Page 54 of 71 FirstFirst ... 444495051525354555657585964 ... LastLast
Results 1,061 to 1,080 of 1405
  1. #1061  
    Allez boire quelques biére maintenant!
  2.    #1062  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Yet another study showing that being uninsured is detrimental to life when you're sick:

    Uninsured ER patients twice as likely to die - Health care- msnbc.com
    And it has been determined that almost 100% of those people had eaten something in the previous 10 days. All I am saying here is don't mix statistics. Compare people coming in the hospital in the SAME condition with/without insurance before comparing outcomes.

    And there was this recent overlooked news item:

    Over 2,200 veterans died in 2008 due to lack of health insurance | Physicians for a National Health Program

    For those of you who hate government trying to run things, this is what happens when you leave it to the private world to run things.
    Can't all Veterans go to VA Hospitals? Aren't they government run? BTW My opinion: If you are a veteran, you should be able to get the best healthcare at any hospital at no charge. They put their life on the line for us and we should pay them back for that.
  3. #1063  
    Quote Originally Posted by Technologic 2 View Post


    Can't all Veterans go to VA Hospitals? Aren't they government run? BTW My opinion: If you are a veteran, you should be able to get the best healthcare at any hospital at no charge. They put their life on the line for us and we should pay them back for that.
    For a brief period of time after active duty, all veterans can receive care at a VA. After that period of time, only patients who are classified as having "service connected" illness get free care. The others have to pay. That is the point of the last Harvard article...the vast majority of Viet Nam and even Desert Storm vets are NOT covered by the VA for free care. Yes, they can go to the VA, and the VA will charge them or their insurance companies. And if they don't have insurance? What do you think?

    And I love the way you brag about all the public hospitals that are available to all. Are you talking about Charity, for example? It doesn't exist any more. Please, by all means, give me a listing of "public hospitals" in Louisiana. Not only that, please tell me who supports these "public hospitals" and if you think that's the way to provide care effectively and efficiently.

    Addendum: And I am sure to be labeled arrogant again, but this is just another example of someone having strong opinions about something, without even basic knowledge of what currently exists. You want to talk about the VA with some credibility? Find out what it does and doesn't do. Otherwise don't bother. Just like the moderator on this thread who had no idea of what Medicare is, does, or covers. He just knows he doesn't like it. No wonder we're screwed.
    Last edited by davidra; 11/16/2009 at 07:16 PM.
  4. #1064  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    And I love the way you brag about all the public hospitals that are available to all. Are you talking about Charity, for example? It doesn't exist any more. Please, by all means, give me a listing of "public hospitals" in Louisiana.
    Here are a few: About - Home
    Not only that, please tell me who supports these "public hospitals" and if you think that's the way to provide care effectively and efficiently.
    It's certainly not always the most effective or efficient, but this is the state of Huey Long.
    ‎"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...
  5. #1065  
    Quote Originally Posted by glorifiedg View Post
    I dont think so because of the lack of control on the major sectors like energy.
    This is in some ways difficult to control on a national level because:
    Quote Originally Posted by glorifiedg View Post
    Its hard to compare because most of your states are bigger than most of EU countries! Portugal has 10.000.000 inhabitants, probably less then the US smaller state. LOL!
    I think this is a very important distinction that even many in this country overlook. Many of our states are the size of European countries. Considering the US a 'state' in the same way is somewhat misplaced. The EU is about the closest current comparison.
    I'm talking about a control from a central government. Like i've said, American system of government its very very different from our, sometimes, much more complex. And, from my experience in Portugal, complexiness (does this word exist? LOL) is great for corruption.
    'Complexity' would be the word you're looking for, and yes, our system of government can get much more complex, since it has to mesh 50 different systems of government (including my own somewhat drastically different home state).
    Hope I was clear, sometimes is very hard when you're writing another language. :S It's easier to speek it
    You're doing fine all things considered. A few word choices were off here and there, but nothing horrible.
    I'm talking for what i read (and what i see in the movies LOL!), you have public hospitals in all cities?
    Can't speak for the rest of the country, but our state is generally covered.
    But you pay lower taxes than us because the public system is smaller right?
    It really depends on how you calculate taxes. Overall taxation rate depends on what you consider as a part of it. If you only consider Federal Income Tax, then that's quite probable. When you add in state and local taxes of various stripes, it's not so clear cut.
    ‎"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...
  6. #1066  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    None taken, and having 20 different definitions on socialism does none of us any good, does it?
    Yes, it does. It shows us that humans are not binary machines. The world is not capitalism/socialism, or left/right, or any number of false dichotomies.
    Otherwise, 1) I'd have to identify which variant I was talking about when I mentioned it, and 2) everyone would have to be schooled on all variants and their distinctions.
    What wrong with that? What's the purpose of these sorts of discussions if one isn't open to learning a new perspective? I'm sure that the Share Our Wealth movement would seem like any other variant of socialism to some, but its founder did not consider it socialism, even though he did consider FDR too far right.
    Therefore I choose to go with the current "mainstream" variant that the rest of us are talking about.... you can go have as much fun as you want with the academics and other leftist elites and debate all the forms and nuances of socialism.
    I'm not sure what variant the 'rest of us' are talking about.
    PS) I get a bit tired of the left sneering down their noses at the rest of us unread and unwashed masses.
    You should really be thankful.
    ‎"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...
  7. #1067  
    Quote Originally Posted by Technologic 2 View Post
    And it has been determined that almost 100% of those people had eaten something in the previous 10 days. All I am saying here is don't mix statistics. Compare people coming in the hospital in the SAME condition with/without insurance before comparing outcomes.
    They did exactly that. From the article:

