Page 30 of 143 FirstFirst ... 2025262728293031323334354080130 ... LastLast
Results 581 to 600 of 2855
  1. #581  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    First, people are losing faith in the plans, not because they are learning any facts. It's because they are being swayed by the misinformation running rampant. The ads from insurance companies and drugs companies are hilariously stupid for anyone who understands our healthcare policies ("If I relied on the Canadian System, I'd be dead right now." or "Don't let a government bureaucrat make your healthcare decisions!"), but for the average American, they only induce fear--which is their purpose.

    Funny how the strongest supporters of the free market system are the ones most afraid of competition! Even in Europe, where there is mostly single-payer system, private insurances are doing just fine. The competition has made them sleeker and reduced the collosal waste.

    Stop spreading the lie that this is some huge social program. The government plan is to cover those who can't afford ANY insurance. The NON-mythical 47 million (and rising--that was 2 years ago's estimate--before the recession and increased unemployment) have not found any relief in this supposedly all-curing free market, so government has to step in for them.

    What would you rather have: No insurance or insurance run by the government?

    The uninsured are running up the premiums for the insured by costing the system alot because they only seek care when things are really bad. Take them out of the equation by offering them a government insurance, and your premiums won't go up so much.
    You're so wrong if you believe the liberals are only interested in insuring the "47 million" (not going there, that is a crazy number, and is wrong, but tired of beating that dead horse). You've proven in here you're one of those liberals, so just admit the ultimate goal is to take over the whole healthcare system. At least be honest about that, geez.
  2. #582  
    Who have you been listening to? What have you been reading? The government plan is for everyone - not those who cannot afford any insurance. Goodness, you are not keeping up at all. The uninsured are running up premiums? I did not when I was uninsured BY CHOICE for MANY YEARS and I am just short of 60yoa. What does raise insurance and Barry is adamantly against - our tort laws - SUE 'EM TILL THEY DIE - the belief of Barry's backers. Also you are in an area showing of complete ignorance on your part. I was uninsured for many years and never ever had a problem making payments on coverage. I have friends in the same situation - pay they do. It is those who were brought up or brain washed in to believing the government is there to take care of them that do not pay their bills. Are you one of those?

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Stop spreading the lie that this is some huge social program. The government plan is to cover those who can't afford ANY insurance. The NON-mythical 47 million (and rising--that was 2 years ago's estimate--before the recession and increased unemployment) have not found any relief in this supposedly all-curing free market, so government has to step in for them.

    What would you rather have: No insurance or insurance run by the government?

    The uninsured are running up the premiums for the insured by costing the system alot because they only seek care when things are really bad. Take them out of the equation by offering them a government insurance, and your premiums won't go up so much.
  3. #583  
    A fine example of a liberal - temper tantrum when loosing. What a shame.
  4. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #584  
    When has a doctor ever said the words, "You need an angioplasty, but it's elective, so you can have it when you feel like it."
    Have you ever heard of chronic stable angina?
  5. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #585  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Note, the wait is for NON-emergent treatment--like a face lift or a breast implant. There is NO wait for emergent care. Also note that these are specific hospitals and that this was in 2007. The UK has been working on the issue diligently.
    Glad they're working on it... meanwhile, we don't have year long waits for non-emergency care. Sorry, but your response is really really weak. Understandably so...
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  6. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #586  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    If the capitalist system works so well, shouldn't medical care and drugs be cheap and easy here in the US? Shouldn't we not be in the grips of a depression? Shouldn't we not have 10% unemployed? Shouldn't our dollar not be drowning around the world?

    If the socialist system is so terrible, shouldn't people be dying in the streets in Europe? Well, they're not; they're just fine. Surprising? Maybe you should actually go out there once and a while and see for yourself.
    Wow, you're the King of Straw Men, Zelgo!
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  7. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #587  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Yet, somehow, in Canada and the UK, they wouldn't trade their healthcare systems for anything. There would be rioting in the streets if you went back to the private insurance system.

    We, on the other hand, hate our system!

    Could it be that in the UK and Canada, things aren't as bad as conservatives here like to portray...
    I'm not a conservative. And how many people go from our terrible system to get treated in Canada, versus how many Canadians come here for treatment? Got any spiffy stats?

