Author Topic: Are you in favor of nationalized health care? (Read 3502 times)

nomosendero · « **Reply #60 on:** July 16, 2009, 02:46:30 AM »

Quote from: mirage1988 on July 15, 2009, 05:43:42 PM

TM- most of those that 'have it' have earned it!
There are those that have become rich on the backs of immigrants, and there are some that have become rich because of their entertainment value, but the majority of americans enjoy a comfortable lifestyle because of hard work!
How dare you say that the money "should come from those who have it" ?

Well that's what Hillary said & she read it from Karl Marx.

Besides, anyone but a retard knows that when you pop the "rich" with this you are hitting the employers & unemployment & cost of goods to everyone will go up & fast. Fun stuff.

FLNT4EVR · « **Reply #61 on:** July 16, 2009, 03:21:56 AM »

absolutely NO the beareucrats in washington could screw up a free lunch in fact they have

hunt-m-up · « **Reply #62 on:** July 16, 2009, 04:48:50 AM »

What organization conducted this international healthcare study that ranked the US 39th and what was their methodology?
Please don't try to justify survey results from or about a Third World country.

Oldshooter · « **Reply #63 on:** July 16, 2009, 05:08:03 AM »

The only people that dont have health care around here are folk that dont want it or dont wanna pay for it!

I work part time for a pharmacy and I deliver meds to a lot of folk that pay 0, nada nothing for their medications. If they are poor they get it all free, the only people that pay are young with good jobs and poor ins and older folk that had good jobs and made a good living they pay through the nose!

No Government sponsered anything unless you like the "postal system", congress and and inflated cost of operation. The big problem with medical care right now is government intervention!

Now say what you want thats the truth!

billy_56081 · « **Reply #64 on:** July 16, 2009, 06:38:49 AM »

TM you ever think of moving to Canada? I lived pretty close to it at different times in my life and actually went to that "remote" city called Winnepeg quite a few times.

American health case is the best bar none in the world.

The Doctors in northern MN love the cash influx from thier Canadian customers. No hasseling and haggling with insurance, they just get paid.

So TM now just tell us all this, you being the one who rails against our Government more than anyone else here. Will this Goverment run socialism be more effective and efficient than what we have now?

With no profit motive the drug companies will not spend money on R&D, they will only keep producing what drugs they allready make that are profitable. Hospitals will not put money into research of new techniques and technologies. One only needed to travel to East Germany when the wall fell to see how time had stood still since the 40's in technology under socialism.

I say to all you socialists who want socialised medicine, move out of the USA and leave us alone as I think I am doing fine like it is.

Dixie Dude · « **Reply #65 on:** July 16, 2009, 06:42:55 AM »

A lot of our problems are self inflicted. Drug and alcohol abuse is probably higher than other nations. Vehicle accidents are probably higher. STD's are probably higher. Gang violence which drives up the murder rate which in turn lowers the life expectancy rate is probably higher. We probably have higher rates of obese people which bring up the numbers for stroke, heart attacks, and diabetes. So, if you take out the black and hispanic numbers, I would bet the white numbers would be the best in the world. Japan and most European nations have far fewer minorities to bring down the numbers. We also have most of our manufacturing companies moving overseas, especially textile and shoe making which only requires low skilled workers, that provided health care for their workers. Where are they now? Wal-mart, 7-11's, or fast food service? with no insurance, especially part time work. One industry I know of relocated here from up north to avoid union labor, and they work college students part time in manufacturing. Only full time workers they have are mostly supervisors and maintenance workers.

beerbelly · « **Reply #66 on:** July 16, 2009, 06:54:15 AM »

A Republican representative From Louisiana Has offered a bill that would put congress on the same medical plan they want to pass for us. He had 45 Republican co-sponsors and NOT ONE Democrat!
It is a great plan for you and me, but NOT for them!!!
Beerbelly

mirage1988 · « **Reply #67 on:** July 16, 2009, 07:09:29 AM »

This health tax (which is what it really is) keeps getting branded as "health care reform." What health care reform should be is reforming the health care system. It is ridiculous (borderline criminal) what the doctors can charge the insurance companies! (400.00$ for a 45 minute consultation?)

TM7, I agree that the current system is flawed and needs to be repaired, but do you seriously think that the band of buffoons can improve it?

Heather · « **Reply #68 on:** July 16, 2009, 07:16:12 AM »

NO!!!

