Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 148
  1. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    By the way, Americans do indeed go to other countries to get their "free" health care...like Sarah Palin.
    Another misinformed schoolyard taunt.... Sarah Palin was a child at the time, davidra. And it wasn't a choice (made by her parents) between free versus private - it was based on best available in a remote area of the country. Man you guys love to twist things and run with it.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  2. #62  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Another misinformed schoolyard taunt.... Sarah Palin was a child at the time, davidra. And it wasn't a choice (made by her parents) between free versus private - it was based on best available in a remote area of the country. Man you guys love to twist things and run with it.
    davidra....gotta agree with Micael here....you're smart enough to know the difference here but yet you continue to pass stuff like this on as if she has been ducking into Canada for the last 40 years. You are quick to hop on Republicans for making small issues into larger issues, and yet you do the same thing. Lead by example!!!!
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  3. #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Another misinformed schoolyard taunt.... Sarah Palin was a child at the time, davidra. And it wasn't a choice (made by her parents) between free versus private - it was based on best available in a remote area of the country. Man you guys love to twist things and run with it.
    Actually, we have no idea of the specifics involved, just what she has said then retracted. And of course Americans buy $1 billion worth of prescription drugs from Canada yearly. Wonder why that is?
  4. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Actually, we have no idea of the specifics involved, just what she has said then retracted. And of course Americans buy $1 billion worth of prescription drugs from Canada yearly. Wonder why that is?
    Because they're cheaper to buy from Canada, of course. We pay for the research that goes in to the wonderful drugs that many of your other "countries with awesome health care systems" depend on. We actually sell these drugs internationally for much much less.... in Africa for instance.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  5. #65  
    From a news report regarding the legalities of the MD in question:

    A spokeswoman from the Florida Department of Health, which licenses physicians and investigates complaints, said Friday there was no law prohibiting Cassell from advertising himself this way.

    "Because there is no statute, there would be no grounds for a complaint," spokeswoman Eulinda Smith said. "It would be legally deficient
    ."
  6. #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by sherryterry1 View Post
    From a news report regarding the legalities of the MD in question:

    A spokeswoman from the Florida Department of Health, which licenses physicians and investigates complaints, said Friday there was no law prohibiting Cassell from advertising himself this way.

    "Because there is no statute, there would be no grounds for a complaint," spokeswoman Eulinda Smith said. "It would be legally deficient
    ."

    Let's put it this way. If he had a patient under his treatment for prostate cancer who read that note, and felt he could no longer be cared for by his doctor, and had a bad outcome subsequently, there is not a lawyer in this country that wouldn't salivate over getting that case before a jury.
  7. #67  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Let's put it this way. If he had a patient under his treatment for prostate cancer who read that note, and felt he could no longer be cared for by his doctor, and had a bad outcome subsequently, there is not a lawyer in this country that wouldn't salivate over getting that case before a jury.
    Lawyers turn down cases?

    Seriously, regardless of the merits of the case you can always lawyer-shop as there is no shortage of lawyers in this country.

    Just like you can always doctor-shop until you find one who will act as the dealer for pain pills...just ask any celebrity.

    You gotta come up with better arguments doc. Stick to your day job.
    Last edited by foosball; 04/05/2010 at 02:00 PM.
  8. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #68  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Must be an epidemic this morning. Where does it say anywhere that doctors have to accept anything, or see any patients? There is no more pressure on doctors with this bill than there was before, and most of it was applied by large private insurers. If a major company with thousands of employees signs up with Blue Cross, and they determine what they will reimburse, I have the choice whether I want to see their patients or not. Same with Medicare. I can choose to take no insurance, charge high prices to make up the difference, and tell both private and public insurers to **** off. And there's nothing in the health care bill that suggests that will change at all.
    Isn't it true that insurance companies will have now have stricter controls on what/who they can/must cover?
  9. #69  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Isn't it true that insurance companies will have now have stricter controls on what/who they can/must cover?
    I was referring to docs, but similar in terms of insurance companies. If you mean they cannot refuse to provide insurance for sick people instead of only providing insurance for very healthy people, as they've been doing forever, yes. But only if they want some of the massive amounts of money for the insurance companies that will be generated by the mandates that everyone be insured. As I recall, the purpose of the bill is insurance reform, with the goal of getting people covered. Believe it or not, for that to happen, some things actually have to change. And they are. How about that? Insurance companies can no longer deny your child insurance because they have asthma. And the funny thing is some people think that's a bad thing.
  10. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #70  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    No one says that Palin was "ducking into Canada." Hers is just an example of an American family in need of healthcare--finding nothing around her, went to Canada, a country whose healthcare system she ironically demonizes.

