healthcare a problem prior to THIS war and they did
Posted By: pretty much nothing for just about 4ever...n/m on 2007-09-30
In Reply to: If we can find money for an expensive war - we can find money for healthcare (sm) kam
x
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Read prior messages...
Messages seem to say prepared = gun ownership/usage
My point is that prior presidents have had their day..sm
and time when they were covered in mud and IMHO none of it is right, except to say in most cases the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
But, to answer Jeb's and Bush's family mishaps with the what about the Kennedy's line is dodging the point to me.
Bringing up the Lynch and Dean ordeal that's something worth listening to, but you guys just can't let go of old democratic presidents. It's like a thorn still sticking in your side. Everytime something comes up with Bush, you talk about Clinton, or even the Kennedy's, as if that dismisses Bush somehow. Whatever gets you though.
Re: "associations" -- you never answered a prior
Jes' curious............
To answer this I would only repeat my prior statements..nm
Re: "Closing Time" - Was cut off in prior post; please see this one.
This didn't come through very well in my other post. I'm hoping it's better in this one. Sorry. 
Closing Time
Jim Kirwan
12-10-8
Since Reagan we've been trying to make "Trickle-Down economics" work: For those to whom promises were made, Trickle- Down has been, not just a failure but it has been the major vehicle responsible for the most massive redistribution of wealth, from the population that has worked toward something, to those that wanted everything. Never has there been such a near total transfer of wealth in the history of the planet. This criminal-conspiracy has done what it was created to do and it must be terminated with extreme prejudice, immediately, if we are to survive.
When 'Trickle-Down' was the political-priority of the day, the high-point in prosperity was to become a 'Millionaire.' Forbes magazine tracked those lucky few very carefully. Today Forbes 500 no longer bothers with 'millionaires' because there are just far too many of them-they have become inconsequential. Thanks to "Trickle-Down economics today the heavy-hitters financially are 'Billionaires' and above: which is all you need to know about how well this hostile-takeover of the American economy has worked.
The problem that this transfer of wealth has created has resulted in the Federalization-of-Privatization: As a result we are all facing another huge round of trickle-down economics, but this time it's being cloaked in a series of stealth-protected measures. These new tactics are commonly called BAILOUT or RESCUE packages, and nothing about their origins or their purposes has been made clear to those of us that will be forced to pay tens of trillions for our own destruction.
What's happening is this: First they used compromised laws to squash diversity and opinion within the entire field of communications, under Clinton and Powell's kid that ran the FCC. Together, competition was eliminated and monstrous empires were created that absorbed their competition outright. Once this happened, the entire edifice for total information management was in-place, using household names to lie to the public every minute of every day, whether on television or in print-with very few exceptions. With that completed effort it was easy to move directly onto the openly fascist path to WAR on a variety of fronts, supported and applauded by the very organs that were supposed to question whatever government does, on behalf of the people, as part of their constitutionally protected-jobs as so-called journalists. With the constitution gone, and the only allegiance worthy of that name having become the private for-profit motives that greed and arrogance breeds; in the sewers of those ruined lives where these so-called leaders "live," the current outcome is all that we should have ever expected from these new-age barbarians. (1)
We're still in the Twilight Zone; where Obama is just another man waiting to start a job, except that he seemingly can't wait to begin so he formulates their plans and then rushes to the nearest podium to expound upon the glories of what these programs (or pogroms) are pointedly designed to do; for them and 'to' us. And the sheep wait patiently to board the trains that will take them to the slaughterhouse.
The larger picture has or course remained hidden from the general public. What continues to go unnoticed is the number of profligate cities and towns, not to mention states that will have to be bailed out by the feds. Once this begins to happen, 'the rights' of states will disappear completely along with any independence from the federal-government. Remember the formula upon which bailouts are based: The crucial money provided is conditioned upon a federal "ownership stake" in everything that needs the money, and when this is applied to the states then all they have left to trade with is their broken-economies and their people who shall both become the property of the federal government that is today a private-corporation that serves only the privately-owned central banks and by extension the multi-national corporations. This is about to happen now to several states, including California; the sixth largest economy in the world. (2)
'BTW the "corporation" mentioned above has been bankrupt since 1933, and the result of that bankruptcy is that the USA went into receivership to the privately-owned Federal Reserve. The Dictator was correct when he said: "The constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper," he was actually telling the truth. It was probably the only truthful statement he ever made in nearly eight years.