Questor · « **Reply #69 on:** July 16, 2009, 07:25:34 AM »

Heather:

Assuming that's a picture of you in your post, it doesn't look like you've got enough gray hair to be deeply worried about this. It will have the biggest impact to older people. Why don't you like it?

billy_56081 · « **Reply #70 on:** July 16, 2009, 07:28:41 AM »

Mirage you have it there. We need to reform what we have and improve it. A good place to start would be tort reform. The LARGEST expense to the medicalfield is malpractice insurance. Most doctors pay 6 figure premiums every year on their malpractice insurance every year. Does anyone remember when BHO put his soclised medicine proposal in front of the AMA? He was soundly booed.

mirage1988 · « **Reply #71 on:** July 16, 2009, 07:29:04 AM »

Actually Q it will have the biggest effect on us taxpayers!

This whole issue is really just a carrot on a stick to get "o" re-elected in 2012.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #72 on:** July 16, 2009, 07:36:38 AM »

whats age got to do with it ? payroll deductions effect everyone that works no matter the age . A dr that charges 400 per hr ok how much is his insurance costing ? I know a doctor that had to many medicare paitents and was going in the hole with what he was allowed to charge the govt. and that will effect us all if doctors retire or worst no one wants to be a doctor

mirage1988 · « **Reply #73 on:** July 16, 2009, 08:05:56 AM »

I am still between jobs, have some cash work going right now, so yes I am one job loss away from no coverage.

Oldshooter · « **Reply #74 on:** July 16, 2009, 08:09:51 AM »

Seems the big lie here is that Obama wants to help the workers, This plan would be a great thing for corporate America and the poor that get free medical care now will get the shaft, as will the working class.

I still say if its a good thing why dont congress want in on it!

zacharoo · « **Reply #75 on:** July 16, 2009, 11:33:26 AM »

NEVER! YOU WILL DIE OF OLD AGE WAITING IN LINE. YOU WILL BE PLACED AFTER THE MINORITIES AND ELEGALS!!! THAT IS WHERE THE VOTE IS EASIESTLY BOUGHT!!!!!!!
Zacharoo

teamnelson · « **Reply #76 on:** July 16, 2009, 11:51:30 AM »

In case you missed this http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/16/house-dems-votes-health/ the Congressional Budget Office says this will make things worse, not better. Unlike the stimulus package which passively did not prevent things from getting worse, this would actually directly push costs higher.

TMs point that government costs money is probably the best argument I've heard against government HC. Less government requires less $.

Lived in East Africa; best dental care I ever had was from a South African Dentist in Kenya who ran a pay as you go business - no credit, no insurance. <$100 for all four of us to get exams, cleaning, and fillings. State of the art equipment, professionally trained staff, and superior care. Had him replace work that my insurance paid for in the US. If you live near Mexico, ask where to go to get laser eye surgery or orthodontics care ... there are some world class medical practices being ran within walking distance of a port of entry on a cash basis. Even in Djibouti and Somalia, $20 for a hospital visit in or outpatient. Meds were ridiculously cheap - same meds you buy here, or more likely a european made generic.

My point with that is HC doesn't need to cost as much as it already does, but current regulation and litigious people make it that way. Now add to it, and take away the incentive for a HC professional to excel at their work. Is reform necessary, sure? Is this the right way? NO

BTW, since when is HC a fundamental right, but the right to bear arms in defense of your life is not?

Questor · « **Reply #77 on:** July 16, 2009, 12:19:45 PM »

TeamNelson:

I posted another version of that on this forum too. The CBO warned against just about every crack brained massive expenditure since Obama took office, and they ignored them all.

teamnelson · « **Reply #78 on:** July 16, 2009, 01:11:01 PM »

Someone made the point that Obama's whole justification for HC reform was the massive drain its currently putting on the budget/deficit. And so the solution is to make a new entitlement that would create an even larger drain on the budget/deficit? Which you and I will bear via a $600 billion tax increase? And that cost model is based on current "gap," while most people recognize that if there was a free government option, already paid for by your taxes, why would you pay into your company program? Which means costs go up even further to provide for all those folks? In what world does this make sense.

squirrellluck · « **Reply #79 on:** July 16, 2009, 02:03:44 PM »

TM you keep saying if done properly. I will concede that point.Yes I am hardcore conservative. When was the last time the government did something right? Reform our healthcare system? Sure. Let the gov. reform it their way? Not on your life!!

nomosendero · « **Reply #80 on:** July 16, 2009, 03:59:08 PM »

Quote from: TM7 on July 16, 2009, 03:35:43 AM

Quote from: nomosendero on July 16, 2009, 02:46:30 AM
Quote from: mirage1988 on July 15, 2009, 05:43:42 PM
TM- most of those that 'have it' have earned it!
There are those that have become rich on the backs of immigrants, and there are some that have become rich because of their entertainment value, but the majority of americans enjoy a comfortable lifestyle because of hard work!
How dare you say that the money "should come from those who have it" ?