    BTW, how do you explain their much higher cancer mortality rates?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  8. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #588  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    An angioplasty is NOT an elective procedure. Joint replacements are elective depending how emergently they are needed. On average, waits are two-three months for joint replacement. And most European countries HAVE NO WAITS.
    You know, the waits are one thing. What really scares me, and all ideological bickering aside here, is that his plan will require rationing and will remove treatment decisions from you and your doctor.

    For example, if both an 80 year old and a 40 year old both need a hip replacement, the 40 wins. After all, the 80 won't get nearly as many miles out of that new hip, as the 40 year old will. This is how they plan to "cut costs".

    If an 80 year old and a 40 year old both have cancer, and statistically, an operation extends the life of the 80 year old by only 2 to 4 years, that same operation extends the life of the 40 year old by 10-15 years, again the 40 year old wins.

    In effect, we're removing health care from the old and redistributing it to the young. And remember that the vast majority (I've heard 85%) of the healthcare you'll need in life will be when you're old.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  9. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #589  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    I have no need to get angry when I know I'm right.
    it must be awesome knowing you're right all the time!
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  10. Clack's Avatar
    Posts
    251 Posts
    Global Posts
    262 Global Posts
    #590  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    WOW! Even Michael Steel, King of the Republican Party agrees that the Democrats should pass healthcare legislation:

    Think Progress » Steele urges Democrats to pass health care bill without Republicans.
    The current legislation is not the health care reform people want -- you should read it.

    You think the Patriot Act was bad about compromising your rights and privacy... the Health Care Reform is 100 times worse.
    "We must not contradict, but instruct him that contradicts us; for a madman is not cured by another running mad also." - Dr. An Wang
  11. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #591  
    here's a typical example of life in a socialized healthcare country:

    24 July, 2009

    £100m blood filter treatment that stops CJD is ‘too expensive for NHS patients’

    Just firing a few of their army of clerks and administrators would enable them to afford it easily

    A medical breakthrough that prevents the spread of the human form of mad cow disease via blood transfusions may be denied to NHS patients because it costs too much. More than 60 adults having surgery have received blood free of the risk of variant CJD in trials overseen by the National Blood and Transplant Authority. The advance centres on a filter that can remove the rogue vCJD protein, called a prion, from blood in just 30 minutes - eliminating the patient’s risk of catching the brain disease.

    The filter could restore faith in British blood supplies which are proven to be tainted with vCJD after several deaths related to transfusions. But documents reveal it has been branded ‘not cost-effective’ and experts warn it will double the price of producing red blood cells, leaving a bill for an extra £100million.

    Donors who do not realise they are carrying the disease, which can have an incubation period of up to 50 years before showing symptoms, risk passing on vCJD when they give blood. It is feared as many as one in 4,000 could be carriers. There is no reliable way of testing stored blood to see if it is infected.

    The filter simply clips on to the blood collection bag and red cells are slowly dripped through it into an empty bag underneath. Any prions are captured in a mesh containing resins that are designed to ‘attract’ amino acids found on the surface of vCJD proteins. Animal studies have proved it prevents transmission of the deadly disease through blood transfusions.

    But minutes of the advisory committee on the Safety of Blood Tissues and Organs (SaBTO) record: ‘Implementation of prion filtration is not cost-effective under the majority of scenarios modelled for risk.’

    One proposal is for filtered blood to be initially given only to under 16s, on grounds of cost, as they are least likely to have been exposed to ‘mad cow’ disease through eating BSE-infected meat.

    Estimates from the National Blood and Transplant Authority say the cost to the NHS of producing one unit of blood - about a pint - would double, from £50 to around £100 using the filter, meaning it could cost about £100million to introduce.

    However, while declining to give exact figures, manufacturer MacoPharma says its P-Capt filter - which is classed as a medical device and was awarded the European CE quality mark in 2006 - would probably cost the health service half this amount.

    Judy Kenny, wife of Deryck Kenny, 69, who died in 2003 after contracting vCJD through a blood transfusion, said: ‘As a nurse, I know there has to be good evidence it is safe and it works. ‘As the wife of someone who died after contracting vCJD through blood, I think cost should not be a reason to stop it being introduced.’
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  12. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #592  
    Waiting in Australia.....

