RE: A glimpse of Obama-care

RE: A glimpse of Obama-care (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

awmslave -> RE: A glimpse of Obama-care (7/6/2009 7:50:28 PM)
A typical example that it is possible to "prove" everything with examples given that a statistical database is large enough. The delays in Canadian system can be eliminated if Canada would add money spending 12% instead of 10% GDP. US government currently spends 16% GDP for health care and 1/3 of the population do not have adequate access to health care. Where does money go? Besides, Obama-Dodd care just tries to use the current system of private insurers, subsidize uninsured residents who can not pay, and force uninsured residents who can pay but do not want health insurance to pay. Obviously, Obama system increases health industry profits. What else would you expect from Dodd who is one of the most corrupt senators.

mnottertail -> RE: A glimpse of Obama-care (7/6/2009 7:51:22 PM)
Same folks who read waterboarding into the constitution.............yeah, well.... ...........and provide the blessings..............to us and our posterity............... Is there a speeding law in the constitution? A president's council on physical fitness? A clause on going into Iraq? Afghanistan? (or would you agree that it might fall under the provide for the common defense clause?)

Arpig -> RE: A glimpse of Obama-care (7/6/2009 7:56:44 PM)
A personal experience. I have been suffering from frequent severe migraines for some time, in late November I went to my doctor (a GP) and he decided that I needed a CAT scan, so he ordered it. 4 days later I recieved a call from the hospital to book my scan, 6 days later. I went for my scan, and then returned to my doctor a week later and he had the results. So from the time I went to my GP til he had the results in his hand 17 days. And no out-of-pocket expense to me, no need to use a private clinic, no need for any extended waiting period. It is experiences like this that make me doubt the horror stories one hears about months-long waits. I have never experienced a wait time like that, and I know of nobody who has.

mnottertail -> RE: A glimpse of Obama-care (7/6/2009 8:01:08 PM)
Well, Arpig, I am sure that Joe the Plumber has 'sorta/kinda/hypothetically' rode that horror bobsled to hell. John McCain/Sarah Palin

tazzygirl -> RE: A glimpse of Obama-care (7/6/2009 8:55:58 PM)
Just a thought. How much time would be saved, how short would the wait time for specialists be, if preventative care was free? or even on a sliding scale, since so many do not have insurance?

DomKen -> RE: A glimpse of Obama-care (7/6/2009 9:18:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: awmslave A typical example that it is possible to "prove" everything with examples given that a statistical database is large enough. The delays in Canadian system can be eliminated if Canada would add money spending 12% instead of 10% GDP. US government currently spends 16% GDP for health care and 1/3 of the population do not have adequate access to health care. Where does money go? Besides, Obama-Dodd care just tries to use the current system of private insurers, subsidize uninsured residents who can not pay, and force uninsured residents who can pay but do not want health insurance to pay. Obviously, Obama system increases health industry profits. What else would you expect from Dodd who is one of the most corrupt senators. And that is the untold problem with private insurance in the US. Where does all that money go. 24% of it goes to the insurance company and never ever gets spent on anything medical. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/8800.php If you look around you will find private health insurance industry supporters spinning desperately to make this overhead look reasonable when compared to medicare's 3% overhead. Of course the fact is a public option could have higher overhead (10 tp 15%) and still be cheaper than private insurance.

Cagey18 -> RE: A glimpse of Obama-care (7/6/2009 9:49:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse There are 350 million people in this Country. Correction: just over 300 million, not 350 million. quote: The Dems. say 47 million are not insured, Actually it's the U.S. Census Bureau that says that. quote: but they are counting 12 million ILLEGAL immigrants. Lets fix the problem for those who are not insured and leave the rest of us alone. Actually the figure is around 3 million, not 12 million. http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/how_many_of_the_uninsured_are_us.html http://www.newsbatch.com/immigration.htm

willbeurdaddy -> RE: A glimpse of Obama-care (7/6/2009 11:16:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: From the article: Because the government system is the only health care option for Canadians, she says she had no choice but to have the surgery in the U.S. Except the government health care plan being pushed is not intended to supplant the private options. So...this story is moot in what would be a dual-option availability in the US. If you believe what you wrote you dont understand what will happen under "dual-option availability". Obamas dirty little secret is that it is inevitable that the government option will crowd out the private options until it is a single option. Do you think Canada and England started out where they are today? They were originally "dual-option" solutions as well.

