) and have over $500 left over to help the economy!

5 years ago?

In reply to 5 years ago it was cheaper

You rinsurance rates hav changed from $75/month for a faily plan (which had a total cost/value of around $800.00 to paying nearly $900 (total cost/vale betwee you and employer).

So if I understand you correctly, your incurance rates have risen approx 100.00 a month, $1200.00 a year over the course of 5 years.

Rough math I know but it seems that the total cost has gone up around $100.00 month, I assume for at least similar coverage.

I have been paying $54.00/mo for YEARS and YEARS and YEARS. They had ahike, it was so long ago i forget exactlu when, but it must have been a good 7-10 years ago, and that was VERY minimal, like a few dollars. I am vague on the exact numbers as it is not somethign i offer consideration or pay attention to, it is such a small and insignificant cost, the last things most Canadians worry about is teh cost of premiums, whet coverage they have and what level of care they will receieve.

Full, medical coverage is just a given thing here, everyone has it and it doesn’t cost anything isginificant. It certainly doesn’t even make the tiniest dimple in my paycheck.

Ontop of that, you guys generally get paid less than we do, even after the exchange conversions etc. I couldn’t even begin to imagine coughign up nearly a grand a month for questionable medical coverage. That’s one system that would have me moving out of country as fast as my feet could carry me, what a complete and utter sham. TO add all teh other issues you face there, gun voilence, high violent crine rates, the world hating your every move etc. How is America an appealign destination for ANYONE.

If America was designed in one of those civilisation building games, it would be one of those scanerios where messages keep popping up to remind you everyone was unhappy and leaving the country.

HOwever you have a population 10X that of Canada. Seriously, it baffles me as much as Ethiopia being named the most prosperous and desired destination on the planet would.

America had a lot to offer when I was younger, it really was a pretty damn cool place, but that isn’t the America I see today. Instead I see a country that has imploded and is trying to blow a little wind back in it’s sails to get going again.

You misunderstand what Cobra is

In reply to Spending your tax dollars

Cobra is the full cost of what the employer WAS paying for when you are no longer working for that employer. In my case I pay $300 a month and my employer pays $700. If I quit I would be entitled to cobra for $300+$700 or $1000 a month. Personally, I would pass on it because once I quit, I could buy as good as what I’ve got now on the open market for $500 a month.

[i]I simply don’t understand how anyone can convince themselves that private insurance is a better deal[/i]

It isn’t a better deal, it’s just more apparent where the money is coming from. In your case it’s included in your income and/or sales tax, and even hidden in the cost of the products you buy because of the taxes employers pay. In our case it’s coming more directly from our pockets. Our government is heading in the wrong direction. It plans on hiding the money and putting more middlemen in the loop.

We don’t need more paper-pushers who add cost, but no value. We need less!

Oh well that’s different

In reply to You misunderstand what Cobra is

You have a choice to pay a ridiculous sum of $500.00 a month. If someone else gets sick, your money helps them get better, if you get sicj THEIR money helps you get better.

You’re right that is way different than paying a fraction of that cost for the same result.

What’s the difference between the government redistributing your wealth or a private company redistributing your wealth but initially taking many times more of your wealth in order to do so?

You seem to not care about costs, but simply who gets to distribute it for you. either way you don’t have choice where it is spent.

Say you went to a restaurant

In reply to Oh well that’s different

and sat down and the waitress brought you chicken. If you WANTED steak, wouldn’t you pay extra for the ability to choose what you wanted? So you order and eat steak, and you enjoyed it immensely.

Now suppose I criticized you the next day, saying it was stupid to eat steak when chicken was so cheap.

Give up on using anaolgies Tony

In reply to Say you went to a restaurant

Your analogies are always inapplicable and completely senseless, they don’t illustrate the point your are tring to make at all.

Let’s use your flawed analogy corrcetly then.

YOU go to a restaurant, steak costs the restaurant $19.99 ro serve and liver costs $4.99. to serve.

So they charge $15.00 for everything on the menu and you can select whatever you want to eat, THAT’s where your ability to choose applies.

The difference is, YOU are happy paying $15.00 to choose anything and yet you only eat liver, while others eat steak.

You [i]feel[/i] you are not paying for others but you are and that you have been given a choice.

Therefore YOUR decision to overpay by $10.01 covers others who don’t pay the full amount for their steak, but you got to CHOOSE what you ate by paying $15.00, which makes you happy, regardless of who else your $15.00 benefitted and how much your actual meal cost. They didn’t take it from you so you justify that it is better to pay more than your expenses.

In contrast the Canadian system charges EVERYONE $4.99 (the price of liver) and yet everyone has the option to order steak too. In our case the butcher only charges $8.00 for steak though, instead of $19.99.

So yes, the additional $3.00 comes from my taxdollars or my $4.99/mo, to overcome the additional burden of peopl eatign steak and not payign teh full cost. I am still paying less than you and getting the same options as you though.

