Destroying Healthcare in America

[groovy]

Originally Posted by zelgo

And by the way, about 50% of drugs are from companies outside the US.

Why do you think that is?

[cookedart]

Originally Posted by Micael

They could argue that, and they'd be wrong. Just like they could argue that every person deserves a car, or a roof over their head. This argument misses my point, however.

I think that kind of is the issue that a lot of people are having, just not you in particular. I don't particularly find my point silly - the freedom of choice you speak of may be directly affecting whether or not many americans can even afford any of the choices available. Your point about a car is especially odd, however, considering that I'm sure within a hierarchy of need, both housing and healthy well-being come far before the need to have transportation. This is where I'm coming from - that appropriate health care is what can be considered a universal need.

I agree with the "continually evaluating" part, but he's more than raised a "dialog". He's threatening to take control over an industry that accounts for 1/6th of the US economy. And he's wanting to RAM it through as quickly as possible. Some favor he's doing us. Don't you think this should be considered carefully?

Of course I think it should be considered carefully. If he does not and enacts a plan that is worse for the majority of Americans, he will not only meet public outcry but not be re-elected.

However, I think it comes down to the majority wins - If the majority of Americans are low-income earners without any sort of work-compensated health care, then the majority of the people within america would likely want some sort of government-provided health care. If the majority of americans have health care, then government funded health care need not exist.

Your fight for freedom of choice and free market principals may indeed be democratic or undemocratic, but as others said, it has to be based on hard data on how many americans are without any form of health care and have no means to attain it, vs those who can afford it.

I believe Obama is reacting to what he thinks is a democratic majority, or certainly a large enough need within the american population that the issue needs to be addressed. Whether or not this is fact can be argued at length, of course.

Where did you hear that everything that is happening is America is infallible? And you believed them, so now you're dissappointed?

That is not the point I am making - you're putting words in my mouth. The point I am making is that I believe it is a positive thing to be considering alternatives to health care, whether or not you actually apply them. The stigma I get from outside looking in is quite simply that this mindset has been often avoided because of a misplaced national pride and the assumption that what works at any given point in time will always work, ad infinitum.

[xcomputerman]

Originally Posted by zhackwyatt

I think we need to put more focus on health prevention. The fattest nation on earth we are called. I have a friend who is 400 pounds and has sleep apnea because of it. If he didn't have out of control weight, many of his other health issues would go away.

We do not need govt run healthcare. I'm sorry, but the govts role shouldn't be providing health care to people who frankly don't deserve it. (i.e. People who do whatever they want and then want some sort of bailout, and btw this pertains to more than healthcare). What we need is personal responsibility.

It is not my responsibility to take care of every other person in the country. It is out of my goodwill that I donate to charity, etc, not because it is a requirement. Its my hard earned cash and if I want to spend it on me and the people I love or perfect strangers it should be my choice.

Just my 2 cents.

The problem is that preventive healthcare has become prohibitively expensive for the vast majority of the population with the current system. There are so many people that cannot even afford to make a simple doctor's visit because they're feeling an unusual pain somewhere in their body that they can't explain, and these people aren't uninsured (hooray for PPOs). Those that can afford to go to the doctor get to have their necessary medical tests and procedures denied by the insurance company because they jeopardize medical loss ratios (hooray for HMOs). People are forced to live with pains and other strange conditions in their bodies because their insurance companies can't profitably justify the need for them to get medical attention. I understand the ideological opposition to universal healthcare, but the reality is that while you oppose your hard earned cash being used to support the healthcare of strangers, right now all your hard earned cash is doing is supporting the deep pockets of CIGNA's shareholders. Medical insurance premiums have doubled in the past 15 years or so, and in the same period health insurance profits have risen almost 500%. Pharmaceutical companies enjoy profit margins of close to 25%. This system is horribly, horribly broken.

You think your hard earned cash is paying for your insurance? Someone I know was doing great with his life. Young and healthy, received a grant from the Swiss government to go direct a play in Europe. While he is there, he's walking down the street and is severely injured in a hit and run accident, breaks his leg. Just like that. He's not a citizen, so he has to fly back home to get treatment. No problem, at least he has insurance. The thousands of dollars he pays every year for insurance will help ensure that he can afford the treatment he needs. Right?