DomKen -> RE: A glimpse of Obama-care (7/6/2009 11:47:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Do you think Canada and England started out where they are today? They were originally "dual-option" solutions as well. Were they? That seems to contradict quite a lot of history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_National_Health_Service_(England) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada

willbeurdaddy -> RE: A glimpse of Obama-care (7/7/2009 12:24:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Do you think Canada and England started out where they are today? They were originally "dual-option" solutions as well. Were they? That seems to contradict quite a lot of history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_National_Health_Service_(England) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada Neither link says that either program was sole source at their inception. you might also broaden your readings beyond wikipedia. Re NHS: "Negotiations with interested parties, and in particular representatives of the medical profession, ensured that general practitioners retained their status as independent contractors. They had a contract with the local executive councils, rather than being employed by either central or local government. General practitioners were allowed to do an unlimited amount of private work (although there was very little demand for private general practitioner services from the general public). Furthermore, salaried hospital doctors were allowed to undertake private work in hospital pay beds, in addition to their contractual duties to the NHS. A system of merit or distinction awards was introduced: hospital specialists who were judged to be meritorious by their peers were given special payments over and above their basic salaries. " The bold is exactly what I said...NHS was not intended to be single option, but winds up crowding out private care.

NihilusZero -> RE: A glimpse of Obama-care (7/7/2009 12:37:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Obamas dirty little secret is... Which you've divined via reading tea leaves, deciphering the hidden codes of Nostradamus and prayers to the Norse pantheon, right? Because if you didn't get corroborating stories from all three, it's not even remotely reliable, you know.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: A glimpse of Obama-care (7/7/2009 12:38:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Obamas dirty little secret is... Which you've divined via reading tea leaves, deciphering the hidden codes of Nostradamus and prayers to the Norse pantheon, right? Because if you didn't get corroborating stories from all three, it's not even remotely reliable, you know. Divining isnt necessary when you know the insurance/health care markets and have history as your guide.

DomKen -> RE: A glimpse of Obama-care (7/7/2009 6:07:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Do you think Canada and England started out where they are today? They were originally "dual-option" solutions as well. Were they? That seems to contradict quite a lot of history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_National_Health_Service_(England) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada Neither link says that either program was sole source at their inception. you might also broaden your readings beyond wikipedia. Re NHS: "Negotiations with interested parties, and in particular representatives of the medical profession, ensured that general practitioners retained their status as independent contractors. They had a contract with the local executive councils, rather than being employed by either central or local government. General practitioners were allowed to do an unlimited amount of private work (although there was very little demand for private general practitioner services from the general public). Furthermore, salaried hospital doctors were allowed to undertake private work in hospital pay beds, in addition to their contractual duties to the NHS. A system of merit or distinction awards was introduced: hospital specialists who were judged to be meritorious by their peers were given special payments over and above their basic salaries. " The bold is exactly what I said...NHS was not intended to be single option, but winds up crowding out private care. The bolded section is still true. NHS started out to be universal access and has remained so. As a matter of fact private insurance wasn't really even available in England in 1946 when NHS started. The options were pay out of pocket or use the existing inadequate government provided insurance.

Lucylastic -> RE: A glimpse of Obama-care (7/7/2009 6:25:35 AM)
ONLY 47 million without health care??...Canada has 33 million population.... 99.9% have healthcare ...it might not be fast, it might not be perfect, but it is for every resident. My doc decides my treatment, I can even get a second opinion and referrals without rules and red tapefrom an insurance company,I dont have to worry about premiums, I dont have to worry about being turned down for a test, I might have to wait a couple of weeks, but an emergency doesnt, elective, well theres a list.If you can afford to pay elsewhere, you jump the queue... Having worked for(12 years in various capacities) and been a patient of the UK and Canadian healthcare system for 47 years), I honestly do not see the comparison. A canadian or a brit can give all the accounts in the world, but no one is listening to the people on this board who cant afford their healthcare issues.why not listen and care about some of them? I dont believe any constitution or magna carta or charter of rights before the 1940s has had healthcare as a right, but... times change, situations change, has there not been amendments after amendments to your constitution?? is that ALL you base your life on? Nothing will ever convince me that healthcare should NOT be available to everyone. Lucy Apologies Ken, I wants pointing this at you... general fast reply only

