Page 31 of 143 FirstFirst ... 2126272829303132333435364181131 ... LastLast
Results 601 to 620 of 2855
  1. #601  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    I guess it might be too late to get a face-lift if you have to wait a few months (and you're really ugly).

    If I had to get healthcare, truthfully, I'd probably choose Germany. Have you seen their spanking new, technologically advanced hospitals? I have. It will blow your mind when you realize how behind we are.
    Germany scores pretty high marks, indeed. People there are forced to pay about 8% of their salary to fund the system. I haven't read all the details but I know that the government there recently had to overhaul the system due to problems.

    A World Health Organization survey in 2000 found that France had the world's best health system. But that has come at a high price; health budgets have been in the red since 1988.

    In 1996, France introduced targets for health insurance spending. But a decae later, the deficit had doubled to 49 billion euros ($69 billion).

    "I would warn Americans that once the government gets its nose into health care, it's hard to stop the dangerous effects later," said Valentin Petkantchin, of the Institut Economique Molinari in France. He said many private providers have been pushed out, forcing a dependence on an overstretched public system.

    Similar scenarios have been unfolding in the Netherlands and Switzerland, where everyone must buy health insurance.

    "The minute you make health insurance mandatory, people start overusing it," said Dr. Alphonse Crespo, an orthopedic surgeon and research director at Switzerland's Institut Constant de Rebecque. "If I have a cold, I might go see a doctor because I am already paying a health insurance premium."

    Cost-cutting has also hit Switzerland. The numbers of beds have dropped, hospitals have merged, and specialist care has become harder to find. A 2007 survey found that in some hospitals in Geneva and Lausanne, the rates of medical mistakes had jumped by up to 40 percent. Long ranked among the world's top four health systems, Switzerland dropped to 8th place in a Europe-wide survey last year.

    Government influence in health care may also stifle innovation, other experts warn. Bureaucracies are slow to adopt new medical technologies. In Britain and Germany, even after new drugs are approved, access to them is complicated because independent agencies must decide if they are worth buying.

    When the breast cancer drug Herceptin was proven to be effective in 1998, it was available almost immediately in the U.S. But it took another four years for the U.K. to start buying it for British breast cancer patients.

    "Government control of health care is not a panacea," said Philip Stevens, of International Policy Network, a London think-tank. "The U.S. health system is a bit of a mess, but based on what's happened in some countries in Europe, I'd be nervous about recommending more government involvement."
    Europe's Free, State-run Health Care Has Drawbacks - CBS News
  2. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #602  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    The treatment is pharmacologic. Only after that doesn't work and the condition is severe, does one undergo a stent. (and there's strong evidence that stents aren't even effective in the long run)

    There is no delay for stents in the UK.
    Proof?
  3. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #603  
    Quote Originally Posted by semprini View Post
    Germany scores pretty high marks, indeed. People there are forced to pay about 8% of their salary to fund the system. I haven't read all the details but I know that the government there recently had to overhaul the system due to problems.



    Europe's Free, State-run Health Care Has Drawbacks - CBS News
    Actually, it averages about 14% of the employees gross income.
  4. #604  
    I still say the biggest issue is how this effects small businesses. By small businesses, I'm referring to companies with less than 50 employees. Per HR 3200, employers will be required to pay 72.5% of employee coverage....this really isn't that big a deal since most insurance carriers require employers to pay at least 50% of such premium. The part that will hit small business is the requirement by the governemnt for the employer to pay 65% of the dependent's coverage. This is huge. Not many small businesses can afford to pay for dependent coverage, so this will be a big increase on their expenses. In addition, under the HR 3200, there is a requirement to also pay for health benefits of part time employees...again...this is HUGE. Currently, part time employees are not allowed even to be covered under group plans and so this will be a rather big impact to small business owners. And so what if they business decides to not offer group coverage to their employees? Well, per HR 3200, the government would then impose a "contribution" (not a tax, noooo, a contribution) based on the company's annual payroll. This would be anywhere between 2% - 6% based on annual payroll between $250,000 and $399,999. If payroll is over $400,000 it would be 8%. This "contribution" is to help pay for the healthcare cost of their employees under the government plan.

    So, while HR 3200 is just one of five options I've heard about, it is an example of how this could really hit small businesses. Now zelgo will likely say, "good, what's wrong with making them do what they should be willing to do." Well, when a person decides to open a business, the goal is usually for that person, the one taking all the risk, to make money....the goal is not to provide health care for employees. It is often something the business owner wants to do, but should not be required of a business owner. So, to pay for these "contributions", small businesses will either lay off employees or have to raise the cost of their product or service.

