Page 24 of 71 FirstFirst ... 14192021222324252627282934 ... LastLast
Results 461 to 480 of 1405
  1.    #461  
    Good article! Many of these things I've heard before and I think they would work. We do need insurance reform, many of these things are almost identical to the ideas I posted in the first post of this thread.
  2. #462  
    I've already posted the John Mackey article. It's already been dismissed as vague suggestions compared to Obama's specific plans.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  3. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #463  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    The problem is that there is no national collection of such data. Some of the discussion about the Harvard study is perfectly reasonable in that it raises questions about the methodology.
    But, oddly, that doesn't keep propagandists across the country from quoting that study as fact.


    There are no other studies or reasonable data collection except for a study that found differences between results when using two different methodologies for data collection....but these differences were expainable, and the data still show an incredible amount of medical debt:
    Actually, one of the most ridiculous things about this study is that it placed the threshold for medical debt at $1,000. This means that no matter how much the person owed otherwise, if they owed more than $1,000 in medical expenses the bankruptcy would be classified as being caused by medical debt. This 2002 study shows the number of bankruptcies that coincide with health problems is very low. They concluded that there is no basis for the claim that bankruptcies are caused by adverse life events.
  4. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #464  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    I've already posted the John Mackey article. It's already been dismissed as vague suggestions compared to Obama's specific plans.
    Obama came up with specifics??? When did this happen?
  5. #465  
    The pill makers wont let anyone fix the health care too much money to be made
  6. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #466  
    Ann Coulter
    October 7, 2009

    (18) America's lower life expectancy compared to countries with socialist health care proves that their medical systems are superior.

    President Obama has too much intellectual pride to make such a specious argument, so instead we have to keep hearing it from his half-wit supporters.

    These Democrats are all over the map on where precisely Americans place in the life-expectancy rankings. We're 24th, according to Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Barbara Boxer; 42nd, according to Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell; 35th, according to Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson; and 47th, according to Rep. Dennis Kucinich. So the U.S. may have less of a "life expectancy" problem than a "Democratic math competency" problem.

    But also, as described in last week's column, the citizenry's health is not the same thing as the citizenry's health care system.

    Besides America's high rate of infant mortality -- based on biology and lifestyle choices, not medical care -- Americans are also more likely to overeat or smoke than people in other developed nations. And the two biggest killers in the Western world are obesity and smoking.

    Liberals shouldn't have to be reminded how fat Americans are, inasmuch as they are always chortling about it. A 2004 New York Times article leeringly quoted a foreign doctor, saying: "We Europeans, whenever we came to America, we always noticed the enormous number of obese people on the streets." I note that these are the same people who openly worship Michael Moore.

    Somewhat surprisingly to those of us who have long admired France for its humanitarian smoking laws, until the mid-1980s, Americans had had the highest rate of smoking in the developed world. This makes patriotic Americans like me wonder if there's a way to get Michael Moore to start smoking. (You know, just to keep his weight down or whatever.)

    To be fair, the French are still being exposed to large amounts of smoke due to all the cars being set on fire by Muslims.

    In 2003, America led the world in smoking-related deaths among women -- followed by Hungary. Simply excluding all smoking-related deaths from the World Health Organization's comparison of life expectancies at age 50 in 20 developed nations would raise U.S. women's life expectancy from 17th to 7th place and lift American men from 14th to 9th place.

    Americans are also more likely to die in military combat than the whimpering, pant-wetting cowards our military has spent the past 70 years defending -- I mean, than "our loyal European allies." This is a health risk Europeans have managed to protect themselves against by living in a world that contains the United States military.

    These are risk factors that have nothing to do with the health care system. To evaluate the quality of our health care, you have to compare apples to apples by looking at outcomes for specific medical conditions.

    Although the United States has a higher incidence of heart disease, cancer and diabetes compared to Europe -- because of lifestyle choices and genetics -- it also has better survival rates across the board for all these medical problems.

    The most revealing international comparisons look at cancer survival rates, because of the universally extensive record-keeping for this disease.

    A European study found that, compared to 18 European countries, the U.S. had strikingly higher five-year survival rates in all 12 cancers studied, except for one: stomach cancer. Even there, the survival rates were close -- and the difference was attributed to the location of the cancer in the stomach.

    For all types of cancers, European men have only a 47.3 percent five-year survival rate, compared to 66.3 percent survival rate for American men. The greatest disparity was in prostate cancer, which American men are 28 percent more likely to survive than European men.

    European women are only 55.8 percent likely to live five years after contracting any kind of cancer, compared to 62.9 percent for American women.