The owners have simply allowed us to believe we have a constitution. Every law, code and statute world wide is based on the Uniform Commercial Code and has been in place since 1950. Of course no one in a position of power ever bothered to mention this to us did they? One must understand the UCC to understand how and why so many have gotten away with so much: And now they are upping the ante, to take it all.'
This explains why every courtroom and every government building has flags hanging that really are not American flags even though they appear to be. Each of them has gold/yellow fringe around them. They give us smoke and mirrors that mask what they created, which allows them to continue to say 'we have a constitution and a democracy.' Of course America was created to be a constitutional republic, not a democracy. There is a huge difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic. The rights of the few and the many, can only be protected under a Republic, while under a democracy, the majority rules-absolutely.
There are however a few places that are still holding out against the one-world-order and the New Barbarians. Among these are Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, parts of Pakistan, possibly Iran and certainly Greece.
"Socialist leader George Papandreou called for early elections, saying the conservative government could no longer defend the public from rioters.
The government has a single-seat majority in the 300-member Parliament and opposition parties blame hands-off policing for encouraging the worst rioting the country has seen in decades.
'The government cannot handle this crisis and has lost the trust of the Greek people,' Papandreou said. 'The best thing it can do is resign and let the people find a solution ... we will protect the public.'" (3)
If America is to survive then we must stop this wholesale giveaway of everything that was once part of this society. The relationship between profits and earnings must be freed from the stranglehold that management has created in order to siphon off all the profits and wreck the companies they work for. In addition, the idea that government can function in any capacity as a major stakeholder in any form of private enterprise beggars the imagination far beyond any real possibility for saving anything; except the criminals and their enterprises that created this "crisis" in the first place. The 'economy' must be based on a bottom-up profit motive, based on the real wages of those that create the wealth for those at the top - and not upon the insanity that it is now! People must come first, and the corporations must be controlled at every level by the public!
There is no longer anything like responsibility anywhere in government or the private sector to anything except what can continue to be stolen, either by flawed and fraudulent bailouts, or through the strong-arm tactics that are currently acting "under- cover of law" and that are neither legal nor functional. Obama in this venue is neither a savior, nor a friend to the people that supposedly 'elected' him-he is just the instrument of the new global-government engine designed to finish the job and to close down this nation, once and for all! Americans need to watch what happens in Greece and follow their example, if there is to be an America to fight over in the future.
In the meanwhile, here is some of what's happened here already.
"With the focus on privatization, public-private partnerships, (dismantling local control); anyone with any common sense about them can see that; incrementally the power of the people is being given over to corporate control through various venues. Once upon a time we were subjects, then citizens, and now consumers. Everything is for sale. TV 'programming' is set up to entice "consumers" through the 3000 daily ads to buy, buy, buy! Utilities-waste- nursing homes, and even the people's water (once in local control) is open to the highest bidder or those with the most influence. In "public private partnerships or privatization" (despite the lofty high pitch sales rhetoric) means only one thing, a plundering of the people's money. Profits take precedence over any and all health or environmental concerns. It's pigs at the trough time, locally- state wise and nationally. This is not just happening in one or two isolated places but across the nation. Because we are narrowly focused (many times only one newspaper) parochially; we have little to no idea of the larger picture and what is being set in place.
As I read of various happenings across the nation; I am struck with the usage of terms and language being introduced into the public arena; with no explanation as to their meaning (if any). I asked a state politician a few years back what this terminology we're hearing lately of, "regional or regionalization" meant? He brushed the whole thing aside as inconsequential and told me that is was of no importance. Obviously, for me, that was an unsatisfactory answer. Most especially, since on the local level, I could see that it meant a great deal. It appeared to me, that ever so insidiously, local control was gradually being usurped by "regional" control of unelected officials. Consultants (strangers) were replacing local people in places of city government (at lucrative salaries). The sense of community (calling city hall etc.) was being replaced by various business entities, having little to no attachment to the heartbeat of the people. How could they, being strangers, with no sense of native pride or concern? Words like "regional, stake holder, empowerment zones, enterprise committees, visioning councils, smart growth, sustainable development etc;" had replaced understandable language! I didn't imagine that the usage of these terms across the nation (if you look) meant "nothing"." (4)
It's 'Closing Time' America, because unless you begin to do more than just watch, this place won't even be a footnote to the ruin that is planned for these people and this place that once held so much promise for everyone.