    Now some in here will say I'm making this up....but if you READ the HR 3200 bill, it is right there. Will HR 3200 be the bill? Who knows....but it is being floated....and likely some of the ideas in there will be carried forward. So as we try and get out of a recession, and small businesses try and get through this, they will be burdened with other contributions....oh hell....let's just call it a tax, can we? Just what the doctor ordered (pun intended) for struggling businesses....more taxes. Liberals just don't get it.
  5. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #605  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Why bother responding to conservative lies? They'll just come up with other nonsense tomorrow once you've refuted their paper-thin claims.
    ...
    When conservatives start spouting about doctors not making decisions for their patients or how long the wait times are going to be--it's all a cover for the fear that they are going to lose lots of money when the system changes-
    ...
    I'm just keeping it real, folks.
    Yeah, keeping it real-ly ridiculous. You've brought nothing to the table as far as I can tell except unsupported assertions and ad hominem attacks.
  6. #606  
    FYI.....new update for your Pre....v1.1.0....just thought those in here going back and forth on health care might like to know that. I think we can all agree that is a good thing....right? And I gotta say....it didn't involve any government intervention!
  7. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #607  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    FYI.....new update for your Pre....v1.1.0....just thought those in here going back and forth on health care might like to know that. I think we can all agree that is a good thing....right? And I gotta say....it didn't involve any government intervention!
    Got it!
  8. #608  
    In the process of debating the potential outcome and ramifications of politician-run health care, I came back to the thought that the premise itself is moot. Taxpayer-funded health care is not a "right." Walter Williams has written about the modern concept of "rights" on several occasions.

    Rights vs. Wishes by Walter Williams -- Capitalism Magazine

    Excerpts:

    At least in the standard historical usage of the term, a right is something that exists simultaneously among people. A right confers no obligation on another.
    As human beings, we all have certain unalienable rights. Of the rights we possess, we have a right to delegate to government. For example, we all have a right to defend ourselves against predators. Since we possess that right, we can delegate it to government. In other words, we can say to government, "We have the right to defend ourselves, but for a more orderly society, we give you the authority to defend us."

    By contrast, I don't possess the right to take your earnings for any reason. Since I have no such right, I cannot delegate it to government.
    Simply put, you have the right to "access" health care and purchase it on your own, but you have ZERO right to force others to pay for it. Many politicians argue that health care is a "right" and, therefore, the government must fund it. However, that is completely at odds to the concept of individual rights and liberty. That should be the key factor in everyone's thinking.
  9. #609  
    Quote Originally Posted by semprini View Post
    In the process of debating the potential outcome and ramifications of politician-run health care, I came back to the thought that the premise itself is moot. Taxpayer-funded health care is not a "right." Walter Williams has written about the modern concept of "rights" on several occasions.

    Rights vs. Wishes by Walter Williams -- Capitalism Magazine

    Excerpts:





    Simply put, you have the right to "access" health care and purchase it on your own, but you have ZERO right to force others to pay for it. Many politicians argue that health care is a "right" and, therefore, the government must fund it. However, that is completely at odds to the concept of individual rights and liberty. That should be the key factor in everyone's thinking.
    I agree with you 100%, and in fact, said the same thing (though maybe not as well written) back in post #428:

    "Excellent comment: "And people are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. However, too many people want to take from other people's lives and liberty and say they have a "right" to it." This is what truly bugs me about folks who believe they have a "right" to things and should have it provided by the "government". It's as if they forget that the "government" is funded by us. So while I believe everyone has a "right" to have access to health care, I don't believe that they have a "right" to pay for their care by the government taking my money to pay for it. I don't understand why people don't understand this. We should all have the "right" to many things....food, shelter, education, transportation, internet, health care, etc.....but what you don't have is a right to force me to fund your rights. Anyway.....that's all I got to say about that."