calamitysandra -> RE: A glimpse of Obama-care (7/7/2009 6:32:05 AM)
As someone living in one of those backwards countries who have that devilish socialized healthcare (Germany, albeit a different system than Canada), I have to say, that neither I nor anyone in my family has ever experienced the kind of medical dictatorship you are fearing. In fact, care has always been given fast and good. Including serious illnesses, accidents, and chronic conditions. In addition, I have never, and will never have to choose between food or medication for my children, whatever low blow life may deal me. I will never have to just wait if a serious injury or illness goes away on its own, because I can not afford to see a doctor, potentially making it that much worse. Does the system have problems? You bet it does. However, it is still better than not having it. Maybe it is again time to tell you to take a look at France. There is not even much argument worldwide that it is currently the best system. And that is while the French are running it. Just imagine how much better the USA, greatest of all nations, could do using that concept

rulemylife -> RE: A glimpse of Obama-care (7/7/2009 7:27:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse Why is it not the Federal Governments job to pay for health care ? Read the Constitution. I don't see it in there anywhere. There are a lot of things not in the Constitution. The Constitution is only a law, not an infallible holy document. I find it immensely ironic that those who stand on this law to tout their right to own guns would believe that the health of a citizen is less of a right.

Tals -> RE: A glimpse of Obama-care (7/7/2009 8:20:02 AM)
No, the Constitution is not just "a law". It's the foundation that the United States is built upon. And it quite clearly states the powers and limitations of the federal government. And for more than the last hundred years, it's been getting shredded more and more. Even though I know this is going to sound like it, I'm not against universal health care per se. What I don't like about the whole deal is the fact that federal tax money will be used to fund it. I believe that very very few programs should ever be federally funded, controled, or implemented. As far as I'm concerned, health care and most other things should be left up to each individual state to decide for themselves.

rulemylife -> RE: A glimpse of Obama-care (7/7/2009 9:25:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tals No, the Constitution is not just "a law". It's the foundation that the United States is built upon. And it quite clearly states the powers and limitations of the federal government. And for more than the last hundred years, it's been getting shredded more and more. Even though I know this is going to sound like it, I'm not against universal health care per se. What I don't like about the whole deal is the fact that federal tax money will be used to fund it. I believe that very very few programs should ever be federally funded, controled, or implemented. As far as I'm concerned, health care and most other things should be left up to each individual state to decide for themselves. To begin, yes it is just a law. The fact it is the primary law of the country does not make it more than a law, any less subject to change, or any more sacrosanct than any other law. We've gotten to the point in this country that we revere it as akin to the Bible and the "founding fathers" as some sort of demi-gods who had divine inspiration writing it, and if you review history that was not their intention. Second, I would have to ask how you feel about military spending in regard to your claim that very few programs should be federally funded. In 2008 we had more than twice the military expenditures of the European Union as a whole. In that same year the nearest individual country to us in terms of expenditure was China, which we outspent by more than nine times. While I support a strong defense, this is ridiculous over-kill at the expense of other societal needs, such as health care.

rulemylife -> RE: A glimpse of Obama-care (7/7/2009 9:42:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Louve00 Here is a link I found on the US health care plan: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D996RCGG1&show_article=1 Yes, that was discussed on another thread recently and I think it's nonsense. Obama first pledged to veto it, now he is equivocating. In theory I understand it, because the uninsured are a big part of the reasons for the high costs of health care, but in practice this is the wrong way to ensure participation.

Arpig -> RE: A glimpse of Obama-care (7/7/2009 11:06:41 AM)
quote: In theory I understand it, because the uninsured are a big part of the reasons for the high costs of health care, but in practice this is the wrong way to ensure participation. I agree, to me this scheme sounds like it was written by the insurance companies themselves. I think something along the Canadian model, where the Government provides a basic health coverage and private insurance companies can sell additional coverage (single rooms, etc.) would be a far better way of dealing with the issue. This would provide everybody in the nation with a basic level of coverage, and would allow those with the means to purchase additional coverage. It would also allow the health insurance companies to remain in business.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125