    In five cancers -- breast, prostate, thyroid, testicular and skin melanoma -- American survival rates are higher than 90 percent. Europeans hit a 90 percent survival rate for only one of those -- testicular cancer.

    Most disturbingly, many cancers in Europe are discovered only upon the victim's death -- twice as many as in the U.S. Consequently, the European study simply excluded cancers that were first noted on the death certificate, so as not to give the U.S. too great an advantage.

    There are no national registries for heart disease, as there are for cancer, making survival-rate comparisons more difficult. But treatments can be measured and, again, Americans are far more likely to be on medication for heart disease and high cholesterol -- medications that extend the lives of millions, developed by those evil, profit-grubbing American drug companies.

    To get to the comparison they like (America is not as good as Sweden!), liberals have to slip in the orange of "life expectancy," and hope no one will mention monster truck races, Krispy Kremes and Virginia Slims. As the old saying goes: Life doesn't last longer in socialist countries; it just feels like it.

    COPYRIGHT 2009 ANN COULTER
    DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK
    1130 Walnut, Kansas City, MO 64106
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  7. cashen's Avatar
    Posts
    759 Posts
    Global Posts
    773 Global Posts
    #467  
    Haven't read any posts, but i'll make a few of my points.

    1. Someone has to pay for it... Payroll, premiums, taxes.
    2. At least this money doesn't leave the country like oil money.
    3. Did i mention its a service, if you are willing to pay for it, you can get it.
    4. life sucks.
  8. #468  
    I don't have insurance that covers my pre existing so I pay big bucs.
    Cystic lesion in left temple lobe of brain that causes grand mall - epilepsy seizures.

    Meds: Lamictal & Phenobarbital- $1450 per month
    Doctor : neurologist visit- $450 per month
    Test: Blood work & MRI- $2300 per year.

    So called free health care...I want nothing to do with it.
    I want freedom to choose best doctors & best meds !

    Government needs to,
    1:Provide tax cuts to insurance company's and those using .

    2:Allow insurance company's to cross State Lines & make mandatory cover pre existing after 1 year,
    It will make industry more competitive thus lower prices will follow.

    3: knock on pharmaceutical company's doors to lower prices!

    4: Stop waste , fraud , un-needed programs etc.
    Put that money into health care....heck they could pay for health care 2 times over with those funds.

    5: Start insurance company ,treat it like a business..open books were moneys coming and going etc.
    To qualify for plan earnings can not exceed...lets say 1000.00 a month.
    Pre existing condition automatically covered
    User makes arrangement with insurer 5 - 10 - 20 etc a month depending on monthly earnings.
    Provide tax break to doctors & nurses that volunteer ,those that donate $ to insurer get tax break ,those in medical school get % of school payed if they sign on 2 years of service.

    Will the above fix everything health care related..heck no but would be major step forward.

    .
    Last edited by slingbox; 10/17/2009 at 07:49 AM.
  9.    #469  
    Good to see people making suggestions.

    Quote Originally Posted by slingbox View Post
    I don't have insurance that covers my pre existing so I pay big bucs.

    So called free health care...I want nothing to do with it.
    I want freedom to choose best doctors & best meds !
    It would be nice if everyone could choose. But a government plan would eventually eliminate that choice.



    Government needs to...

    5: Start insurance company ,treat it like a business..open books were moneys coming and going etc.
    To qualify for plan earnings can not exceed...lets say 1000.00 a month.
    Isn't that called Medicaid?

    Pre existing condition automatically covered
    This is the biggest problem. If you covered pre-existing automatically, no one would buy insurance until something happened. Unless the government FORCED you to buy insurance. So much for choice.

    The insurance companies were all for covering pre-existing conditions when they saw the big penalties for not having insurance. Now that we are making exceptions for those who can't afford it, the penalties are being reduced and the insurance companies are having to back away. (These people who will be granted the exceptions are the majority who don't have insurance now)[/QUOTE]
  10. #470  
    Quote Originally Posted by Technologic 2 View Post
    This is the biggest problem. If you covered pre-existing automatically, no one would buy insurance until something happened. Unless the government FORCED you to buy insurance. So much for choice.

    The insurance companies were all for covering pre-existing conditions when they saw the big penalties for not having insurance. Now that we are making exceptions for those who can't afford it, the penalties are being reduced and the insurance companies are having to back away. (These people who will be granted the exceptions are the majority who don't have insurance now)
    [/QUOTE]

    And why? Because the insurance companies have to make a profit and satisfy shareholders (in some cases) and not their "covered lives". We force people to buy auto insurance...maybe this might be more important?