Well that's what Hillary said & she read it from Karl Marx.

Besides, anyone but a retard knows that when you pop the "rich" with this you are hitting the employers & unemployment & cost of goods to everyone will go up & fast. Fun stuff.
.

Ummm nomosendero...that is what mirage said. All I know is if the system needs money they have to get it from where there is money. Progressive taxation is and was the norm in this country. Wages were never considered taxable income...we have discussed this before.

THE MAYO CLINIC is a successful NON-PROFIT medical operation with great outcome stats...you're lucky to have one close.
If your are traveling outside the USA I also suggest obtaining supplemental traveler's med insurance. Every canadian is warned to do this when coming to the USA for some economic protection. Yes private insurances are available on the free market in Canada.

For the best HC system in the world the stats and outcomes are not so good for the USA...our ranking is about 39th in the world behind 3rd world countries and with poorer longevity and infant mortality rates than the 'terrible' Canadian system...PLUS, we spend about twice what other countries spend per capita, 1/4 of the country is under or not insured, and 30-40% of costs are admininstration and a huge bureaceracy governmental interface apparatus; and no business can continue to exist with such economics. Comparatively, Canadians spend 1% of $ cost on admin with a small administration.

We hear alot about upset Canadians whining about their HC system, but the Harris Poll says they are among the most satisfied HC recipients in the world while Americans are the most disatisfied (need I post the results of the poll?). I have posted some comments and articles from Canadians who actually like their HC. In metro areas of the USA it is not unusual to wait 7-10 hours in Emergency rooms, too..if admitted you may be on a gurney for a few days until a room is available; of course, your insurer will be billed as if you received a room and bed. It is also common to be denied coverage for treatments, or be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions when changing insurers, or to be SOL when your costs exceeds maximum allowed or between jobs. Pretty much a crap shoot for your estate towrds the end.

American HC has alot of geewhiz technology and drug tech available often the envy of the world. Fact is that in large part this high tech wizardry is born by the Grants and Aid taxpayer governmental system of funding research which is then siphoned off to private entities. Hospitals and facilities are often taxpayer and bond floated for construction. In essence there is a strong governmental influence in the HC system AND A HUGE EXPENSIVE BUREACRACY ALREADY EXIST (why do you think your coverage cost so much?). The Canadian model demonstrates that this BUREACRACY could be drastically downsized if done correctly. I repeat...if done correctly.. Another part of research is from donations and finally part by the private entities themselves. Basic research is often of the Grants and Aid type, whereas applied research funding is the other two. So in essence there really is not a strong separation between the private HC system and the government right now. It is just that you pay for it the highest in the world and you subsidize others that don't have it...a loosing business proposition actually. It has been projected that 50% of retirees will loose their HC insurance or medi-gap insurance as ex-employers opt out of benift promises...one reason the plan was to promote HC saving plans for those capable of contributing.

..TM7.

Actually, Marx & Hillary said it, but no problem. The "progressive" is just as hammer & s. like as ever.

The stats you give vary with different groups in this country, esp. infant mortality rates & life styles that are cultural
& life style choices & we all know that. I should not have to explain it.

skarke · « **Reply #81 on:** July 16, 2009, 04:21:07 PM »

It never ceases to amaze me how willing some are to surrender to another person, entity, or worst yet, government, the ability to make life and death decisions for those willing.

I work in the healthcare industry, and have for over 2 decades. There are many reasons health care consts continue to rise:

1. Tort abuse

2. Heroic efforts in last days of life (50% of an individual's entire use of heathcare happens in their last 6 months of life. I know, BBBBIIIGGGG medical ethics issue) Everywhere else in the world, you're screwed. Look at, for instance, the differences in cancer survival rates in the EU compared to the US, and they say their healthcare system is better? Don't make me toss cookies!!!