Wrong. By the time he's done coughing up copays, he is already deep in debt and his friends have to organize a special benefit for him to help with the medical bills. After the surgery the doctor prescribes a special boot for his leg, but the insurance company refuses to cover the cost of the boot citing some obscure technicality (and this is a PPO plan). The recovery process requires him to see a physical therapist twice a week for months, but the insurance policy will only cover 30 therapist visits in a year. And at the end of all this, he's probably going to have to cough up even more money so he can afford a lawyer to help him fight the insurance company for denied coverage.

I'm all for criticisms of the new plan. It has issues. It's not perfect by any means and I'm sure there are ways to improve it. But the status quo has GOT TO GO. Of what use is the most advanced medical care in the world if majority of the population can't even afford basic medical care?

[n1900]

Originally Posted by zelgo

"10 Surprising Facts about American Health Care"

Have you actually read what you listed?? The author makes sweeping, general statements like, "Americans have better access to chronic care treatment" and proceeds to give just one piddly example about how we have better access to statins for cholesterol control. He does this with every case--pathetic! #9 babbles about how having lots of MRI's and CT Scans make us all healthier. We actually have lower lifespans than Canadians and Brits--even with our large number of MRI Scans. Having so many just increases costs unnecessarily when people are getting Scans for every headache that comes into the ER. By the way, Japan has more Scans per capita than the US--maybe that's why they are so much healthier than we are. Yeah, it's all their scans...

I guess Americans have great access to medicine--if you decide not to include the 47 million who are uninsured and can't get to a doctor...

Feel free to ignore the facts when they don't suit you. The target of your ridicule above is the ability I have today to walk into a lab and get an immediate MRI or CT scan. I think this is pretty nice; try it in Canada.

In the best systems, zelgo, there is inequity. You say 47 million people uninsured? You use the number of Michael Moore, and I call total BS - that number is extremely inflated. In fact, it's an outright lie. Account for the young who elect no insurance, those who are transitioning from one job to the next, and illegal residents, all of whom we treat anyway in the event they need it, and any number you cite is reduced significantly - 47 million becomes 10 million or less. If the real number is 10 million, that's 3% of our total population. Most of us realize that within any system, there will always be a percentage of unfortunates for you to cite opportunistically in order to call for socialistic policies.

Originally Posted by zelgo

"It must be very difficult for these people to endure this 40th anniversary of our walk on the moon, a feat only ever accomplished by two Americans, and which represents a great triumph of capitalism."

Capitalism is to be lauded because we sent men to the moon first??

I guess we have to praise Communism then for sending astronauts into the space first.

We got men on the moon faster because we spent tons of money and brain power to do it--it has less to do with capitalism than it does with the fact that we are humans with the will to achieve something fantastic. It doesn't make America "better" than anyone else.

Capitalism is fine...except when it runs amok. Look at the recession in America now. Capitalism is responsible the financial crisis. Time to go back to government oversight!

Congratulations to the Soviets for achieving many firsts from within their communist borders: the first dog in space, the first man in space, and the first woman in space, to name a few. The Soviet Union no longer exists, but that is beside the point.

Regarding our great achievement 40 years ago, capitalism absolutely is to be lauded. Where do you think our government got the money to spend on NASA in the 1960s? They automatically withheld it. Their source? Two words: capitalist prosperity.

And please, capitalism is not to blame for our recession. Government interference is. You should know this by now. Our government deliberately encouraged lenders to lend irresponsibly, in order to facilitate "equality" and "social justice" for all in the housing market - an eerily similar concept to the one you're advocating for the health care industry. In the case of our economy, this impossible goal led to unrealistic growth, which soon resulted in the predictable crash. Growth is not automatic, as we are taught to expect, and it should not be astronomical at all times, as we desire. Healthy economic growth is slow, and occurs on its own, without artificial stimulation, which can only be temporary, and always has negative consequences.