    So good comment! It does appear that cooler heads are prevailing at this point, at least until the liberals get their scare tactics going again when they return from their "break".
  10. #610  
    Break? Nancy says no break. Harry mumbled something about that also. Most amazing at the arm twisting these guys do. Frankly, Nancy needs to hit the door along with Obama. Harry needs a new brain.
  11. #611  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    I agree with you 100%, and in fact, said the same thing (though maybe not as well written) back in post #428:

    "Excellent comment: "And people are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. However, too many people want to take from other people's lives and liberty and say they have a "right" to it." This is what truly bugs me about folks who believe they have a "right" to things and should have it provided by the "government". It's as if they forget that the "government" is funded by us. So while I believe everyone has a "right" to have access to health care, I don't believe that they have a "right" to pay for their care by the government taking my money to pay for it. I don't understand why people don't understand this. We should all have the "right" to many things....food, shelter, education, transportation, internet, health care, etc.....but what you don't have is a right to force me to fund your rights. Anyway.....that's all I got to say about that."

    So good comment! It does appear that cooler heads are prevailing at this point, at least until the liberals get their scare tactics going again when they return from their "break".
    If I have no car (live on a dirt road with no access) and no child, why am I paying road and school taxes? Maybe not the best, but you get the picture... we pay for many things in "taxes" (some form or another) that we never use or would otherwise be against.

    Sometimes people really to think about their argument before going forth... these arguments don't really move the issue in a direction. They are stating basic facts... okay, I pay for things I don't like... okay. Cool... now what?

    It is not just "liberals" who want "change" in health care... everyone "knows" we need change... health has pushed over 15% of gdp now (around there anyway).... not to mention our paying indirectly for health now anyway... who pays for all those bankruptcies due to health care?

    Of course this needs to change, but no one knows what that change will look like... people are notoriously unwilling to change....
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  12. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #612  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    If I have no car (live on a dirt road with no access) and no child, why am I paying road and school taxes? Maybe not the best, but you get the picture... we pay for many things in "taxes" (some form or another) that we never use or would otherwise be against.

    Sometimes people really to think about their argument before going forth... these arguments don't really move the issue in a direction. They are stating basic facts... okay, I pay for things I don't like... okay. Cool... now what?

    It is not just "liberals" who want "change" in health care... everyone "knows" we need change... health has pushed over 15% of gdp now (around there anyway).... not to mention our paying indirectly for health now anyway... who pays for all those bankruptcies due to health care?

    Of course this needs to change, but no one knows what that change will look like... people are notoriously unwilling to change....
    I'm glad you brought up education. There's a prime example of a government service gone out of control. Massive government bureaucracy, union interference and blatant politicization has essentially castrated the system and our government's response is to just pour more money into it. Does all that extra money help? And the survey says... NO! Just look at the D.C. school district. Ranked third on per student spending, highest average teacher salary, above average student-teacher ratio, DEAD LAST in academic outcomes. Hawaii ranked 16th on per student spending and ranked third worst academic outcomes, while Minnesota ranked 22nd in per student spending and ranked first in academic outcomes.

    But the government's answer is to spend more. Or they "mandate" higher test scores, as if the answer lies in the fact that the government just didn't require good education before. And the people who really pay for it are the recipients of that education.

    So, excuse me if I'm skeptical that increased federal government involvement in funding health care is the answer to out ills (pun intended). The reason is that it can't be.
  13. #613  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo
    47 million people are uninsured and cannot even get healthcare. 18,000 people die each year for for lack of health insurance, making it the 4th highest cause of death in America. Another 30 million are "under-insured"--their insurance doesn't cover many costs or runs out after a monetary limit has been reached.
    Read the whole thread. Whew! The above was one of the many posts I found noteworthy. So completely asinine.

    The 47 mil bit has been debunked.
    18000 didnt die because of lack of health insurance, and a lack of insurance isnt a cause of death, statistically or otherwise. People die from injury or sickness, not a lack of insurance.
    With 30 mil under insured there must be some over insured. Where is that number? If our system is so bad why arent you pointing out that flaw?
  14. #614  
    Study Blames 18,000 Deaths in USA on Lack of Insurance - read this - it is a national nonprofit, progressive, nonpartisan citizens' organization founded in 1997 by political activists Craig Brown and his late wife. PROGRESSIVE. Going on, "We publish breaking news from a progressive perspective. And the latest ideas and opinions of some of the world's best progressive writers and activists."

    In other words, a group with a really heavy agenda based on exceedingly biased "data."
  15. #615  
    Remote Area Medical - a medical organization set up to operate in 3rd world countries now do a majority of its work in the USA...quite telling.

  16. #616  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    [url= Blames 18,000 Deaths in USA on Lack of Insurance[/url] - read this - it is a national nonprofit, progressive, nonpartisan citizens' organization founded in 1997 by political activists Craig Brown and his late wife. PROGRESSIVE. Going on, "We publish breaking news from a progressive perspective. And the latest ideas and opinions of some of the world's best progressive writers and activists."