If you have a choice to receive $10.00 less on your paycheck or give away $100.00 you’d make the wise decision to give away the $100.00 instead?

Your system is still makign you pay for those who did not pay for it themselves.

And what if you STOP paying? You aren’t covered and all those premiums you’ve paid to date and not used are simply alocated to others.

That’s only marginally elective. You don’t have to pay, but if you don’t you aren’t covered if you have an accident and need help.

if I don’t pay, I still get treatment, but if I continue to not pay, they will retain my income tax rebate or at least enough to cover the unpaid monthly premiums, but I still get treatment and no bill for it.

It is a pretty solid system that is not in business to make a profit from policy holders, as is your own.

In your eyes, it’s okay if they overcharge and profit from you, it’s okay that they help others with your money, but you wont allow them to charge you a mere 10% of the money they do today, if you have to pay it as that is robbery?

Try applying logic next time.

25% of insurance payments go to to administrative costs

In reply to You misunderstand what Cobra is

The cost of filling out and submitting the forms, and of processing them, is broadly estimated to take a quarter of our current insurance bill. Imagine… 25 cents of each health dollar goes not to pay for x-ray machines, or for rubber gloves, or even for your urologist’s Mercedes… it pays for pencil pushers and the buildings they work in, and of course a reasonable profit margin for the insurors. Let’s suppose, $300 billion each year. Seems like fertile ground to cultivate some savings.

Bad news is that if we succeed in getting a national plan with overhead as low as Medicare or Social Security, all kinds of little old ladies in doctors’ offices and insurance companies are going to be out of work.

My costs were about $250/month, family of four

In reply to Spending your tax dollars

All I can assume is jck’s policy is not through his employer if his monthly bill is that much.

Whay is that all you can assume?

In reply to My costs were about $250/month, family of four

Why not read what he said instead of assuming?

“when I had COBRA [b]from my last insured job[/b] I was paying over $600 a month just for health…no dental or vision or life or disability…for 1 person.”

An ‘insured job’, to me, would probably be the same as an employer providing insurance options.

I could be wrong though, as I am sure you will point out anyway.

Now even $250.00 is insanely steep compared ot what you COULD be paying.

My “insurance” when my son was under my care was a little under $50.00 a month, and my employer provided dental, extended medical (which in included eye care also, as well as compensation for extended time off work).

The employer paid less than $70 for that extended coverage, which all employees received after 3 months (6 for dental).

SO the total cost per person, for standard medical, extended medical, eyecare, dental was under $140.00 month. The bulk of which was attributed to the private coverage that my employer paid in full.

When you are covered in such a way, your family members/dependents are covered also, whether I have one kid or three.

Face it, yuor medical system is in disrepair, needs an overhaul something fierce. If Obama’s plan isn’t the paradigm of perfect medical plans, that’ll change in due time, the fact is though, SOMETHING has to be done now or it wlll never get done down the road.

Planting seeds and all that.

COBRA is gap-filler insurance

In reply to Whay is that all you can assume?

COBRA is actually an acronym for Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidated_Omnibus_Budget_Reconciliation_Act_of_1985

When people lose their jobs, they are given the option of continuing with the insurance from their previous employer (for up to 18 months, I believe). However, because the individual is no longer employed, he must pick up the entire monthly cost that he was previously sharing with the employer.

THAT is where jck’s $700/month came from.

damn

In reply to COBRA is gap-filler insurance

Thanks for that, i’ll stick to the COBRA acrconym I think.

That’s still a bundle and a bit simply for medical coverage though, no matter how you slice it.

Nick’s right

In reply to COBRA is gap-filler insurance

And after 18 months, that carrier is obligated to take you on as a full-time member.

Then you can choose from their other policies.

my policy

In reply to My costs were about $250/month, family of four

was through my employer.

COBRA allows you to pick up the premium that your employer negotiated with your insurance.

I couldn’t get insurance anywhere else, so I had to pay it…or else I was SOL on insurance.

If you had family of four coverage in recent years costing you $250 a month, it was probably the difference in premium between a single coverage policy and the cost of your family policy.

That’s what all my jobs in the past few years have done: you pay the difference if you’re not single.

no worries

In reply to Spending your tax dollars

I know you weren’t.

FACT CHECK: Obama’s health care claims adrift?

In reply to President Obama says chance for healthcare overhaul is slipping away

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090723/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_fact_check

Bigger fact check

In reply to FACT CHECK: Obama’s health care claims adrift?

Fact 1: we’re the only rich nation without universal coverage.

Fact 2: we spend about double, per capita, what the other rich nations do on health.

Fact 3: our life expectancy and other measurable outcomes are no better than those of other rich nations; in fact, they are often worse.

Fact 4: bad as our national situation has become, given the system we now have it will get worse. Higher expenses every year are cooked into the system.