    No plan will work without a public option. It's simple. And if insurance companies can decrease their costs, they will compete with the public option. That's simple too. But they are unwilling to do that, to even discuss it. That's why I'm perfectly happy to accept a future trigger....because I know without a doubt that the insurance companies will not be able to control their costs, or health care costs, and that will trigger a public option. It's the only way to control costs.
  11. #471  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    We force people to buy auto insurance...maybe this might be more important?
    This particular analogy/argument is tired and simply wrong. What kind of auto insurance do we 'force' people to buy? We (as in the states) require people to have certain levels of _liability_ insurance. Additionally, the companies that finance auto loans require people who use them to buy cars to carry additional levels in many cases. IOW, by virtue of owning/financing a car and driving it, you are being required to carry insurance covering your causing damage to someone else.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  12. #472  
    Quote Originally Posted by Technologic 2 View Post
    It would be nice if everyone could choose. But a government plan would eventually eliminate that choice.
    nah






    Quote Originally Posted by Technologic 2 View Post
    Isn't that called Medicaid?
    No
    The new government insurance company for those that cant afford or choose not to buy privet would have better chance of working.
    It would be a business ,Open books ,No government waste . keeping polctions greedy hand out of it



    Quote Originally Posted by Technologic 2 View Post
    This is the biggest problem. If you covered pre-existing automatically, no one would buy insurance until something happened. Unless the government FORCED you to buy insurance. So much for choice.
    Very true system would be abused
    ,Government forcing you to by insurance is abuse as well.
    Those that choose not to buy privet insurance will have government running their life...after all thats what they want or do they.
    With Privet insurance rates being more affordable many will skip the government plan wanting top quality care freedom to choose insurer.



    Quote Originally Posted by Technologic 2 View Post
    The insurance companies were all for covering pre-existing conditions when they saw the big penalties for not having insurance. Now that we are making exceptions for those who can't afford it, the penalties are being reduced and the insurance companies are having to back away. (These people who will be granted the exceptions are the majority who don't have insurance now)
    No government penalty's needed to kick health care insures in gear.
    When Health insurance available nationwide, not confined to state lines competition will be had ,rates will drop ,Tax breaks to insurer & consumer is a winner.



    Bottom line,
    Their will always be winners and losers ,government cant stop that from happening..heck they couldn't run cash for clunkers.
    Government Tax and spend isn't a fix ,It has been proven over and over again.
    Those that want government controlled heath care want their freedom taken away.

    .
    Last edited by slingbox; 10/17/2009 at 06:55 PM.
  13. #473  
    Quote Originally Posted by slingbox View Post
    nah




    Very true system would be abused
    ,Government forcing you to by insurance is abuse as well.
    Those that choose not to buy privet insurance will have government running their life...after all thats what they want or do they.
    With Privet insurance rates being more affordable many will skip the government plan wanting top quality care freedom to choose insurer.

    Bottom line,
    Their will always be winners and losers ,government cant stop that from happening..heck they couldn't run cash for clunkers.
    Government Tax and spend isn't a fix ,It has been proven over and over again.
    Those that want government controlled heath care want their freedom taken away.

    .
    Actually, although I disagree with much of what you say, in places where there have been state-run health plans with competition between a public option and private plans, most people have wanted the private plans. That is one reason the AMA is not vehemently against a public option....because they don't think the public option can compete with the private companies. That may be true without price controls, but then we will not control costs.

    And along the same lines....what is being proposed is not a "government controlled health care system". It will only become that if private insurers cannot control costs. And there are lots of Canadians, some on this forum, who don't at all feel like they "have had their freedom taken away". They have discussed this at length. What they do feel is relief, that their insurance
    cannot be taken away, that their children and parents are covered, and that there are no risks of being denied insurance.
  14. #474  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Actually, although I disagree with much of what you say, in places where there have been state-run health plans with competition between a public option and private plans, most people have wanted the private plans. That is one reason the AMA is not vehemently against a public option....because they don't think the public option can compete with the private companies. That may be true without price controls, but then we will not control costs.

    And along the same lines....what is being proposed is not a "government controlled health care system". It will only become that if private insurers cannot control costs.
    Obama has stated on many occasions that single payer system is the goal.
    That inturn would put privet insurers out of business providing one choice.
    Government will save the day.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    And there are lots of Canadians, some on this forum, who don't at all feel like they "have had their freedom taken away". They have discussed this at length. What they do feel is relief, that their insurance
    If I moved to BC I would feel freedom taken away.
    In states I can pick my doctors , meds etc.If I need surgery tomorrow I pay and get.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    cannot be taken away, that their children and parents are covered, and that there are no risks of being denied insurance.
    That same comfe feeling can be had with free market as well.
    You pay and receive

    If your not able to pay due to lack of funds under..lets say $1000.00 a month hop on government plan.
    On that plan you get free everything but there are some rules like,
    Must go on government diet if overweight
    No fast food ,soft drinks.. etc no junk food.
    Blood test ever 30 days to check for illegal drugs ,nicteen ,alcohol.
    Exercise 30 min a day.