    Uninsured patients with traumatic injuries, such as car crashes, falls and gunshot wounds, were almost twice as likely to die in the hospital as similarly injured patients with health insurance, according to a troubling new study.
    .
    .
    .

    researchers took into account the severity of the injuries and the patients' race, gender and age. After those adjustments, they still found the uninsured were 80 percent more likely to die than those with insurance — even low-income patients insured by the government's Medicaid program.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  8. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1068  
    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    glorifiedg is 100% spot on!

    Just look through the threads here glorifiedg. I am considered a left wing radical socialist just because I am a member of a labor union. People in the states don't have a true understanding of left and right.
    As long as people continue to label fascism as Right Wing, I'd have to agree.
  9. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1069  
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/us...alth.html?_r=1

    Statements by more than a dozen lawmakers were ghostwritten, in whole or in part, by Washington lobbyists working for Genentech, one of the world’s largest biotechnology companies.
    ...

    The lobbyists, employed by Genentech and by two Washington law firms, were remarkably successful in getting the statements printed in the Congressional Record under the names of different members of Congress.

    Genentech, a subsidiary of the Swiss drug giant Roche, estimates that 42 House members picked up some of its talking points — 22 Republicans and 20 Democrats, an unusual bipartisan coup for lobbyists.
  10. #1070  
    @Toby
    This is in some ways difficult to control on a national level because:

    I think this is a very important distinction that even many in this country overlook. Many of our states are the size of European countries. Considering the US a 'state' in the same way is somewhat misplaced. The EU is about the closest current comparison.
    Of course, I can see your point. Perhaps states should be really like countries, with outonomous government (I think it is like this right now right?).

    My only concerns about the USA are the lack of a good and structured public system that serves the interest of all and not just of a few... And of course, death penalty and the right to carry guns.


    'Complexity' would be the word you're looking for, and yes, our system of government can get much more complex, since it has to mesh 50 different systems of government (including my own somewhat drastically different home state).
    When you don't know the country by the inside, sometimes we create some stereotypes. I should really visit US sometimes.

    I just don't want to get mis-unsdestand. Theres a lot of anti-americanism nowadays but that's not my case. I just think we all have ower bad and good things and we could have a more fair world if we try to be less self-centered.
    You're doing fine all things considered. A few word choices were off here and there, but nothing horrible.
    Thanks!



    On topic again, I just can speek for what it comes to EU press about the current situation. My opinion is that every time someone talks about public system, a crowd of radical non informed pro and anti come out on the street and most of them dont even care to be informed on that subject.

    Generaly, I think Obama is doing an effort to get things better. You know that some things will be good, some of them will be bad but that is the price we have to pay for change i think.

    I just can't see what is the alternative for poor people to get access to health, perhaps someone can explain me, i'd like to know. A piece of insurance that are free "social insurance" as a mandatory contribution of insurance companies? Or an obligation of the private hospitals to do a percentage of pro-bono?
  11. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #1071  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Yes, it does. It shows us that humans are not binary machines. The world is not capitalism/socialism, or left/right, or any number of false dichotomies.