I don’t think the congress-led bills that are shaping up are very good. However, if we follow the Republican lead and do nothing, we’ll just lean into trouble.

do nothing vs do something badly

In reply to Bigger fact check

Didn’t Obama claim we had to rush through the trillions of “stimulus” to keep from seeing double digit unemployment, that he now says we are going to hit?

I think it is arguable that we are now at the place Obama said we would be if we did nothing, but now we owe trillions will little to show for it.

In case you aint noticed, we already do health care very badly

In reply to do nothing vs do something badly

We’ve done health care badly for a long time, and continue to do so. We were alarmed 20 years ago when we spent one dollar in 10 on health; now it’s one in six. Time to get off the bus.

An absolute sucker for simplistic partisan Republican rhetoric could say that Obama “promised” we wouldn’t hit 10% unemployment (which we haven’t done yet, though it’s 15% in Michigan), and that therefore we’re just as bad off as we would have been had the stimulus not been voted. Of course, I’m not that sucker, and I doubt even you are, JD. In fact, most of the stimulus is yet to be spent.

You’ve got a job now; it is arguable that you owe it to Big O. Say, “Thank you, O.” And make kissy sounds when you do it.

There is nothing in Michigan

In reply to In case you aint noticed, we already do health care very badly

being stimulated that has effected me.

My old just is still not there because of the housing slump, and that isn’t changing soon.

Sure, there are a lot of new programs offered now, but even working 25 hours a week with a family of three and no benefits, I still make to much for us to qualify for anything.

Good luck

In reply to There is nothing in Michigan

.

Thanks

In reply to Good luck

we all do what we can to get by.

Actually if I remember right

In reply to do nothing vs do something badly

When Obama signed off, he did say that “things are going to get worse before they get better”.

Of course, you’ll ignore that part to spin things the way you want them to look.

And as for nothing to show for it? We, the American people, own parts of GM and Chrysler…car companies in YOUR state.

You didn’t see hotel and resort owners in Florida getting billions in bailout money.

Stop whining and go apply at GM…or better yet, go buy a Michigan-made American car.

CALVIN WOODWARD?? JIM KUHNHENN??

In reply to FACT CHECK: Obama’s health care claims adrift?

His credibility ratings have hit an alltime low. He is known as offering “Fact-esque” commentary, Fact-esque was a term originally coined by Cobert, much like Max’s factopinguess.

“It’s been widely reported and that makes it fact-esque. – Stephen Colbert”

Posting comments from a news reporter with questionable credibilty is not an offering of fact. He is a known flip flopper, which loses all credibility with you in an instant anyway, or at least when you didn’t personally support the speaker.

JIM KUHNHENN – Also plays both sides of the fence, which every creates the best story. He attacked the validity of Palin’s speech and made Republican’s look terrible. But he also had previously attacked Clinton for the same, now he often supports Oama when it is controversial and goes against him when it is also just as controvesial.

So you have two “news reporters”, one who isn’t crdible and one who is proven to simply run the opposite of the popular simply to stir the pot.

However I am sure both are very factual and righteous in your mind, this week anyway, as they agree with you. Reading some of their past reports I think you’ll find you disagree as often as you agree.

nice post.

Slow down, in your haste to find any dirt you can, and dirt is all i is, you simply don’t qualify what you present as evidence.

“Fact-esque” If it’s reported enough times it becomes fact-esque. That doesn’t make it fact though.

If you think that anything in the article is false

In reply to CALVIN WOODWARD?? JIM KUHNHENN??

then step up and lets here it.

If all you can do is attack the messenger (like usual) then you have nothing to add to the conversation the adults are having. If you don’t wish to be sent back to the kids table, grow up.

it’s simply news

In reply to If you think that anything in the article is false

it’s just one, known to be biased, opinion from a news article, however you pose it as proof and not merely a reporter’s sensational opinion.

Thought I’d throw this in

In reply to it’s simply news

Here’s a site that is an organization of physicians who are for a nation healthcare program.

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_resources.php

Hope that sheds some light on what actual medical people think of having a system, rather than a lot of news outlet BS and politicians spouting spin.

NOTE: Their “About” info –
[i][b]Physicians for a National Health Program is a single issue organization advocating a universal, comprehensive single-payer national health program. PNHP has more than 16,000 members and chapters across the United States.

Since 1987, we’ve advocated for reform in the U.S. health care system. We educate physicians and other health professionals about the benefits of a single-payer system–including fewer administrative costs and affording health insurance for the 46 million Americans who have none.

Our members and physician activists work toward a single-payer national health program in their communities. PNHP performs ground breaking research on the health crisis and the need for fundamental reform, coordinates speakers and forums, participates in town hall meetings and debates, contributes scholarly articles to peer-reviewed medical journals, and appears regularly on national television and news programs advocating for a single-payer system.

PNHP is the only national physician organization in the United States dedicated exclusively to implementing a single-payer national health program. [/b][/i]

[Author]

Replies