kirwanstudios@sbcglobal.net |
A search warrant under FISA prior to 9/11
As you can see from the article cited below, Holder did not have that evidence. He was not the only person responsible for "not allowing" the laptop contents search. Seems there was a problem with intelligence sharing between the US and France. His decision was also defended by the FBI director. Unless being able to predict the future is a qualification for the AG, it seems that you could find a better reason to be losing sleep.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/08/60II/main508362.shtml
Prior military wife myself - know how it works -
x
Perhaps you would prefer the "original" I got prior to my editing.....
The Little Red Hen called all of her Democrat neighbors together and said, 'If we plant this wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Who will help me plant it?'
'Then I will do it by myself,' said the little red hen, and so she did. The wheat grew very tall and ripened into golden grain.
'Who will help me reap my wheat?' asked the little red hen.
'Out of my classification,' said the pig.
'I'd lose my seniority,' said the cow.
'I'd lose my unemployment compensation,' said the goose.
'Then I will do it by myself,' said the little red hen, and so she did.
At last it came time to bake the bread.
'Who will help me bake the bread?' asked the little red hen.
'That would be overtime for me,' said the cow.
'I'd lose my welfare benefits,' said the duck.
'I'm a dropout and never learned how,' said the pig.
'If I'm to be the only helper, that's discrimination,' said the goose.
'Then I will do it by myself,' said the little red hen.
She baked five loaves and held them up for all of her neighbors to see. They wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share. But the little red hen said, 'No, I shall eat all five loaves.'
'Excess profits!' cried the cow. (Nancy Pelosi)
'Capitalist leech!' screamed the duck. (Barbara Boxer)
'I demand equal rights!' yelled the goose. (Jesse Jackson)
The pig just grunted in disdain. (Ted Kennedy)
And they all painted 'Unfair!' picket signs and marched around and around the little red hen, shouting obscenities.
Then the farmer (Obama) came. He said to the little red hen, 'You must not be so greedy.'
'But I earned the bread,' said the little red hen.
'Exactly,' said Barack the farmer. 'That is what makes our free enterprise system so wonderful. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our modern government regulations, the productive workers must divide the fruits of their labor with those who are lazy and idle.'
And they all lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked, 'I am grateful, for now I truly understand.'
But her neighbors became quite disappointed in her. She never again baked bread because she joined the 'party' and got her bread free. And all the Democrats smiled. 'Fairness' had been established.
Individual initiative had died, but nobody noticed; perhaps no one cared...so long as there was free bread that 'the rich' were paying for.
Bill Clinton is getting $12 million for his memoirs.
Hillary got $8 million for hers.
That's $20 million for the memories from two people, who for eight years, repeatedly testified, under oath, that they couldn't remember anything.
IS THIS A GREAT BARNYARD OR WHAT?
Judging by some of the prior town meetings
1. Gimme a house.
2. Make my boss pay me more (than I'm worth).
3. Gimme.
4. Gimme.
5. Fix everything for me.
This is more the behavior of subjects toward a monarch than citizens toward a president. Thanks, think I'll just stay home and improve my own life.
In a prior post I made the following offer:
.....no amount of money would induce me to volunteer to be tortured (you know, beaten cut, burned - severe pain or harm). But cut me a check (certified only, please) with a number followed by a whole lot of zeros and I would be waterboarded (strictly in the interest of science). Our special forces are trained to withstand this and other 'harsh' interrigation techniques...... It's scary and unpleasant but way different from having your fingernails pulled out or a field generator and alligator clips used.
I had in mind more like $500,000, but yeah, for enough money I would certainly consider that an offer I couldn't refuse.