    What wrong with that? What's the purpose of these sorts of discussions if one isn't open to learning a new perspective? I'm sure that the Share Our Wealth movement would seem like any other variant of socialism to some, but its founder did not consider it socialism, even though he did consider FDR too far right.

    I'm not sure what variant the 'rest of us' are talking about.

    You should really be thankful.
    ... I need to jump in and annoyingly counter each and every point you make to someone else sometime.... or did I do that?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  12. #1072  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Yes, it does. It shows us that humans are not binary machines. The world is not capitalism/socialism, or left/right, or any number of false dichotomies.

    What wrong with that? What's the purpose of these sorts of discussions if one isn't open to learning a new perspective? I'm sure that the Share Our Wealth movement would seem like any other variant of socialism to some, but its founder did not consider it socialism, even though he did consider FDR too far right.

    I'm not sure what variant the 'rest of us' are talking about.

    You should really be thankful.
    It is this type of tought that induce me to conclude you're a smart guy.

    Is all about it, knowledge is never too much. The more prespectives you know, better thinking you'll have.
  13. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #1073  
    and I guess that means I'm a stupid guy...

    glad you're both pleased with yourselves. to me, it's like having to say that I'm refering to Germany's Nationalist Socialists Party's swastika symbol while we're all talking about WWII, and not the ancient Hindu's version. give me a break.
    Last edited by Micael; 11/17/2009 at 09:14 AM. Reason: **** was blocked for obvious reasons... had to get creative.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  14.    #1074  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Yes, they can go to the VA, and the VA will charge them or their insurance companies. And if they don't have insurance? What do you think?
    My Dad was in an auto accident, quadriplegic, spent 1 month at VA in New Orleans, and 6 months at VA in Memphis. No Insurance, No Charge.

    And I love the way you brag about all the public hospitals that are available to all. Are you talking about Charity, for example? It doesn't exist any more. Please, by all means, give me a listing of "public hospitals" in Louisiana.
    "Big" Charity in New Orleans is closed (the building)
    University Medical Center in New Orleans (old Hotel Dieu Hospital) Open
    LSU Interim Hospital in New Orleans
    Chaubert Medical Center in Houma
    Earl K. Long Hospital in Baton Rouge
    Huey P. Long Hospital in Alexandria
    E. A. Conway Hospital in Monroe
    University Hospital in Lafayette
    Lallie Kemp Hospital in Independence
    LSU Health Sciences Center in Shreveport
    Washington/St Tammany Charity Hospital in Bogalusa
    Walter Moss Hospital in Lake Charles (can not confirm this one is open because I have not seen it with my own eyes)

    These are just the major Medical Hospitals, did you also want a list of the Mental Health Hospitals, Public Health Units. Maybe I do know a little more about this than you realize.

    Not only that, please tell me who supports these "public hospitals" and if you think that's the way to provide care effectively and efficiently.
    We do, with our taxes. Effective? Yes, for those who use it. Excellent Care, you might have to wait if it is non emergency though. Efficient? It's the government.

    Addendum: And I am sure to be labeled arrogant again, but this is just another example of someone having strong opinions about something, without even basic knowledge of what currently exists. You want to talk about the VA with some credibility? Find out what it does and doesn't do. Otherwise don't bother. Just like the moderator on this thread who had no idea of what Medicare is, does, or covers. He just knows he doesn't like it. No wonder we're screwed.
    Arrogant again? Yes, but I won't hold your strong opinions without even basic knowledge of what currently exists against you.
    Last edited by Technologic 2; 11/17/2009 at 11:06 AM. Reason: Added 2 more hospitals
  15. #1075  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Actually, anarchy has many definitions: Anarchy Definition | Definition of Anarchy at Dictionary.com

    Anarchy being utopian is from the political theory of anarchy--just ONE of the many definitions.
    "Origin:
    1530–40; (< MF anarchie or ML anarchia) < Gk, anarchía lawlessness, lit., lack of a leader, equiv. to ánarch(os) leaderless (an- an- 1 + arch(ós) leader + -os adj. suffix) + -ia -y 3"
    I don't want to go offtopic. Im refering to the prmordial meaning of the concept. It is the abcense of government. An utopic state like the one you should know by the name of "New Utopia" (not the one from 1990 but the one on the 19th century) that was raised in Rhodes Island in the US. A state of perfection when every human dont need official rules to behave.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Sadly, much of the argument against reforming healthcare in American relies on the false premise that the US is somehow different from other industrialized countries, that we are, somehow, superior in the way we go about things.