Originally Posted by E.LesterBrown

Its kind of funny how some people forget that it was government programs like NASA that got us to the moon, but in the same breath say government can't do anything right. And then give the credit to capitalism instead of government spending. What if we contracted getting to the moon to Boeing or McDonnell Douglas instead of NASA? Would that have been a good idea? Would you trust your life that McDonnell Douglas or Boeing, without any government help, would have beat out the russians and saved america for us? I wouldn't.

Nobody said government can't do anything right. So, you are incorrect from the start. Personally, given the amount of money spent at NASA, I think they should have been able to accomplish anything. And they did - 40 years ago, and not again since. Still, it is no less a fantastic achievement - really, we have leadership and excessive wealth to credit. But I certainly do say government has no business managing our health care, education, or retirement. Do you really want to make the case that government can do these things better than you can? Keep in mind Social Security is the largest ponzi scheme in the world - it makes Bernie Madoff look like child's play.

[Bujin]

Originally Posted by zelgo

Regarding our great achievement 40 years ago, capitalism absolutely is to be lauded. Where do you think our government got the money to spend on NASA in the 1960s? They automatically withheld it. Their source? Two words: capitalist prosperity.

What? Withheld from our income and redistributed to a government program? Are you saying that NASA isn't paid for by the market in moon rocks? That's....socialist.

[Micael]

Originally Posted by zelgo

The UK does have waits (and the US is actually approaching those SAME wait times--the medical free market not working as promised...). The average wait for an appointment in UK is 3-4 weeks. It's pretty close in the US too.

Please provide data, and not an opinion piece, to support this claim.

[Micael]

zelco, why do you show original posts properly quoted in some posts, and then bold the original posts text, but without the quotes, in others? it makes it difficult for the rest of us to figure out who you're responding to when you just bold the text.

[jewel]

Mr. O is going to speak again today and try to ram this 1000 plus page bill down our throats. If this is such an important bill then why rush? Oh yeah, because we can't afford to remain in the status quo, right? Yeah right.

[clemgrad85]

Originally Posted by zelgo

"Yes....I know....crazy us....not wanting to spend money on people who are here illegally and don't pay a dime for health care. This will be good....another reason to sneak into America..."yes, it's true...you can go to America, not pay any taxes, get free medical care, it is great....so bring the whole neighborhood." You see....I'm on the side that believes if you are here illegally (key word, illegally) you shouldn't be here! But I digress.....it still annoys me why some people believe I should be happy to pay for health care for people who pay no taxes! Grrrrrrrrrrrr. Should a goverment plan be approved (that's a scary thought), it should be required that anyone participating must have to pay something....if they don't want to pay for it....then they really must not "need" it or want it....so why make ME pay for it? "

Actually, illegals who work DO pay taxes. Taxes are taken out of their pay checks; they pay taxes everytime they go to the store and buy something.

What they will never be able to do is collect their Medicare and Social Security Taxes that they paid into--so we are actually making money off them.

Ummm.....I have a feeling that many illegals are paid under the table.....and I doubt the employers doing this are deducting taxes and processing these taxes. Get real, you don't pay an illegal like you do a legal employee. However, folks like you (I do commend you for your compassion) want everyone to pay for their health care. I would ask if you have this need to pay for them, then you figure out a way to do this but don't make me participate. Thank you.

[clemgrad85]

Originally Posted by zelgo

And what exactly do liberals get out of the deal if government steps in to correct a problem not solved by the free-market? What do Clinton and Obama get politically from trying to deal with such a controversial issue??

I know what the conservatives get by keeping things the way they are--money, money, money.


And if "socialist" Europe is so mediocre why do they love their health system, have health outcomes far better than we do at a cheaper cost; the Euro and Pound are beating the Dollar into the ground, and they have WAY better food???

What do liberals get? Are you serious? Liberals get POWER each time the government comes to the "rescue" with another program or handout. They stay in power because who wouldn't vote for someone who is handing them money? The more people they put in their back pocket, the more votes they have. Really? You really had to ask that question?