The prior poster was explaining the church ministries
those ministries were consistent with Obama's life experiences, his political career and his current campaign platform. Voters like a consistent candidate with a consistent message, a concept that seems to elude many McCain supporters and certainly goes right over the heads of his campaign managers.
The previous poster was implying that perhaps members of the congregation, both past and present, find value and purpose in those ministries and often choose to participate in the church ministries that service their immediate communities and benefit those who are in the most need wherein, according to Matthew's gospel, the Spirit of Jesus dwells. Some of us really like that about Obama and find it admirable that he embodies this decidedly Christian principle and understands that that we all will be judged by the measure of how we treat the least among us.
My best guess is that the previous poster does not necessarily believe that Christian evangelical pastors of any and all colors are exactly void of fanaticism, bigotry and hatred. Rev Wright certainly may have appeal to some members of that congregation whose core beliefs he reflects, just as John Hagee has a certain appeal to some of his congregation. Having said that, there is still no direct evidence that Hagee reflects McCain's core beliefs any more than there is evidence that Wright reflects Obama's...except in the minds of those who are in charge of the hate patrol.
compared to the prior president anyone is a great orator
Listening to one of his speeches is a breath of fresh air compared to listening to Bush.....I'm betting O will make less speaking mistakes in his entire presidency than Bush made in any one given month during his.
He would also have (and likely already has) best healthcare in USA.
I don't consider this a concern. Major factor in cancer is awareness and monitoring, and I'm quite sure he's getting the best monitoring and follow-up care available.
healthcare
Healthcare is already rationed in the US: If you can't afford insurance, you can't get it. If you're sick, you can't get insurance. If your employer enticed you with promises of insurance, but then didn't pay you enough to cover premiums, you can't get it. If you can't afford a procedure, then your long wait just became a lot longer.
Incidentally, what Obama is offering is *not* anything like what those countries you mention have. He's not nationalizing the healthcare system (like the UK) *or* nationalizing the insurance system (like Canada). Read his plan; it's a mixture of public and private plans, with more strict requirements on the insurance companies to cover everyone affordably, rather than gaming the system and cutting out sick people.
Personally, I'd love a nationalized system. Insurance companies are unnecessary middlemen driving up costs. That said, they're not the entire problem with healthcare costs--you can look to pharmaceutical companies for a big part of *that* problem.
What happens to healthcare...(sm)
Yes, more people probably will go to the doctor. That means there will be a lot of health maintenance involved, and as we both know only too well, health maintenance is a key issue in preventing major medical issues, hence less surgeries, etc. Check out France's healthcare system. I think main issue we will have is going to be dealing with the drug companies to get costs under control. At this point a lot of people don't go to the doc because they can't afford it, like you said; however, even more don't go because they can't afford the drugs.
What happens to healthcare...(sm)
Yes, more people probably will go to the doctor. That means there will be a lot of health maintenance involved, and as we both know only too well, health maintenance is a key issue in preventing major medical issues, hence less surgeries, etc. Check out France's healthcare system. I think main issue we will have is going to be dealing with the drug companies to get costs under control. At this point a lot of people don't go to the doc because they can't afford it, like you said; however, even more don't go because they can't afford the drugs.
BTW, regardless of Fox's ratings, they are undeniably a right-wing station. That is a fact that is widely known and recognized. Just because you agree with what they say doesn't mean they don't lean to the right. And yes, the same holds true for MSNBC (to the left), but at least they admit it. You also might want to look into exactly how ratings for cable news come about. You might be surprised and what you could learn.
Healthcare
I'm not sure this is a good idea either. Ireland has gov't run medical and those women were waiting years, yes years to get their Pap smears read. They had to be shipped to the US because of a lab closure. Can you imagine wondering if you have cervical cancer for years? No thanks.
universal healthcare
Where are you getting that information about Obama and universal healthcare? The last time I heard him speak about it he wanted universal healthcare for people who couldn't get healthcare but leave the option open to people who could get their own healthcare (as they are doing now) to do so. He also spoke about companies being held more responsible to providing affordable healthcare for employees. I don't remember him ever saying to knock out the entire healthcare system and make everyone have universal healthcare.
As for McCain... I guess you like the economy and the war. He's not going to change anything if he's elected.
