Barrack Hussein Obama's healthcare plan good enough for us but not him!
- 07-21-2009, 10:07 PM
- 07-21-2009, 10:09 PM
- 07-21-2009, 10:14 PM
ill tell you what you big dumb ouf juicebag, ill go tomorrow and sign up...il be sure to mail you my application too, and maybe after my topur of duty ill come see you and we;ll will go have a chat somewhere secluded, what do you think?
keep selling your shtty supplements you pathetic waste of a human, all I have to do is put a pin in your arm and take away your roids and you will deflate and pop!
Why would I make up a kidney problem? your pulling at strings juicebag, as gifted said ' put down the roids, eat a vegetable" he was talking to you homeboy! yet your still on his nt sack.
your even more apthetic than him.
07-21-2009, 10:15 PM
07-21-2009, 10:16 PM
just make sure if you rat me out for all these posts you delete all of yours too big guy!
you are a rat arent you? your gonna tell on me arent you?
07-21-2009, 10:20 PM
07-21-2009, 10:28 PM
Although i do not always see eye to eye with Dsade he is not dumb at all.
Funny thing is he and i are on different points in this disussion and the only thing in common is that we both see you arent comprehending much.
07-21-2009, 10:30 PM
no I was going to enlist anyhow u fool, i told you that, not for a thread but for me, for the guys who need our help there, and because my country needs people for this duty.
im done with both of you, enjoy mediocrity.
07-22-2009, 12:23 AM
I got in here too late. It's not so much a matter of waiting a few hours for stitches as it is waiting months for much more significant treatment for major medical problems. There's also the issue of rationing. When your healthcare is funded by tax revenues, the quality will drop into the ****ter whenever the economy slips into a recession and tax revenues are down as they re now.
Let's say for the sake of arguement, you go to the doc and complain of chronic headaches. Even if he believes there aren't any serious problems, he might be inclined to do a catscan or an MRI just to be 110% sure there's not tumor or other serious problems. How would you like to have a govt beaurocrat between you and your doc telling him what tests he can or can't run? You can rest assured that any tests that might be considered superflous will not be permitted by any govt run program.
If you want to get a glimpse into what you can expect from "Universal Healthcare" (i.e. Govt Healthcare), take a look at how Medicare and Medicade have been managed by our beloved politicians and beaurocrats (who always know whats best for us). Better yet, next time you go to the DMV to renew your license, just take a look around. I hope you love it mah dem, cuz you voted for it!!!
07-22-2009, 01:11 AM
07-22-2009, 01:15 AM
07-22-2009, 09:20 AM
I do not agree with you like 99% of the times, but I believe you are on the right track in a way. I may not believe aloe is the healing property for 3rd degree burns, but I most certainly can get on board with taking care of your own healthcare. This is the basis of a free market, and healthcare is no different than any other market, there is no hidden driving spirit to jack up healthcare costs. Put healthcare into peoples hands, and let the shopping around begin. Get rid of unconstitutional programs like Medicare/Caid/-D, and certainly take down evil government subsidized HMO's
The Historic PES Legend
07-22-2009, 09:32 AM
How is it that it went from an idealogical circlejerk about the pros and cons of gov't healthcare, and the 2 canadians that have it, started a character assassination mission?
07-22-2009, 10:09 AM
The increase in demand is not an added benefit, it's one of the features of socialized care that leads to inevitable failure.the added benefit for socialized health care is it makes people want to go to the doctor for a minor infection, instead of going to the ER when it becomes a major infection, and then refuse/can't afford to pay for the surgery.... any time you can slash the end bill by a large portion that will have to be written off anyways, will help. not to mention prediabetes screenings...
07-22-2009, 11:42 AM
Bay State Rationing
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, July 16, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Health Care: Massachusetts' universal medical program is no longer universal. Coverage is being dropped for 30,000 because not enough money is around to pay for everyone. There's a lesson in this for Congress.
IBD Exclusive Series: Government-Run Healthcare: A Prescription For Failure
Unable to pay the enormous cost of Commonwealth Care, the state's subsidized insurance plan for low-income residents, Massachusetts lawmakers are throwing legal immigrants off the rolls. The state simply does not have enough money to pay its bills, and cuts have to be made somewhere.
Three years ago, Massachusetts enacted a law that required every resident to have medical insurance. Commonwealth Care was created to subsidize those who couldn't afford to buy their own. It didn't take long for the program, which never achieved coverage for everyone, to run into trouble.
Costs soared from $158 million in the first year to $630 million in 2007, then doubled in 2009 to $1.3 billion. Enrollment in the program has also surged. It stands at roughly 181,000, up from 165,000 in the early spring, and is projected to reach 212,000 next year.