3. The cost of research to develop the latest whizbang supercure. Take pharmaceuticals, for instance. A division of my corporation plays in this arena. When I entered the industry in the mid '80s, the average cost to develop a new compound was about $200 million. Now, it's a billion. This happened because our beloved research and teaching institutions figured out that they could squeeze the manufacturers by charging out the body orifices to do the work, and we are handcuffed by, you guessed it, our government, who mandates that research be conducted by their buddies in these institutions. Couple that with every unscrupulous person in America playing the lottery of suing every manufacturer in America out of business, what's the outcome? We've tabled dozens of compounds, not because they aren't good products, but because they CANT provide ROI.

All that I'm trying to say is that, if you supporters of government run healthcare assume that you'll not be affected by rationing, ESPECIALLY if you have a vice like deer sausage or cigars, you're just flat wrong. The ONLY way to cut healthcare costs is to get the government out, change a few access rules, quit treating illegal immigrants in our ERs, and quit exporting jmanufacturing jobs overseas.

I'm sick of typing, it's out of my hands anyway. I'm just an evil white male, the scourge of the earth.

Heather · « **Reply #82 on:** July 16, 2009, 04:28:08 PM »

Quote from: Questor on July 16, 2009, 07:25:34 AM

Heather:

Assuming that's a picture of you in your post, it doesn't look like you've got enough gray hair to be deeply worried about this. It will have the biggest impact to older people. Why don't you like it?

Unless there is a drastic change in politics, by the time I am old and gray the crooks we like to call politicians will have our nations Health Care twisted it to the point that I may be forced into taking some crazy experimental drugs for the entertainment of foreign nationals. I am really not that paranoid, but when you give someone an inch they often take a mile. We let them get one foot in the door of our health where will it stop? Mandatory this and mandatory that when it comes to my health just doesn't sound like a good idea to me. Also this doesn't just effect the elderly...It effects EVERYONE!!! I don't want it because I am young and will have to live through whatever liberties are taken away because of this...not to mention I HAVE TO PAY for it for the rest of my life which hopefully will be a very long time!

Heather

skarke · « **Reply #83 on:** July 16, 2009, 04:38:18 PM »

PS, I'm still sick of typing, but, if I were to list ALL of the top 10 reasons for spiraling healthcare costs, most would be related to the effects of our GREAT system keeping people alive into their '90s. You want cheap healthcare? Ration the stuff that works. We'll all croak when we're Heather's age like we did in 1900 (average life expectancy in 1900? 47 years old)

Tell those drug companies to shove their intellectual property where the sun doesn't shine, we don't need their sorry carcasses anyway $:-\$

Cough, cough, arghhh, clunk...................Daughter to wife, "Mom, Dad quit taking his meds again, call a bus!!!!

billy_56081 · « **Reply #84 on:** July 16, 2009, 04:56:25 PM »

I am thinking BHO's science guru will be the guy to run his socialism care program. I have a feeling a lot of the pro socialised medicine folks here would be the first on his list of undesirable traits.

nomosendero · « **Reply #85 on:** July 16, 2009, 05:36:26 PM »

Quote from: skarke on July 16, 2009, 04:21:07 PM

It never ceases to amaze me how willing some are to surrender to another person, entity, or worst yet, government, the ability to make life and death decisions for those willing.

I work in the healthcare industry, and have for over 2 decades. There are many reasons health care consts continue to rise:

1. Tort abuse

2. Heroic efforts in last days of life (50% of an individual's entire use of heathcare happens in their last 6 months of life. I know, BBBBIIIGGGG medical ethics issue) Everywhere else in the world, you're screwed. Look at, for instance, the differences in cancer survival rates in the EU compared to the US, and they say their healthcare system is better? Don't make me toss cookies!!!

3. The cost of research to develop the latest whizbang supercure. Take pharmaceuticals, for instance. A division of my corporation plays in this arena. When I entered the industry in the mid '80s, the average cost to develop a new compound was about $200 million. Now, it's a billion. This happened because our beloved research and teaching institutions figured out that they could squeeze the manufacturers by charging out the body orifices to do the work, and we are handcuffed by, you guessed it, our government, who mandates that research be conducted by their buddies in these institutions. Couple that with every unscrupulous person in America playing the lottery of suing every manufacturer in America out of business, what's the outcome? We've tabled dozens of compounds, not because they aren't good products, but because they CANT provide ROI.

All that I'm trying to say is that, if you supporters of government run healthcare assume that you'll not be affected by rationing, ESPECIALLY if you have a vice like deer sausage or cigars, you're just flat wrong. The ONLY way to cut healthcare costs is to get the government out, change a few access rules, quit treating illegal immigrants in our ERs, and quit exporting jmanufacturing jobs overseas.