    West Australian public hospital patient waited 'more than 45 hours' for a bed

    A WA emergency patient recently waited more than 45 hours for a hospital bed, according to a national report. The report, a snapshot compiled for the Australian College of Emergency Medicine, found WA still had the worst emergency department overcrowding in Australia. The snapshot of 79 emergency departments Australia-wide was undertaken at 10am on Monday, June 1. Eight WA hospitals took part in the snapshot.

    WA emergency departments recorded the worst overcrowding in the country. About 35 per cent of patients in WA emergency departments waited longer than eight hours for treatment, with one patient waiting longer than 45 hours. There were nine WA patients who had been waiting longer than 24 hours for a hospital bed.

    Queensland had the best record with only 15 per cent of emergency patients waiting longer than eight hours for a hospital bed. Forty-four patients in 22 hospitals included the report had a patient that had waited more than 24 hours for a hospital.

    “Half of Australia’s training hospitals have patients waiting for an inpatient bed more than 12 hours after that bed was formally requested,” ACEM president Sally McCarthy said. “Even though politicians and health departments have been shown the facts and even though patients are still dying while waiting for beds, there has been no significant improvement in access block since this time last year.”

    All 94 emergency departments accredited for training were contacted, and 79 responded with details of their activity. Associate Professor Drew Richardson, author of the study, said there was no statistically significant improvement in access block compared to last year. “Of the 66 EDs which answered both the 2008 and 2009 surveys, 33 reported an improvement and 33 a worsening of access block: whilst there may be pockets of better practice, the net effect nationwide has been nil.”

    WA Health Minister Kim Hames said the emergency department figures were concerning. Dr Hames said the Health Department had started overhauling emergency departments in preparation for the introduction of the four hour rule. Under the rule, 98 per cent of emergency patients must be admitted or discharged within four hours. The state's major tertiary hospitals, like Royal Perth Hospital and Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, have 18 months to meet the demand. WA is the only state in Australia introducing the scheme.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  13. #593  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    As for people coming and leaving the US for treatment: Again, 10 million are projected (by Deloitte) to leave the US to get treatment elsewhere by 2017. We know that one million already go to Mexico. Yes, one million Americans go to Mexico for healthcare every year.
    Of those going to Mexico for "healthcare," how many of those are going to get cheap meds?

    And how many are going for treatments that the FDA won't approve in the US? They may not be going for "better" health care, but simply to get treatments that a wing of the federal government will not approve. (And the current legislation won't loosen their standards.)

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Today, your treatment decisions are made between you and your insurance administrator based on cost. Your health has nothing to do with it.
    There will still be a form of insurance administrator, but they'll be part of a government bureaucracy. Federal bureaucracies are not known for their lean, efficient processes. It can take 2 months or more to get a passport. In some areas, you'll wait over 2 months to get your baby's SSN. The VA (government-run health care) can take 4+ months to process a claim.

    If the US government takes control of an industry that represents 1/6th of our economy, you have to know that palms will get greased quite well in DC. It won't be about helping people, it will be about who greases the palm of a representative more because that's where the true loyalty lies for most in DC...to those who fill the campaign coffers. That won't bring efficiency or lower cost. It will bring power and wealth to those in Washington.
    Last edited by semprini; 07/23/2009 at 03:01 PM.
  14. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #594  
    President Obama’s top five health care lies

    President Barack Obama walked into the Oval Office with a veritable halo over his head. In the eyes of his backers, he could say or do no wrong because he had evidently descended directly from heaven to return celestial order to our fallen world. Oprah declared his tongue to be "dipped in the unvarnished truth." Newsweek editor Evan Thomas averred that Obama "stands above the country and above the world as a sort of a God."

    But when it comes to health care reform, with every passing day, Obama seems less God and more demagogue, uttering not transcendental truths, but bald-faced lies. Here are the top five lies that His Awesomeness has told--the first two for no reason other than to get elected and the next three to sell socialized medicine to a wary nation.

    Lie One: No one will be compelled to buy coverage.