With 200,000 still uninsured — most of whom likely would be eligible for the subsidized program — imagine how much more steeply the costs would be rising if the state had met its goal of insuring everyone.
Both Democrats and Republicans hailed Massachusetts' attempt to ensure that everyone had medical insurance coverage. Some on the right even praised the state for taking a market-based approach to the issue.
A few observers, however, correctly noted that such a system cannot possibly be sustained. Demand, they said, will overwhelm it, just as demand has caused medical care rationing in Great Britain and Canada.
Eva Millona, executive director of the Massachusetts Immigrant & Refugee Advocacy Coalition, told the New York Times that one possible outcome of the Massachusetts situation is "the message that health care reform cannot be done, period."
Actually, that's the only message, if reform means increasing government's role. That message comes to us from across the Atlantic, from north of our border and now from within our own republic.
What Massachusetts is learning is exactly what Washington will learn if it enacts the public option legislation being debated on Capitol Hill: The taxpayers are not an unending font of dollars; their inability to float costlier statist political schemes will eventually cause deficits.
Do not put faith in promises of care for everyone at lower costs. They are false. Universal care will always increase costs and lead to rationing because it invites system overload. This is the message, and it must be spread before lawmakers do something foolish.
07-22-2009, 12:02 PM
Here is some comic relief. The Administration puppets went ot a "rural america" hick tour to persuade those that might be less educated. This is what they got.
07-22-2009, 12:50 PM
If barry O would read the bill, he would know that the bill will force people off employee or private insurance within 5 years. If your private insurance changes your premiums, then the govt would make it illegal for them to do that since it would be a "new policy" and would force you onto the govt plan. You can kepe your plan, but you can't change it. If your insurer changes part of your plan, the govt will mandate you off of it and onto the Obama plan. Sure Barry, you can keep your plan.
07-22-2009, 01:16 PM
07-22-2009, 01:43 PM
Study: 83 Mln Would Lose Private Health Coverage Under House Dem Plan
By Philip Klein on 7.20.09 @ 12:16PM
Democrats and President Obama have denied that the creation of a new government-run health care plan would be a Trojan Horse for single-payer health care, but a new report by the Lewin Group (comissioned by the Heritage Foundation) finds that the House Democrats' health care bill would shift more 83.4 million Americans from private health care coverage to the government plan. To put that in perspective, that would mean that nearly half (48.4 percent) would lose their private health coverage. In all, the government plan would have 103.4 million members once implemented, according to the Lewin analysis. President Obama has repeated the mantra that anybody who likes their health insurance plan can keep it, but in reality about 63 percent of covered Americans get their health care through their employers, and if employers decide to drop their current health plans in favor of the government plan, workers won't have any choice but to sign up.
Here's a Lewin chart titled, "Changes in Sources of Coverage under the American Affordable Health Choices Act Assuming Full Implementation in 2011 (millions)":
The reason for the dramatic shift is that the Lewin Group has anticipated that with government setting lower reimbursement rates for doctors, hospitals and other health care providers, the government plan will offer lower premiums than private plans. However, the flip side is that the Congressional Budget Office estimates providers will lose $361.9 billion in revenue over the next decade if the House bill is passed. That will mean lower quality of care, shortages in doctors and hospitals, and/or increased shifting of costs on to those with private health care. Should further cost-shifting occur, it will then in turn erode private health care coverage even more dramatically.
Posted on Sunday, 07.19.09 Recommend (4)share email print comment reprint
Healthcare 'fix' hurts small business
OUR OPINION: House Democrats' reform places undue burden on entrepreneurs
Lawmakers are racing to complete a bill that improves the nation's healthcare system before the momentum for reform runs out. The need for this legislation is clear, as is the need to move quickly.
But reform should not place an unfair burden on one of the most vital and endangered sectors of our economy -- small business.
The bill unveiled by House Democrats last week is a sweeping, 1,000-page blueprint containing scores of provisions that will change the way we pay for medicines and medical treatment. Some have more merit than others.
The proposal to impose a penalty of 8 percent of payroll on all but the smallest businesses is particularly onerous and unworkable -- especially in South Florida where small businesses are the backbone of the area's economy.
In the first place, it's a job killer. To understand why, it is necessary to understand both the nature of small businesses and the essential role they play in the American economy.
According to the Small Business Administration, the nation's 6 million small employers represent 99.7 percent of the total number of businesses that provide jobs, and 50.2 percent of private-sector employment. Small businesses create about 70 percent of new jobs.
Although this includes all businesses with fewer than 500 employees, the typical operation is far smaller. According to SBA figures, 89 percent have fewer than 20 employees, and 98 percent fewer than 100.