I'm sick of typing, it's out of my hands anyway. I'm just an evil white male, the scourge of the earth.

Spot, on!! People forget the Tort abuse.

GH1 · « **Reply #86 on:** July 17, 2009, 12:35:38 AM »

I'm against it myself, for the simple reason I don't trustthe government to do much of anything right. However, I can see where people would want this, given the current state of things.
In '04 I had a liver transplant. In addition to all the prequalifying tests to make sure I was a suitable candidate there was also an intense round of follow up care. Mostly blood work to check for liver functions, immunosuppressant levels, and the like. In '05 I ended up filing bankruptcy, even though I had insurance. Even though my deductible was met and maximum out of pocket was reached in '04, the new year brought with it a new deductible and new out of pocket max. I was incurring bills faster than I could pay them. Plus, I was also spending in excess of $200.00 per month on perscriptions to keep me alive.
According to an article I read in Prevention magazine in '05, 50% of household bankruptcies are due to medical expenses. Out of those filings, 75% had insurance. There is something terribly, terribly, wrong with that.
People will spend a great deal of money to stay alive, and everyone involved with healthcare knows it. So, one could argue that this situation of the general public screaming to their elected officals to fix the healthcare industry was caused by the healthcare industry itself, from hospitals, to insurance companies, to drug manufacturers. Throw in a bunch of government regs and a litigous society and there you go. Uncontrollable expense. Unfortunately I don't know whatthe answer is.
GH1

Rustyinfla · « **Reply #87 on:** July 17, 2009, 12:58:33 AM »

I wish the Gov't would get out of my life all together.

The answer is NO in fact I plan to figure out a way to file a law suit.

skarke · « **Reply #88 on:** July 17, 2009, 04:50:48 AM »

GH1,

I am very sorry that you have had to go through this mess. it is a terrible thing that folks like you end up as ill as you were.

The uncomfortable fact is, though, you probably wouldn't have received a transplant under a single payer, government rationed system. The EU, for instance, artificially inflates their M and M (Morbidity and Mortality) scores by calling anyone who dies over the age of, i think it is 55, for any medical reason as "death by old age".

I don't know how old you are, but if you are, by european standards, old, it is highly unlikely that you would have even been put on a transplant list.

Also, TM7, I appreciate your opinions, and there is no question that there are inefficiencies in the current system. But to say that more drugs would come available if "Big Pharma" were to loose some of their "subsidies" is, with all due respect, inaccurate.

Where Pharma gets its "subsidies" is in areas where the government provides tax benefits for companies to develop products that, because of the disease state, wouldn't be helpful for enough people to make it financially worthwhile to develop. Big Pharma is the political rhetoric of the day, and attacks upon the industry make for good political fodder, because the general citizen has no earthly idea what goes into developing a product. People want cheaper medicine, and drugs are expensive, so, common opinion is that if you reduce drug prices, you get cheaper medicine.

This is fallacy. What you get is fewer, poorer compounds. Pharmaceuticals are the mainstay of medical cost efficiencies. Stop developing newer, better drugs and you really will see spiralling healthcare costs. Any honest medical economist will concur (unless he's trying to get an Obama grant like the NASA weather scientists studying global "warming")

Further, putting the government in charge of pharmaceutical research would shift drug development away from the most common illnesses, to illnesses common to the most politically active (i.e. AIDS research instead of cancer research)

A governmental healthcare system WILL ration care. Look EVERYWHERE throughout the world where it exists, and even a 3rd grader can do the math.

Why do people flock to the US when they need serious medicine? Frankly, we have the only system in the world where the common man has access to, say, transplant surgery.

Questor · « **Reply #89 on:** July 17, 2009, 05:08:45 AM »

GH1:

Nice job. Excellent summary. Unfortunately a small minority "get it".

One thing that might make a worthwhile image is the image I recall of a Canadian hospital visit recently when there were cigarette butts on the elevator floor, a pool of blood about a foot in diameter that was there on a Thursday and still there on Saturday. The general filth is amazing compared to American hospitals. Also, patients with very different ailments are in the same room. For example a man with a compound leg fracture, a heart patient, a man recovering from an operation, and a man with some kind of nerve trauma all in one room. This is the way it is.

Also keep in mind that Canada gets its drugs cheaper simply because the drug companies have already made their investment in developing a drug. So when Canada gives them a take-it-or-leave-it offer, they take it because a small percentage of something is better than 100 percent of nothing. To think that drug companies would develop for a market like Canada is nonsense, the costs don't cover the risks.