The reason our economy is getting killed right now (well, one reason) is because of our ever increasing debt and no way to pay for this debt. You really have no concept of what this debt will do to this country do you? Do you think this debt will just vanish? And I might add, that I blame BOTH parties for this debt....the Republicans are to blame and for that I am quite embarrassed. So to add additional debt right now for a health program that isn't going to do what everyone thinks it will, is just digging our hole deeper.

By the way....are you under the impression that under a government run health program, that every treatment and prescription is covered? Check out these socialist plans, the government dictates what medications the physicians can give out and what treatments can be given. You do realize that, right? I think some people believe that if the government is running things, the gates are wide open and any and every treatment and medication will now be available....that's just not the case.

[bclinger]

Clemmgrad85 - you have it down pat there. It also looks like it is dead for now or at least put off and with it Obama's numbers are also going down. His entire agenda done in 1 year and then the next 3 years correcting everything. What a guy! What an ego! What a mess.

[bclinger]

If their medical system is so good then why are elective surgeries not immediate as in this country? If their medical system is so good then why are their emergency surgeries not immediate as in this country? If their medical system is so good they why do people wait so long to see a doctor? If their medical is so good then why oh why do people come here for surgery? Why.

The free market system does work. The socialist system does not work.

What is needed that Obama does not want to see - tort reform. With tort reform goes away lots of his support, lots of his lawyers. Lots of everything.

Obama gave us transparancy. Not. Not even Nancy gives us bi-partisanship (she guaranteed it would be the most transparant and that has turned out to be nothing more than a lie). Obama gave us no lobbyists. Not. Obama gave us 8% unemployment. Not. Obama does not want to run free enterprise. Not. Look at his czars (answer only to him), look at his wanting to expand the Federal Reserve. Look at his control over the automobile companies (I do not want to run the auto industry). Look...........What in the world has Obama been successful with? Nothing. What makes you think that his health care program will be any better. The liberal agenda does not work and gets its way only through fear and arm twisting. Power is the ultimate goal of the liberal.

Originally Posted by zelgo

And what exactly do liberals get out of the deal if government steps in to correct a problem not solved by the free-market? What do Clinton and Obama get politically from trying to deal with such a controversial issue??

I know what the conservatives get by keeping things the way they are--money, money, money.


And if "socialist" Europe is so mediocre why do they love their health system, have health outcomes far better than we do at a cheaper cost; the Euro and Pound are beating the Dollar into the ground, and they have WAY better food???

[Examiner19]

Nothing beats a free market...period.

[Bujin]

Originally Posted by Examiner19

Nothing beats a free market...period.

That's a convenient generality, but is not backed by data regarding health care systems in other countries (who have successfully implemented national health care or public / private structures, and have by almost every metric outperformed our health care system far cheaper than we currently can).

Your statement will play well with many in this thread, who similarly gloss over the serious flaws in our system for the sake of blind patriotism, but it simply isn't backed by the data.

That being said, you are certainly entitled to your opinion - that's why we have elections: to determine the will of the majority of the populace. And they have pretty clearly spoken as to whether the term "liberal" is the pejorative that it's being treated as in this thread.

[clemgrad85]

I'm curious....have you guys for the plan read HR 3200? Here's a couple of gems from the 1000+ page plan that not many have read (including most in Congress, or the President...you know...."trust us"):

Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benes you get

Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill - YOUR HEALTHCARE IS RATIONED!!!

Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Govt will have direct access to your banks accts for electronic funds transfer

Pg 84 Sec 203 HC bill - Govt mandates ALL benefit pkgs for private HC plans in the Exchange

Pg 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill - Doctors/AMA - The Govt will tell YOU what you can make.

Pg 126 Lines 22-25 Employers MUST pay for HC for part time employees AND their families.

Pg 149 Lines 16-24 ANY Employer w/ payroll 400k & above who does not provide public option pays 8% tax on all payroll

I'll stop there.....and these are just some gems up to page 149. Granted, this isn't in stone, but this is some of what we will get and that the majority of people haven't read. Oh, think I'm BSing? http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...=f:h3200ih.pdf Good luck reading it....it's a bit wordy and somewhat confusing.....no big surprise.

[E.LesterBrown]

Now Clem, are you trying to say you read it up to page 149 and these are your comments? Or did you do a fast copy and paste of someone else's talking points? Don't fib now, I'll google ya.... I learnt how to do that recently.