The bill's ''pay or play'' option offers owners with payrolls exceeding $400,000 two unpalatable choices: Either pay the 8 percent penalty, or pay part of the premium for all full-time employees.
For many, this is a lose-lose proposition. A survey by the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) found that 20 percent of its respondents would simply shut down if they were faced with this choice. They couldn't afford it. One out of four said they would replace full-time workers with part-time workers in order to avoid having to pay anything.
The level of the proposed penalty is a second problem.
Small employers, like everyone else in America, will have to do their part to support healthcare reform, but the 8 percent figure is too burdensome.
According to NFIB, a typical member employs five people and reports median gross sales of $350,000.
For many of these employers, the option of paying for insurance instead of paying the government penalty would result in paying more in health premiums for each worker than for the employer's portion of the Social Security tax.
Many employers earn relatively little from their businesses, not only making the proposed new fee a problem, but the difference between breaking even or going under.
According to NFIB, 14 percent of small employers have household incomes of $50,000 or less. And 34 percent have a household income of $75,000 or less. For these businesses in particular there is a built-in unfairness in asking owners to subsidize employees who earn close to the same amount as the owner.
And for households that earn $350,000 or more, there is a double whammy in the legislation if they own a small business. The House Democratic bill proposes a surtax on their personal earnings, in addition to payments to cover health insurance that would have to come all or in part from profits.
The best part of the Obama administration's reform efforts involves the drive to improve the effectiveness and delivery of services and save costs. A significant number of healthcare providers has signed on.
Cost containment is essential to success.
Employers who have conscientiously tried to provide insurance for their workers have had to pay more in return for less. They're getting killed by skyrocketing premiums. They will welcome reform that brings costs down to earth.
It's not fair for some employers to pay for workplace insurance while others don't. A mandate that does not address rising costs and forces employers to provide a benefit they can't afford is not the answer.
Lawmakers need to come up with a reform blueprint that offers a solution, not a penalty
Reformers' Claims Just Don't Add Up
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, July 17, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Health Reform: Many extravagant claims have been made on behalf of the various health care "reforms" now emerging from Congress and the White House. But on closer inspection, virtually all prove to be false.
IBD Exclusive Series: Government-Run Healthcare: A Prescription For Failure
Yet even as many Americans start to have second thoughts about our government's possible takeover of the health care system, Congress is rushing to make it happen.
On Friday, the House Ways and Means Committee approved a bill that would radically change our current system and expand coverage for the uninsured. The action came a day after the head of the Congressional Budget Office said none of the plans under review would slow health care spending. None of them.
Still, lawmakers and the White House press on, relying on GOP weakness in the House and a new veto-proof majority in the Senate. They're also relying on a lack of awareness that claims made on behalf of national health care may be mostly false. Among them:
• America has a health care crisis.
No, we don't. Forty-seven million people lack insurance. Of the remaining 85% of the population, or 258 million people, polls show high satisfaction with the current coverage. Indeed, a 2006 poll by ABC News, the Kaiser Family Foundation and USA Today found 89% of Americans were happy with their own health care.
As for the estimated 47 million not covered by health insurance, 20 million can afford to buy it, according to a study by former CBO Director June O'Neill. Most of the other 27 million are single and under 35, with as many as a third illegal aliens.
When it's all whittled down, as few as 12 million are unable to buy insurance — less than 4% of a population of 305 million. For this we need to nationalize 17% of our nation's $14 trillion economy and change the current care that 89% like?
• Health care reform will save money.
Few of the plans now coming out of Congress will save anything, says the CBO's current chief, Douglas Elmendorf. In fact, he says, they'll lead to substantially higher costs in the future — costs that will be "unsustainable."
As it is, estimates for reforming health care range from $1 trillion to $3.6 trillion. Much will be spent on subsidies to make a so-called public option more attractive to consumers than private plans.
To pay for it, the president has suggested about $600 billion in new taxes, meaning that $500 billion to $2.1 trillion in new health care spending over the next decade will be unfunded. This could push up the nation's already soaring deficit, expected to reach $10 trillion through 2019 without health care reform. Massive new tax hikes will probably be needed to close the gap.
• Only the rich will pay for reform.
The 5.4% surtax on millionaires the president is pushing gets all the attention, but everyone down to $280,000 in income will pay more. Doesn't that still leave out the middle class and poor? Sorry. Workers who decline to take part will pay a tax of up to 2% of earnings. And small-businesses must pony up 8% of their payrolls.
The poor and middle class must pay in other ways, without knowing it. The biggest hit will be on small businesses, which, due to new payroll taxes, will be less likely to hire workers. Today's 9.5% jobless rate may become a permanent feature of our economy — just as it is in Europe, where nationalized health care is common.
• Government-run health care produces better results.