    In other words, a group with a really heavy agenda based on exceedingly biased "data."
    Ummm...the article was reprinted from USA Today, not written by that website. It's attributed both at the top and at the bottom of the article. I'm certain that you simply missed both references, and not that you were trying to deflect from the data. Besides, I'm sure USA Today is "progressive" and "biased" as well, of course.

    The actual study was from the Institute of Medicine....since the writing of the article, the numbers have been estimated to be increasing, from 18,000 in 2002 to 22,000 in 2006. The total dead due to lack of insurance is 137,000 from 2000 to 2006.
    Last edited by Bujin; 07/26/2009 at 09:20 AM.
  17. #617  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    If I have no car (live on a dirt road with no access) and no child, why am I paying road and school taxes? Maybe not the best, but you get the picture... we pay for many things in "taxes" (some form or another) that we never use or would otherwise be against.

    Sometimes people really to think about their argument before going forth... these arguments don't really move the issue in a direction. They are stating basic facts... okay, I pay for things I don't like... okay. Cool... now what?

    It is not just "liberals" who want "change" in health care... everyone "knows" we need change... health has pushed over 15% of gdp now (around there anyway).... not to mention our paying indirectly for health now anyway... who pays for all those bankruptcies due to health care?

    Of course this needs to change, but no one knows what that change will look like... people are notoriously unwilling to change....
    First....education is normally more of a local/county tax thing...at least here in SC. Groovy brought up an excellent point about more money clearly not helping the situation. Unfortunately, the county I live in, Charleston County, has one of the highest cost per child in the state and our county is near the bottom in most statistical groups. Clearly throwing more money isn't working, but you know what?.....they keep doing it (grrrrrrrrrrrrrr).

    As for roads, I think it would be a rare person who never used public roads. Could there be such a person, I'm sure, but quite rare. So if we didn't have the governent handle the roads, who would handle the cost of roads? Pretty expensive endeavor....would someone just decide to build a road, put a toll on it, and hope people would build neighborhoods or businesses off this road and then hope others would start to drive on it? Just not sure how all privately built roads would work. Hell, public upkeep of roads/bridges are horrible so not sure the government does such a good job on that either. So, sorry, not buying the "I never drive on roads" arguement....especially since you didn't explain who would then build roads if not the government.

    With health care, we already have plans that work, but just need some tweeking. As I've said before, the key is getting those who don't have health inurance covered, which does involve some how getting those who don't want it (normally the young healthy folks) to be covered. The reason I feel getting the young healthy folks covered is important is because this would allow health insurance companies the ability to let unhealthy folks come on with no pre-existing limitations and without a huge cost. You can't have just the unhealthy on the plans.....you got to have the healthy ones on to help spread the costs. Now....what I don't know, is how to accomplish that, but, I think it can be done without turning our healthcare into a socialist care program, that is, a government run health program.
  18. #618  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Ummm...the article was reprinted from USA Today, not written by that website. It's attributed both at the top and at the bottom of the article. I'm certain that you simply missed both references, and not that you were trying to deflect from the data. Besides, I'm sure USA Today is "progressive" and "biased" as well, of course.

    The actual study was from the Institute of Medicine....since the writing of the article, the numbers have been estimated to be increasing, from 18,000 in 2002 to 22,000 in 2006. The total dead due to lack of insurance is 137,000 from 2000 to 2006.
    Emphasis mine.

    Again, no one dies from a lack of insurance. Is there data proving that the availability of health insurance would have saved them? I doubt it. If there were how would you explain the folks with no insurance that magically remain alive?
  19. #619  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof View Post
    Emphasis mine.

    Again, no one dies from a lack of insurance. Is there data proving that the availability of health insurance would have saved them? I doubt it. If there were how would you explain the folks with no insurance that magically remain alive?
    The Institute of Medicine seems comfortable stating that the lack of medical coverage (due to lack of insurance) is indeed the causal factor:

    Insuring America's Health: Principles and Recommendations - Institute of Medicine

    Is there any data proving that the availability would not have saved them?
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  20. #620  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Now....what I don't know, is how to accomplish that, but, I think it can be done without turning our healthcare into a socialist care program, that is, a government run health program.
    A government run health care program is not being considered:

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...vernment-run-/

    Every plan allows for people to keep their insurance if it's working for them:

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...isting-system/
    Last edited by Bujin; 07/26/2009 at 01:10 PM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G

Posting Permissions