    You will never be denied health care and always have choice
    Last edited by slingbox; 10/18/2009 at 12:55 AM.
  15. #475  
    Quote Originally Posted by slingbox View Post
    Obama has stated on many occasions that single payer system is the goal.
    That inturn would put privet insurers out of business providing one choice.
    Government will save the day.


    If I moved to BC I would feel freedom taken away.
    In states I can pick my doctors , meds etc.If I need surgery tomorrow I pay and get.

    That same comfe feeling can be had with free market as well.
    You pay and receive

    If your not able to pay due to lack of funds under..lets say $1000.00 a month hop on government plan.
    On that plan you get free everything but there are some rules like,
    Must go on government diet if overweight
    No fast food ,soft drinks.. etc no junk food.
    Blood test ever 30 days to check for illegal drugs ,nicteen ,alcohol.
    Exercise 30 min a day.



    You will never be denied health care and always have choice
    Why not try reading this post, and others by people who actually live with universal health care?

    Tell me, has Obama gotten everything he has as a goal? He seems pretty willing to compromise. He wants to make sure that people get health care. Personally, IMHO there is no way to do that and avoid significant budget crises without public-funded health care (with private options, of course) because there is a profit motive for insurance companies, who actually provide no care whatsoever and do nothing other than serve as a middleman, taking their tithe. We can't afford that tithe, but that will become clear in the future. For now, I agree with Obama. I don't care what plan they come up with as long as everyone gets covered, there are no pre-existing conditions, and there is insurance reform. If that reform and increasing their base will allow private insurance companies to survive, fine. We'll see if they can pull it off. But I'll be glad to take any bet you want that they can't do it. They lack the commitment to control costs in their own companies and in their providers. And most importantly, they lack the commitment to their insured populations. Try talking to some of them on the phone sometime.

    And I think that certainly if there is a public option that you should be consulted about requirements for coverage. Clearly, people with no money should be put on very different criteria before they get coverage than people with money. The framers would certainly agree with that, right? I mean, they're poor, so let's treat them differently. Pond scum, right?
  16.    #476  
    Quote Originally Posted by slingbox View Post
    If your not able to pay due to lack of funds under..lets say $1000.00 a month hop on government plan.
    On that plan you get free everything but there are some rules like,
    Must go on government diet if overweight
    No fast food ,soft drinks.. etc no junk food.
    Blood test ever 30 days to check for illegal drugs ,nicteen ,alcohol.
    Exercise 30 min a day.

    You will never be denied health care and always have choice
    Actually, I like this plan for a government option.

    If you like freedom, it comes with the responsibility of taking care of yourself.

    If you like government control, you let the government take care of you. As well as the control of your behavior.
  17. #477  
    Quote Originally Posted by Technologic 2 View Post
    Actually, I like this plan for a government option.

    If you like freedom, it comes with the responsibility of taking care of yourself.

    If you like government control, you let the government take care of you. As well as the control of your behavior.
    One can only assume, therefore, that you have the same requirements of Medicare. What would you like all Americans over the age of 65 to be required to do in order to make you satisfied? Got a list or something? I think we can certainly move rapidly on this, as you and Slingbox are appropriate stand-ins for the framers. Of course, you do sound a bit fascist, but who really cares?

    Right.
    Last edited by davidra; 10/18/2009 at 03:32 PM.
  18.    #478  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    Please cite the congressional proposal which includes the dictates of governmental control of behavior. Or, are you still spreading unfounded fear aimlessly?
    Yes, are you scared yet. You have me scared. I guess I was naive thinking you could read. Did ANYONE mention that these were congressional proposals. We were discussing IDEAS; something some people around here couldn't do without being told what to think.
  19.    #479  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    ...you and Slingbox are appropriate stand-ins for the framers. Of course, you do sound a bit fascist, but who really cares?

    Right.
    FREEDOM of choice does not make you fascist, Redistribution of Wealth DOES make you a Marxist....but, what's wrong with that...weren't the framers all Marxist?
  20.    #480  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    Reagan, who enacted the largest redistribution of wealth in US history,
    Exactly what legislation are you talking about here?

Posting Permissions