    During the campaign, Obama insisted that he would not resort to an individual mandate to achieve universal coverage. In fact, he repeatedly ripped Hillary Clinton's plan for proposing one. "To force people to buy coverage," he insisted, "you've got to have a very harsh penalty." What will this penalty be, he demanded? "Are you going to garnish their wages?" he asked Hillary in one debate.

    Yet now, Obama is behaving as if he said never a hostile word about the mandate. Earlier this month, in a letter to Sens. Max Baucus, D-Mont., and Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., he blithely declared that he was all for "making every American responsible for having health insurance coverage, and making employers share in the cost." But just like Hillary, he is refusing to say precisely what he will do to those who want to forgo insurance. There is a name for such a health care approach: It is called TonySopranoCare.

    Lie Two: No new taxes on employer benefits.

    Obama took his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, to the mat for suggesting that it might be better to remove the existing health care tax break that individuals get on their employer-sponsored coverage, but return the vast bulk--if not all--of the resulting revenues in the form of health care tax credits. This would theoretically have made coverage both more affordable and portable for everyone. Obama, however, would have none of it, portraying this idea simply as the removal of a tax break. "For the first time in history, he wants to tax your health benefits," he thundered. "Apparently, Sen. McCain doesn't think it's enough that your health premiums have doubled. He thinks you should have to pay taxes on them too."

    Yet now Obama is signaling his willingness to go along with a far worse scheme to tax employer-sponsored benefits to fund the $1.6 trillion or so it will cost to provide universal coverage. Contrary to Obama's allegations, McCain's plan did not ultimately entail a net tax increase because he intended to return to individuals whatever money was raised by scrapping the tax deduction. Not so with Obama. He apparently told Sen. Baucus that he would consider the senator's plan for rolling back the tax exclusion that expensive, Cadillac-style employer-sponsored plans enjoy, in order to pay for universal coverage. But, unlike McCain, he has said nothing about putting offsetting deductions or credits in the hands of individuals. In other words, Obama might well end up doing what McCain never set out to do: Impose a net tax increase on health benefits for the first time in history.

    Lie Three: Government can control rising health care costs better than the private sector.

    Ignoring the reality that Medicare--the government-funded program for the elderly--has put the country on the path to fiscal ruin, Obama wants to model a government insurance plan--the so-called "public option"--after Medicare in order to control the country's rising health care costs. Why? Because, he repeatedly claims, Medicare has far lower administrative costs and overhead than private plans--to wit, 3% for Medicare compared to 10% to 20% for private plans. Hence, he says, subjecting private plans to competition against an entity delivering such superior efficiency will release health care dollars for universal coverage.

    But lower administrative costs do not necessarily mean greater efficiency. Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office analysis last year chastised Medicare's lax attitude on this front. "The traditional fee-for-service Medicare program does relatively little to manage benefits, which tends to reduce its administrative costs but may raise its overall spending relative to a more tightly managed approach," it noted on page 93. In short, extending the Medicare model will further ruin--not improve--even the functioning aspects of private plans.

    Lie Four: A public plan won't be a Trojan horse for a single-payer monopoly.

    Obama has repeatedly claimed that forcing private plans to compete with a public plan will simply "keep them honest" and give patients more options--not lead to a full-blown, Canadian-style, single-payer monopoly. As I argued in my previous column, this is wishful thinking given that government programs such as Medicare have a history of controlling costs by underpaying providers, who make up the losses by charging private plans more. Any public plan modeled after Medicare will greatly increase this forced subsidy, eventually driving private plans out of business, even if that weren't Obama's intention.

    But, as it turns out, it very much is his intention. Before he decided to run for office--and even during the initial days of his campaign--Obama repeatedly said that he was in favor of a single-payer system. What's more, University of California, Berkeley Professor Jacob Hacker, who is a key influence on the Obama administration, is on tape explicitly boasting that a public plan is a means for creating a single-payer system. "It's not a Trojan horse," he quips, "it's just right there."

    But even if Obama wanted to, it is simply impossible to design a public plan that could compete with private insurers on a level playing field and without "feeding off the public trough" as Obama claims.