European healthcare
Its not all cracked up as it sounds. I use healthcare right now in Sweden and its horrendously bad. I had to fly home to the US to get my breasts examined for lumps that were found because they have the "if it isn't broken, bleeding or obviously damaged, then go home and take an aspirin" mentality. They found the lumps and we were still waiting for a mammogram over a month later because they don't want to do testing and because they have a don't care attitude when it comes to everything here. Don't rush them. its amazing. Its at least 6 months waiting list (if your lucky) to see the dentist unless you are under a certain age as a youth. You can get private healthcare here but the cost of labor is such that its hugely expensive. I don't know about other places because I have only lived here and in the US. We have great healthcare in the US and we have never chosen jobs where we weren't going to have some kind of coverage, but I would never give up my doctors and my insurance in the US for this garbage social junk.
McCain's healthcare tax.
I posted this further down but there are apparently a lot of people who are still confused about how McCain's tax on health insurance works.
So, here you go:
Say you pay 14% income tax based on your income.
And you receive $10,000 worth of health insurance from your employer.
The $10,000 is taxed separately at the 14% (your tax bracket). That comes out to $1,400.
McCain gives you a $5,000 tax credit.
$5,000 less the $1,400 -
YOU'RE AHEAD $3,600.
:)
Alternatively, you can take the $5,000 tax credit and purchase your own insurance (like I do). I pay $250 a month.
$250 x 12 = $3,000.
$5,000 - $3,000 - $2,000.
I'M STILL AHEAD $2,000.
WIN/WIN 
On the healthcare front........sm
Nearly half the respondents in a survey of U.S. primary care physicians said that they would seriously consider getting out of the medical business within the next three years if they had an alternative.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/11/17/primary.care.doctors.study/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
This comes from top healthcare facilities
nm
I'm pretty sure you don't get your healthcare from
nm
I found something interesting about US healthcare.
Because I am infinitely quizzical about most things and the rising cost of healthcare was on my mind, I did a little browsing and came across this document:
http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm
Now keep in mind this is information compiled is from a think tank funded by some of the biggest corporations, including insurance corps for the betterment and furtherance of the regressive conservative ideal, so I was rather surprised to see these numbers so beautifully printed in black and white.
It shows exactly how much we are paying for healthcare in the United States and it is rather astounding. Far more of our GDP, about 15.5% (the highest in the world) goes to healthcare. Almost double that other industrialized nations that have socialized healthcare.
I think this is a pretty good argument against a free market healthcare system being the most efficient and the best, it is just the most expensive and at the rate it has been exploding, it is going to increase the number of uninsured.
Why is it so expensive? Because the insurance companies are pacing the market. Some things should just NOT be included in the free market enterprise, and healthcare is one of them. We get sicker and the insurance companies get fatter.
personally i have used the healthcare in Europe
and in France and England (several times in France) and I have to say that national healthcare over there works wonderfully well.....costs are minimal (though taxes are high) and all rxs in England cost the same and I was treated fabulously (married French) at American Hospital in Paris and Gap Hospital in France in 1980.....I did England in 71-72 and again, got treated well and for less than $40. I believe national healthcare can work but the govt and medical professions here in the states don't want it - because they, the MDS, will make less. But know this, that I saw the life of a doctor in France and his family in Michael Moore's movie SiCKO and they are living like kings, well not kings, but living VERY VERY WELL.
So, based on my own experiences in Europe - and the experiences to date of my in-laws over in France - I have to say the healthcare over there is FAR better and FAR LESS EXPENSIVE than over here but again, their taxes are somewhat higher.
Hillary screwed it up once before, I don't want to give her a second chance regarding healthcare.
It can end with affordable healthcare for kids.
I would like to see more affordable healthcare for all Americans, but really if kids got free or very affordable healthcare I would be happy. We spend outrageous amounts of money on the space program, the war, gourmet food for Congress, etc. I don't agree with the hoards of money going to those things, but I would think we could ALL AGREE on money being redirected to provide healthcare to all American children, because that is obviously a good and just cause.
France is getting universal healthcare right...