The biggest potential lie of all. America has the best health care in the world, and most Americans know it. Yet we hear that many "go without care" while in nationalized systems it is "guaranteed."
U.S. life expectancy in 2006 was 78.1 years, ranking behind 30 other countries. So if our health care is so good, why don't we live as long as everyone else?
Three reasons. One, our homicide rate is two to three times higher than other countries. Two, because we drive so much, we have a higher fatality rate on our roads — 14.24 fatalities per 100,000 people vs. 6.19 in Germany, 7.4 in France and 9.25 in Canada. Three, Americans eat far more than those in other nations, contributing to higher levels of heart disease, diabetes and some cancers.
These are diseases of wealth, not the fault of the health care system. A study by Robert Ohsfeldt of Texas A&M and John Schneider of the University of Iowa found that if you subtract our higher death rates from accidents and homicide, Americans actually live longer than people in other countries.
In countries with nationalized care, medical outcomes are often catastrophically worse. Take breast cancer. According to the Heritage Foundation, breast cancer mortality in Germany is 52% higher than in the U.S.; the U.K.'s rate is 88% higher. For prostate cancer, mortality is 604% higher in the U.K. and 457% higher in Norway. Colorectal cancer? Forty percent higher in the U.K.
But what about the health care paradise to our north? Americans have almost uniformly better outcomes and lower mortality rates than Canada, where breast cancer mortality is 9% higher, prostate cancer 184% higher and colon cancer 10% higher.
Then there are the waiting lists. With a population just under that of California, 830,000 Canadians are waiting to be admitted to a hospital or to get treatment. In England, the list is 1.8 million deep.
Universal health care, wrote Sally Pipes, president of the Pacific Research Institute in her excellent book, "Top Ten Myths Of American Health Care," will inevitably result in "higher taxes, forced premium payments, one-size-fits-all policies, long waiting lists, rationed care and limited access to cutting-edge medicine."
Before you sign up, you might want to check with people in countries that have the kind of system the White House and Congress have in mind. Recent polls show that more than 70% of Germans, Australians, Britons, Canadians and New Zealanders think their systems need "complete rebuilding" or "fundamental change."
• The poor lack care.
Many may lack insurance, but that doesn't mean they lack care. The law says anyone who walks into a hospital emergency room must be treated. America has 37 million people in poverty, but Medicaid covers 55 million — at a cost of $350 billion a year.
Moreover, as many as 11 million of the uninsured qualify for programs for the indigent, including Medicaid and SCHIP. But for some reason, they don't sign up. Are they likely to sign up for the "public option" when it's made available?
07-22-2009, 01:53 PM
Any ya our healthcare is free......but my arguement was that no./..its not free....were masssively taxed....and the system is falling apart.
So if you like that idiot want to thumb your nost at my small medical problem and take it as me crying for help than you go right ahead. I now realize why you 2 are so similar, small town, hick, uneducated...etc etc I dont need to go any further.
I know wha my healthcare is like cause I live here, have for 27 years and THE POINT IS IS THAT IT ISNT VERY DAMN GOOD!, and its notFREE! like my ignorant canadian friend thinks.
07-22-2009, 02:00 PM
Take a step back, a deep breath, and reread the thread. You are all over the place man, your arguments are almost incomprehensible.
The Historic PES Legend
07-22-2009, 02:07 PM
dude, let me ask you something, if someone insulted you due to a medical condition...would you be all over the place? would you be upset?
Ill tell you one thing, I dont let people thumb their noses at me, or my health, according to that guy everyone who gets sick is to blame for their ilness? cant anyone see how fcked that way of thinking is?
honestly if dude wouldnt have blamed me for our countrys poor healthcare and looked down at me because I now actually have to use it this thread would have never gotten so out of control.
07-22-2009, 02:14 PM
The Historic PES Legend
07-22-2009, 02:15 PM
07-22-2009, 02:22 PM
07-22-2009, 02:26 PM
07-22-2009, 02:27 PM
this is what you offer to the thread
"If someone says something about a medical condition I had... oh well... no skin off my back. My junk hangs far to the left... bag on that."
I mean WTF?
07-22-2009, 02:28 PM
07-22-2009, 02:30 PM
hahaha fair enough, we disagree, its a free world...for most of us....and that is the beauty of it.
Enjoy your day....
Loving the cardinals too, if only my Blue jays could have kept up that amazing start....
07-22-2009, 04:59 PM
Similar Forum Threads
- By ax1 in forum General ChatReplies: 0Last Post: 04-17-2011, 07:47 PM
- By Jayhawkk in forum PoliticsReplies: 3Last Post: 07-29-2009, 04:49 PM
- By RobInKuwait in forum PoliticsReplies: 72Last Post: 10-23-2008, 05:58 PM