[Bujin]

Now Clem, are you trying to say you read it up to page 149 and these are your comments? Or did you do a fast copy and paste of someone else's talking points? Don't fib now, I'll google ya.... I learnt how to do that recently.

You are indeed correct. That entire entry of disinformation can be found all over the right-wing interwebs....If you look at those entries, they don't really say what is being alleged.

For example,

• Page 29 refers to limits on individual's cost-sharing obligations, not limitations to coverage. As a matter of fact, page 27 specifically says "does not impose any annual or lifetime limit on the coverage of covered health care items and services"
  
• Page 30 doesn't state that a committee will decide on your individual coverage, but will simply decide on coverage standards as a whole. Currently that is decided by insurance company fiat.
  
• the "Doctors/AMA - The Govt will tell YOU what you can make" allegation simply means that doctors have to accept the plan's accepted rate as payment in full. That's what they do now: the insurance company decides what the fair rate is, and that's the maximum the insurance company pays the doctor. If the doctor accepts that insurance, they do so with the knowledge that they accept these maximum fees.
  
• Page 59 has nothing to do with accessing your bank account, but rather allows for electronic payment to your doctor from the insurance provider.

It's the usual fear tactics from the Limbaugh crowd.

[clemgrad85]

Originally Posted by E.LesterBrown

Now Clem, are you trying to say you read it up to page 149 and these are your comments? Or did you do a fast copy and paste of someone else's talking points? Don't fib now, I'll google ya.... I learnt how to do that recently.

Now Lester....do you think I have the time to read that? I don't think I said I read it, did I? What difference does it matter where I got the points if they are true? Have you read it? You've been saying how great all this will be....now don't fib....have you read it?

All you guys are ready to blindly run up the mountain and don't seem to mind if when you get around the corner you go falling off a cliff. At least take your time....go up the mountain.....look around the corner.....check it out.....open your eyes....and see if it is really what you thought it would be.

By the way.....as a veteran I'm a little surprised that what you fought for, freedom, seems to worry you. Are you afraid that once people get to see what the plan is, they might not like it? Thanks for fighting for our freedom, but don't be afraid of that freedom.

[E.LesterBrown]

Originally Posted by clemgrad85

Now Lester....do you think I have the time to read that? I don't think I said I read it, did I? What difference does it matter where I got the points if they are true? Have you read it? You've been saying how great all this will be....now don't fib....have you read it?

All you guys are ready to blindly run up the mountain and don't seem to mind if when you get around the corner you go falling off a cliff. At least take your time....go up the mountain.....look around the corner.....check it out.....open your eyes....and see if it is really what you thought it would be.

By the way.....as a veteran I'm a little surprised that what you fought for, freedom, seems to worry you. Are you afraid that once people get to see what the plan is, they might not like it? Thanks for fighting for our freedom, but don't be afraid of that freedom.

I was starting to read it until you interrupted me.....

[clemgrad85]

Originally Posted by Bujin

You are indeed correct. That entire entry of disinformation can be found all over the right-wing interwebs....If you look at those entries, they don't really say what is being alleged.

For example, the "Doctors/AMA - The Govt will tell YOU what you can make" allegation simply means that doctors have to accept the plan's accepted rate as payment in full. That's what they do now: the insurance company decides what the fair rate is, and that's the maximum the insurance company pays the doctor. If the doctor accepts that insurance, they do so with the knowledge that they accept these maximum fees.

It's the usual fear tactics from the Limbaugh crowd.

Getting scared Bujin that everyone might discover what the plan is....or rather....isn't? You seem so interested in this....have you read anything concrete on what it is or are you simply going by the liberal talking points of: 1) CRISIS 2) FREE HEALTH CARE 3) EVERYTHING COVERED 4) FREE HEALTH CARE 5) MAKE THE RICH PAY FOR IT 6) FREE HEALTH CARE

Sounds like the usual liberal talk from the MSNBC/CNN crowd....by the way.....while I do like Rush.....haven't listened to the man's radio show in probably....hmmm....5 or more years.