Great post piglet. I so agree with what you all had to say in support of changing our current system. Canada probably has the worst universal healthcare system, and yet the average Canadian lives 3 years longer than the average American. People always point to the flaws in their system and just assume that we will make all the same mistakes. Of course their system has flaws, just as our system has many fatal flaws. England and France actually have great universal healthcare systems. Here is an article I found about France's successful program:
"France's model healthcare system
By Paul V. Dutton | August 11, 2007
MANY advocates of a universal healthcare system in the United States look to Canada for their model. While the Canadian healthcare system has much to recommend it, there's another model that has been too long neglected. That is the healthcare system in France.
Although the French system faces many challenges, the World Health Organization rated it the best in the world in 2001 because of its universal coverage, responsive healthcare providers, patient and provider freedoms, and the health and longevity of the country's population. The United States ranked 37.
The French system is also not inexpensive. At $3,500 per capita it is one of the most costly in Europe, yet that is still far less than the $6,100 per person in the United States.
An understanding of how France came to its healthcare system would be instructive in any renewed debate in the United States.
That's because the French share Americans' distaste for restrictions on patient choice and they insist on autonomous private practitioners rather than a British-style national health service, which the French dismiss as "socialized medicine." Virtually all physicians in France participate in the nation's public health insurance, Sécurité Sociale.
Their freedoms of diagnosis and therapy are protected in ways that would make their managed-care-controlled US counterparts envious. However, the average American physician earns more than five times the average US wage while the average French physician makes only about two times the average earnings of his or her compatriots. But the lower income of French physicians is allayed by two factors. Practice liability is greatly diminished by a tort-averse legal system, and medical schools, although extremely competitive to enter, are tuition-free. Thus, French physicians enter their careers with little if any debt and pay much lower malpractice insurance premiums.
Nor do France's doctors face the high nonmedical personnel payroll expenses that burden American physicians. Sécurité Sociale has created a standardized and speedy system for physician billing and patient reimbursement using electronic funds.
It's not uncommon to visit a French medical office and see no nonmedical personnel. What a concept. No back office army of billing specialists who do daily battle with insurers' arcane and constantly changing rules of payment.
Moreover, in contrast to Canada and Britain, there are no waiting lists for elective procedures and patients need not seek pre-authorizations. In other words, like in the United States, "rationing" is not a word that leaves the lips of hopeful politicians. How might the French case inform the US debate over healthcare reform?
National health insurance in France stands upon two grand historical bargains -- the first with doctors and a second with insurers.
Doctors only agreed to participate in compulsory health insurance if the law protected a patient's choice of practitioner and guaranteed physicians' control over medical decision-making. Given their current frustrations, America's doctors might finally be convinced to throw their support behind universal health insurance if it protected their professional judgment and created a sane system of billing and reimbursement.
French legislators also overcame insurance industry resistance by permitting the nation's already existing insurers to administer its new healthcare funds. Private health insurers are also central to the system as supplemental insurers who cover patient expenses that are not paid for by Sécurité Sociale. Indeed, nearly 90 percent of the French population possesses such coverage, making France home to a booming private health insurance market.
The French system strongly discourages the kind of experience rating that occurs in the United States, making it more difficult for insurers to deny coverage for preexisting conditions or to those who are not in good health. In fact, in France, the sicker you are, the more coverage, care, and treatment you get. Would American insurance companies cut a comparable deal?
Like all healthcare systems, the French confront ongoing problems. Today French reformers' number one priority is to move health insurance financing away from payroll and wage levies because they hamper employers' willingness to hire. Instead, France is turning toward broad taxes on earned and unearned income alike to pay for healthcare.
American advocates of mandates on employers to provide health insurance should take note. The link between employment and health security is a historical artifact whose disadvantages now far outweigh its advantages. Economists estimate that between 25 and 45 percent of the US labor force is now job-locked. That is, employees make career decisions based on their need to maintain affordable health coverage or avoid exclusion based on a preexisting condition.
Perhaps it's time for us to take a closer look at French ideas about healthcare reform. They could become an import far less "foreign" and "unfriendly" than many here might initially imagine."
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial...lthcare_system/
I have used the British and French healthcare
I have visited and used both the British and French national healthcare system and I must say I was treated very_well in both countries.....and I think it is a great idea for THIS country now, having had first-hand experiences in Europe..