    A century of economic and military success gave us this feeling. With the rest of the world poised to surpass us soon, we are realizing how untrue the premise really is.

    When it comes to providing healthcare for all, this discussion of political theories comes down to one thing: Profit.

    The many companies vested in the system as we have it today stand to lose lots of money if we change. These political theories are really smoke and mirrors behind which these companies are lurking, hoping to keep the status quo. They are financing politicians and think tanks, which spew out baseless accusations and questionable scientific studies to try to confuse and scare. The exact same thing happened when the Congress enacted Medicare in 1964.

    Those against healthcare reform may think you're unaffected, but all the talking points you make have been prepared by companies. You just heard them third-hand, hiding their origins. In fact, previous insurance company executives have come out confessing they created terms like "death panels" in order to scare the public.

    Every political and economic theory focuses on the safety of a society. Providing basic healthcare is part of that safety (yes, even capitalism--note most European countries), and no true theory can argue otherwise.

    As Winston Churchill said, "American always does the right thing....after it's tried everything else."
    Lol! I liked the frase. Btw, the firsts US presidents were somewhat socialists and anti-capitalist. I remember Thomas Jefferson "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

    An about the profit: "Like nature's horror vacui, Capital has a horror of small or a total absence of profit. Profit shakes capitalism awake - 10 per cent for sure; at 20 per cent it becomes animated; at 50 percent positively lively; at 100 per cent it stamps all human laws under its foot; and at 300 per cent there is no crime that it doesn't risk, even at the danger of ending at the gallows."


    I agree with you mostly but I really don't care if someone is making money, I just want free and fair health for all. I think we all do... or not, because private sector lives from the relation between demand and search... and being free, the business is over.
  16. #1076  
    AP POLL: Tax the rich to pay for health bill

    By ERICA WERNER (AP) – 1 hour ago

    WASHINGTON — When it comes to paying for a health care overhaul, Americans see just one way to go: Tax the rich.

    That finding from a new Associated Press poll will be welcome news for House Democrats, who proposed doing just that in their sweeping remake of the U.S. medical system, which passed earlier this month and would extend coverage to millions of uninsured Americans.

    The poll, conducted by Stanford University with the nonpartisan Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, found participants sour on other ways of paying for the health overhaul that is being considered in Congress, including taxing insurers on high-value coverage packages derided by President Barack Obama and Democrats as "Cadillac plans."

    That approach is being weighed in the Senate. It is one of the few proposals in any congressional legislation that analysts say would help reduce the nation's health expenditures, but it has come under fire from organized labor and has little support in the House.

    Lawmakers also are looking at levying new taxes on insurance companies, drug companies and medical device makers. But the only approach that got majority support in the AP poll was a tax on upper-income Americans.

    The House bill would impose a 5.4 percent income tax surcharge on individuals making more than $500,000 a year and households making more than $1 million.

    The poll tested views on an even more punitive taxation scheme that was under consideration earlier, when the tax would have hit people making more than $250,000 a year. Even at that level the poll showed majority support, with 57 percent in favor and 36 percent opposed.

    "You know, I mean, why not? If they have that much money, it should be taxed," said Mary Pat Rondthaler, 60, of Menlo Park, Calif. "It isn't the same way that the guy making $21,000 is."

    Not everyone agreed.

    "They earn their money. And they shouldn't have to pay for somebody else. It doesn't seem fair," said Emerson Wilkins, 62, of Powder Springs, Ga.

    Overall, the poll found the public split on Congress' health care plans. In response to some questions, participants said the current system needed to be changed, but they also voiced concerns about the potential impact on their own pocketbooks, preferring to push any new costs onto wealthier Americans.

    For example, 77 percent said the cost of health care in the United States was higher than it should be, and 74 percent favored the broad goal of reducing the amount of money paid by patients and their insurers. But 49 percent said any changes made by the government probably would cause them to pay more for health care. Thirty-two percent said it wouldn't change what they pay, and just 12 percent said they would end up paying less.