    It seems she wants to deny familes just like hers from getting the healthcare she so easily got.
    Please provide us with an example of Palin "demonizing" Canadian Healthcare? And denying families healthcare? Please.

    I, in fact, read the transcript where she was talking about it under the circumstances you mentioned, and she in fact had praise for it. Why continue to spin her as a "demonizer"?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  11. #71  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Isn't it true that insurance companies will have now have stricter controls on what/who they can/must cover?
    The government will forcibly require insurers to cover anyone at anytime...so lets say you don't buy insurance and find out you will have to have surgery. Well now you can just buy a plan and cancel after the surgery.

    As has been pointed out it's similar to waiting to buy car insurance until after you get into a wreck and then making your insurance pay for it. That's called gaming the system. Sure it can be done that way but it's ridiculously expensive & your premiums will skyrocket. In the long run its unsustainable....that is without severe government rationing.
    Last edited by foosball; 04/05/2010 at 02:56 PM.
  12. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #72  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I was referring to docs, but similar in terms of insurance companies. If you mean they cannot refuse to provide insurance for sick people instead of only providing insurance for very healthy people, as they've been doing forever, yes. But only if they want some of the massive amounts of money for the insurance companies that will be generated by the mandates that everyone be insured.
    Yes, in theory, insurers will benefit from the "massive amounts of money" created by the insurance mandate (ironically, in this same theory, those fat cat corporations will rake in even more profits). So, one wonders if this theory is in fact based in reality since insurance companies were supposedly behind the massive disinformation campaign to defeat health care reform.

    Anyway, that's not my point. My original point was regarding the flaw in a single-payer system. I wasn't implying that the same flaw exists in the law (even though I believe it does to a smaller degree). But, since most proponents of the HCR bill hope for it to be a stepping-stone to single-payer, I think it's relevant.
  13. #73  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Yes, in theory, insurers will benefit from the "massive amounts of money" created by the insurance mandate (ironically, in this same theory, those fat cat corporations will rake in even more profits). So, one wonders if this theory is in fact based in reality since insurance companies were supposedly behind the massive disinformation campaign to defeat health care reform.

    Anyway, that's not my point. My original point was regarding the flaw in a single-payer system. I wasn't implying that the same flaw exists in the law (even though I believe it does to a smaller degree). But, since most proponents of the HCR bill hope for it to be a stepping-stone to single-payer, I think it's relevant.
    That's totally different. But in public/private systems like Germany, people get a great deal of choice about the level of their services. All they have to do is pay a little more for it. You know, a good free-market system on top of basic coverage.
  14. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #74  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    That's totally different. But in public/private systems like Germany, people get a great deal of choice about the level of their services. All they have to do is pay a little more for it. You know, a good free-market system on top of basic coverage.
    Germany... been there. Another welfare state I hope not to immulate.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  15. #75  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Germany... been there. Another welfare state I hope not to immulate.
    So are there any countries on earth that are not welfare states to you?
  16. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #76  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    That's totally different. But in public/private systems like Germany, people get a great deal of choice about the level of their services. All they have to do is pay a little more for it. You know, a good free-market system on top of basic coverage.
    Ah, tax increases and additional insurance premiums. That's a great deal!
  17. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #77  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    So are there any countries on earth that are not welfare states to you?
    Well technically the US isn't a welfare state... I like that one.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  18. #78  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Strip his ability to take government insurance and see how quickly he turns his opinion around.
    I'm sure he would happily oblige if you also stripped the governments ability to tax him. This is the very definition of willful ignorance. We will tax 50% of your income, then only pay it back to those we like. Soft Facism if you ask me.
  19. #79  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Fine. And isn't it wonderful that you have a choice as to what to do in this situation?
    What choice did I have? The situation doesnt apply to me or my wife, no choice was necessary, so again what choice are you referring to?
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  20. #80  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof View Post
    What choice did I have? The situation doesnt apply to me or my wife, no choice was necessary, so again what choice are you referring to?

    OK. So my interpretation is that you don't really care as long as it doesn't affect you. That's fine too. I'll avoid even raising any theoreticals, but will take it to mean that you are in support of a woman's right to choose, since you won't take a stand.
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Posting Permissions