JMHO, of course. 
Universal healthcare NOT the answer!!
- There isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; do we really want an organization that developed the U.S. Tax Code handling something as complex as health care?
- "Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc.
- Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness.
- Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility.
- Patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free; thus, total costs will be several times what they are now.
- Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care; nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance.
- Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care.
- Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc.
- A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record creation.
- Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession.
- Malpractice lawsuit costs, which are already sky-high, could further explode since universal care may expose the government to legal liability, and the possibility to sue someone with deep pockets usually invites more lawsuits.
- Government is more likely to pass additional restrictions or increase taxes on smoking, fast food, etc., leading to a further loss of personal freedoms.
- Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a "right" by the public, meaning that it's politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control.
NOT VOTING FOR OBAMA! His plans will fail and they will up the cost of everything. Stop the government spending! Don't vote for someone wanting to add more programs that will INCREASE government spending. That is why our economy is in deep crap right now.
Members of Congress get the best healthcare that...sm
money can buy by the U.S. government and Obama wants us to have it too.
Here's a breakdown of McCain's healthcare tax.
Say you pay 14% income tax based on your income.
And you receive $10,000 worth of health insurance from your employer.
The $10,000 is taxed separately at the 14% (your tax bracket). That comes out to $1,400.
McCain gives you a $5,000 tax credit.
$5,000 less the $1,400 -
YOU'RE AHEAD $3,600.
:)
Alternatively, you can take the $5,000 tax credit and purchase your own insurance (like I do). I pay $250 a month.
$250 x 12 = $3,000.
$5,000 - $3,000 - $2,000.
I'M STILL AHEAD $2,000.
WIN/WIN :)
From what I understand Canada's healthcare...sm
is not run by private insurance companies as is Obama's plan, but rather by the government itself. His aim is for all people to have availablity to health insurance with a premium based on what they can afford, the ability to keep your insurance when you change jobs, keep your own doctor, and have your doctor ultimately decide what treatment is best for you not the insurance company.
When did socialism and universal healthcare
nm
Obama's universal healthcare will be SO much
nm
A ? for those in favor of national healthcare
What is your rationale for wanting government in charge of your healthcare? You have to know that if this happens, healthcare in this country IS going to be rationed, the same as it's been rationed in Great Britain, Sweden, and Canada. There will be long waits for procedures that we now take for granted being done in a very short time. I know Obama promised the same healthcare as he now has in the senate...do you believe him?
You need to talk with a few liberal healthcare
nm
what are liberal healthcare facilities?
b
A lot of "liberal" healthcare administrators
who once believed all the democrat garbage until they got Obama into office. Now, after reviewing from some of Obama's top sources the info on what Medicare will stop letting elderly have at their own discretion, they are becoming livid. Well, they wanted him, they got him. So many to thank for all their free lunch for everyone thinking.............
A lot of "liberal" healthcare administrators
who once believed all the democrat garbage until they got Obama into office. Now, after reviewing from some of Obama's top sources the info on what Medicare will stop letting elderly have at their own discretion, they are becoming livid. Well, they wanted him, they got him. So many to thank for all their free lunch for everyone thinking.............
A lot of "liberal" healthcare administrators
who once believed all the democrat garbage until they got Obama into office. Now, after reviewing from some of Obama's top sources the info on what Medicare will stop letting elderly have at their own discretion, they are becoming livid. Well, they wanted him, they got him. So many to thank for all their free lunch for everyone thinking.............
AIG/Future of American Healthcare
I've written a few times on this board that I think employers and insurance companies should be completely taken out of the picture when it comes to healthcare, that our very lives shouldn't be profit-driven commodities.
In my opinion, what's happening at AIG with greedy executives gives us a window into what could happen again (or probably already is happening) with health insurance companies.
I did a quick Google search and found the following two articles that address this. The first link is more current and probably the better of the two links, but the second is worth reading, as well. There may be better ones out there, but I didn't have much time to do my search, and these are two that caught my attention. If you find others, please post them.
It seems to me that before a new healthcare plan is implemented for Americans, we need to insure (no pun) that greedy executives can never do this again to Americans, particularly if our very ability to live or die lies in the balance.