    At the very least, such a plan would always carry an implicit government guarantee that, should it go bust, no one in the plan would lose coverage. This guarantee would artificially lower the plan's capital reserve requirements, giving it an unfair edge over private plans. What's more, it is simply not plausible to expect that the plan wouldn't receive any start-up subsidies or use the government's muscle to negotiate lower rates with providers. If it eschewed all these things, there would be no reason for it to exist--because it would be just like any other private plan.

    Lie Five: Patients don't have to fear rationing.

    Obama has been insisting, including during his ABC Town Hall event last week, that the rationing patients would face under a government-run system wouldn't be any more draconian than what they currently confront under private plans. This is complete nonsense.

    The left has been trying to address fears of rationing by trotting out an old and tired trope, namely, that rationing is an inescapable fact of life because every system rations whether by price or fiat. But there is a big difference between the two. If I can't afford caviar and champagne every night, any rationing involved is metaphoric, not real. Genuine rationing occurs when someone else controls access--how much of a particular good I can consume.

    By that token, Obama's stimulus bill has set in motion rationing on a scale unimaginable in the land of the free. Indeed, the bill commits over $1 billion to conduct comparative effectiveness research that will evaluate the relative merits of various treatments. That in itself wouldn't be so objectionable--if it weren't for the fact that a board will then "direct financing" toward approved, standardized treatments. In short, doctors will find it much harder to prescribe newer or non-standard treatments not yet deemed effective by health care bureaucrats. This is exactly along the lines of the British system, where breast cancer patients were denied Herceptin, a new miracle drug, until enraged women fought back. Even the much-vilified managed care plans would appear to be a paragon of generosity in comparison with this.

    Obama has repeatedly asked for honesty in the health care debate. It is high time he started showing some.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  15. #595  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Cutting and pasting conservative nonsense again? Don't you have any original thoughts?
    I heard the audio clip of Obama saying that he wasn't "familiar" with a key component of the current health care legislation. Does that count as "original?
  16. #596  
    This is a Palm Pre forum, how exactly is this the place to discuss health care reform in the US? lol
  17. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #597  
    Quote Originally Posted by nicbot View Post
    This is a Palm Pre forum, how exactly is this the place to discuss health care reform in the US? lol
    It's actually the Off-Topic Forum, not the Palm Pre forum.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  18. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #598  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Cutting and pasting conservative nonsense again? Don't you have any original thoughts?
    Too lazy to respond to the lies? As if you developed all your points and researched all your data, yourself. Get real. We already know you disagree, yet you still feel the need to offer some weak and inane retort. True to form, at least.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  19. #599  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Why do you assume that people are coming to the US for "Better" health care? The rich come here for faster healthcare--faster doesn't mean it's better.
    If a system allows you to receive treatment before it's too late then, yes, I would call that "better" health care.

    I suppose the question I would ask of you is this: if you needed medical care, and could travel anywhere to get it, which country would you choose?
  20. #600  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Nowhere in the health legislation is the US government taking control of the industry. THIS is an example of a scare tactic based on mis-information.
    If they PAY for it, then they RUN it. Just ask GM and Chrysler. Ask the profitable dealers who were shut down by government edict.

    The government runs Medicare and Medicaid. They negotiate prices for those programs and tell providers what they'll receive from the government. That's exactly what they're proposing to do for ALL health care with this bill. They will most certainly "control" the industry.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    The goverment IS trying to reduce the costs of an industry that is amok in waste and profits.

    The government wouldn't have to step in if the industry could control itself.

    Greed, however, is too strong for the industry to reign itself in.
    Lost in all this is that the federal government has shown no interesting in controlling it's OWN waste. Our national debt just quadrupled in 6 months, and that's without the feds running health care.

    Politicians haven't shown us that they care anything about cutting costs. There were over 9000 earmarks in the stimulus package, even though the president said he would put a stop to them when he was on the campaign trail. Why, even if you actually increase funding for a program but just not as much as originally planned, it's called a CUT to these people.

    If you're holding the federal government up as an example of how to control costs, then this debate will go absolutely nowhere.
    Last edited by semprini; 07/23/2009 at 03:44 PM.

Posting Permissions