    With lawmakers searching for new revenue sources to pay for their overhaul legislation, upper-income taxes may be increasingly gaining favor.

    Legislation passed by Senate committees did not go that route, but now Majority Leader Harry Reid, who has a free hand in merging two committee-passed bills, is considering raising the payroll tax that goes to Medicare on income above $250,000 a year, officials told The Associated Press last week. Current law sets the tax at 1.45 percent of income, an amount matched by employers.

    The Senate Finance Committee bill would tax health insurance plans costing more than $8,000 annually for individuals and $21,000 for families, although those numbers could rise. Union members are lined up against that approach because they fear their benefits could be hurt, and the public doesn't like it either, the AP poll found. Fifty-six percent were opposed and only 29 percent in favor.

    Other payment methods being contemplated on Capitol Hill also met with disapproval. Participants in the poll didn't support new taxes on medical device makers, drug companies or even insurers — even though they said in response to different questions that drug companies and insurance companies made too much money.

    Forty-eight percent in the poll were opposed to new taxes on insurance companies, and 42 percent were in support. Fifty-one percent opposed raising taxes on drug and device makers, while 41 percent supported that approach.

    But 72 percent of people polled said insurance companies made too much profit, compared with 23 percent who said they made about the right amount of profit. And 74 percent said drug companies made too much profit, versus 21 percent who said they made about the right amount of profit.

    People who told pollsters they generally supported Congress' health care overhaul plan were also more receptive to new taxes to pay for it. Taxing health care companies, drug companies and equipment manufacturers eked out majority support from that group.

    The payment approach that met with least approval by far in the poll was borrowing the money and increasing the federal debt, something Obama has repeatedly vowed not to do. Just 6 percent of people polled said they could support that approach, while 88 percent opposed it.

    The poll was based on landline and cell phone interviews with 1,502 adults from Oct. 29 to Nov. 8. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points. The interviews were conducted by GfK Roper Public Affairs and Media. Stanford University's participation was made possible by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which conducts research on all facets of the health care system.

  17. #1077  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post

    I think that would take down Micael's teory that he thinks like the masses.
  18. #1078  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    The problem is not that they are making money, but that, in order to keep making lots of money, they keep doing everything it can to obstruct healthcare for all. The money Americans are paying them is also money not going to improve health or healthcare.

    The closest thing to "free and fair health(care) for all" is single-payer, successfully implemented by the vast majority of industrialized countries in the world. It's cheaper and provides better quality of care than we do. All analyses (by CBO and Lewin Groups, as examples) show that it wouldn't cost us a nickle more in taxes. We would actually pay less as individuals.

    The money that we now pay to private insurance would be diverted to a government-run single payer system. The more people in such a system, the cheaper it is for everyone (which is how insurance is supposed to work)--so if you include everyone in the US, it's at it's cheapest.

    While the federal government would pay for care, it would be provided by private doctors and hospitals (like it is in France, Germany, and Italy, for example). It's the perfect combination of private and public.

    Insurance companies are just the middle men. They are selling you administrative services to deal with the payments of medicine. Is it really worth millions of dollars and 1/6th of America being uninsured to keep the middle-man alive?
    I totally agree! I just don't agree with "While the federal government would pay for care, it would be provided by private doctors and hospitals (like it is in France, Germany, and Italy, for example). It's the perfect combination of private and public." because we are experiencing in EU a big problem with this. Private don't combines that well with public... For many reasons.
  19. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #1079  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Sadly, much of the argument against reforming healthcare in American relies on the false premise ....
    Actually, the false premise is that this is an argument about healthcare. This isn't about reforming healthcare. If it were, we'd actually be on the same side and discussing ways to reduce costs.

    This debate is about the destruction of private health insurance companies. It's about a government takeover of insurance. It's about control and money.

    Healthcare isn't even on the table.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  20. #1080  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Actually, the false premise is that this is an argument about healthcare. This isn't about reforming healthcare. If it were, we'd actually be on the same side and discussing ways to reduce costs.

    This debate is about the destruction of private health insurance companies. It's about a government takeover of insurance. It's about control and money.

    Healthcare isn't even on the table.
    Actually you're using a fallacy of non sequitur. And you are putting a personal meaning on the reform based on conspiracy or something.

    Perhaps we should use Occam's Razor.

Posting Permissions