I plan on writing my Congressman and Senator. I DON'T plan on having my concerns taken seriously (or even being read, for that matter).
Can you imagine -- just for a moment -- how much money could be saved by eliminating the profit factor in healthcare? It might just pay for a new healthcare care system itself, or at least put a big dent into the cost of one.
http://blogs.webmd.com/mad-about-medicine/2007/08/ceo-compensation-who-said-healthcare-is.html
http://www.harp.org/hmoexecs.htm
U. healthcare IS a disaster in other countries.
nm
Does not mean Universal Healthcare is answer.
nm
Republican healthcare plan....(sm)
Their plan for healthcare "reform" basically consists of changing nothing, and maybe tweaking medicaid and child care. Cost of this plan? We have no idea. No numbers were given. The total plan was only 4 pages.
In other words, they are just fine with the idea that tons of people in this country have NO healthcare, and obviously don't see anything wrong with HMOs. Yeah, they're working for the people alright......NOT.
Hillary's proposed healthcare system?
When I was watching Hillary say *I will fight the drug companies and insurance companies* I responded *You took $800,000 in donations from those people! And you are going to fight them?!*
Remember that Punjab article we saw months ago about her? Well, here it is below but remember it is in ADOBE PDF format (very easy to read that way though)....
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/memo1.pdf
be VERY CAREFUL if you're thinking about Hillary......please....
I'm very pro-woman (am one myself) but just because it has the same body parts doesn't mean I'm voting for them.........loved Bill but truly have had enough of the Clintons to last a couple of lifetimes....
Yes, I think ALL kids deserve affordable healthcare.
I know a little 5-year-old boy with a cancerous brain tumor. His family owns a local construction company and makes decent money, maybe even the $80,000 you speak of. They still have had to have 2 fundraisers just to cover costs associated with saving this precious little boy's life, and they have "decent insurance."
So yes, I think ALL FAMILIES, regardless of income, should have access to more affordable insurance. What happens if one of the parents becomes unemployed? They lose their healthcare coverage. I do not like the fact that most insurance is covered through your employer. Many people have to work the whole time they are fighting cancer or other diseases for fear of losing their health insurance. Even people making $80,000 per year can drown in medical bills that total in the hundreds of thousands, so I don't think their children should be excluded from CHIP healthcare either. People making $80,000 would not get on the program for free, but at a much more reasonable cost than most insurance companies would charge.
When I say I think ALL children in the USA should have free or affordable healthcare, I mean ALL children, rich and poor.
Do you think the revised kids' healthcare bill will
Thirteen more votes are needed in order to override Bush's veto of the new bill (assuming he vetoes it). Do you think the changes made will help rope in those 13 votes? Do you personally hope the bill gets passed?
Some of the revisions are:
"Changes to legislation to expand the program are aimed at addressing concerns voiced by Republicans in an effort to get them to support it this time around.
Under the retooled version, Democrats attempt to allay claims that the expanded health care would benefit illegal aliens. While the vetoed bill did not allow the program to cover illegals, the new version requires more rigorous background checks.
In addition, the bill states that despite claims to the contrary, coverage would not be offered to children of families with incomes over three times the federal poverty rate.
It also declares benefits to childless adults, now permitted in some states, will be phased out within a year."
link to the entire article:
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSN2435217520071025?pageNumber=1
maybe they could give it to construct universal healthcare
The economy would thrive!!! Employers would have more $$$, individuals would have more $$$. I know I spend close to $300 a month just on individual coverage. If not manditory universal coverage just allow anyone to be accepted into the Medicade program that wishes to do so.
Does Obama's healthcare plan require
everyone to participate. My husband is a state employee with family coverage for $17.00 per pay. We have excellent medical, dental, vision and prescription coverage. I am not interested in changing that. Does Obama want to provide the same coverage for everyone or just provide coverage for those without?
his plan for healthcare - see link inside -
http://www.govcentral.com/news/2275-obama-vs-mccain-health-care-plan-overview
webmd.com has healthcare plans of both candidates
in a very informative fashion, front and center. take a look. i am also very concerned about o's idea for changing medical records technology....
|
