Barrack Hussein Obama's healthcare plan good enough for us but not him!
- Thread starter roids1
- Start date
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
Nobody is at war with you... you have flip flopped and begged for sympathy non-stop. You feel the need to become heated an irate because someone doesn't view the problems and solutions the same way you do. You seemingly want to call names and say people haven't walked in your shoes; as your end all be all argument. There just is no useful debating there. And jumping the gun an astronomical amount of times.
SWG,
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
youngandfree
Well-known member
:hijacked:
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?
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?
CDB
Registered User
This completely ignores the effects of taxation on marginal decision making, which is what leads to increased usage of the public option over time and leaves the private option open only to the rich as a practical matter.
The increase in demand is not an added benefit, it's one of the features of socialized care that leads to inevitable failure.
youngandfree
Well-known member
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.
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.
youngandfree
Well-known member
Invalid Link Removed
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.
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.
youngandfree
Well-known member
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
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.
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
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.
youngandfree
Well-known member
Invalid Link Removed
youngandfree
Well-known member
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.
Lose-lose proposal
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.
Built-in unfairness
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.
Containing costs
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?
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.
Lose-lose proposal
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.
Built-in unfairness
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.
Containing costs
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?
searl12
Banned
how the fck am I begging for sympathy? read dudes first post, he pointed his nose down at me cause I have a small health problem! thats all ? where on here do you see me begging ? and maybe I did flip flop a little but it was worth it just to show how much of ignorant prck that guy was.
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.
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
Dude, you are comical. Your close mindedness is astounding... you have brought nothing of value to the conversation thus far... your demeanor screams uneducated, yet you call others uneducated.
Take a step back, a deep breath, and reread the thread. You are all over the place man, your arguments are almost incomprehensible.
Adams
searl12
Banned
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.
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.
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
I never said SWG was right in that attack. I said he was right in saying people should manage their own health care and government managed health care is not the way to go. 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.
searl12
Banned
and Im the one all over the place who sounds uneducated.
plz I beg of you dont respond im gonna pluck my own eyes out if I have to read anymore of this dumb thread.
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
:sigh1:
searl12
Banned
yes my hick friend I am sighing at you as well.
im sure we wouldnt get along in person either would we.
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
Dude... it's my medical condition... leave it alone!
somewhatgifted
Registered User
I made my points and the responded to the attacks i was under.
searl12
Banned
and you my friend were only attacked because you attacked me first! if you cannot see that then you more lost than you think I am.
Just remember guys, in this mans opinion if you get ill its all your fault no matter what happens to you, and you should quit complaining and expecting quality care because no doctor in the world will give it to you, on top of that to him none of our doctors care about any of us.
pfff wow.
somewhatgifted
Registered User
Well if you give a crap about your life at some point you realise that YOU are the only one responsible for YOUR life. Your options are to whine or get proactive and AVOID getting to the point of being in the doctors office, relying on the system and then complaining about the inadequecies of said system.
Dont you realise this is how i look at my own life?
Its comfortable to think the world is sunshine and rainbows but it isnt, people get sick so your options are to do something about it or just coast along complaining like all the other sick dying people.
We cant justr wait until we get sick to think about health cause sometimes its too late.
You think of any disease or ailment and guarantee someone has overcome it, with healthy mind, healthy eating and detoxifying their body.
Dont you realise this is how i look at my own life?
Its comfortable to think the world is sunshine and rainbows but it isnt, people get sick so your options are to do something about it or just coast along complaining like all the other sick dying people.
We cant justr wait until we get sick to think about health cause sometimes its too late.
You think of any disease or ailment and guarantee someone has overcome it, with healthy mind, healthy eating and detoxifying their body.
TexasTitan
Well-known member
Then that sucks to be you. You will owe the hospital money and it shouldnt be covered by the taxpayers. Its ridiculous that the middle class with say limited insurance has to pay and then the broke people with no money to pay for a good get off scott free.
Blue states...
Invalid Link Removed
dsade
NutraPlanet Fanatic
That's creepy...almost down's syndrome-ish.
somewhatgifted
Registered User
Man get over yourself not everyone making a post is centered in on attacking you.
Im talking about body maintenance.. doing a seasonal cleanse, detox, taking organ support herbs, liver, kidney, gallbladder, heart, brain.... alongside the obvious diet and excercise. I mentioned spirit mind and body the three pieces to health. Its not about you running stairs... this just in man finds cure to cancer by running stairs...
PREVENTATIVE medicine instead of reactionary chemical drugs.
youngandfree
Well-known member
Mitt Romney had his chance, did his damage, and bailed. look where Massachussetts is now with their universal healthcare. They are so underfunded, they recently DROPPED 30,000 LEGAL IMMIGRANTS that were put into the plan. They are cutting people loose after 3 years. B.O. wants to ensure that ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS will get coverage as well as state benefits, regardless if they are in the country as fugitives. Makes a lot of sense doesn't it.
TexasTitan
Well-known member
Or its a guy who was a Senator for 2 years before being president and is the very definition of smooth talker. Actions talk, bull**** walks. He kissed everyones ass and promised the impossible, and now it starting to bite him in the ass. He is cunning, but if Congress swings back to the right, and I hope to God it does in the House, because I hate Nancy Pelosi with every fiber of my being, it will be even harder for him to fulfill his unrealistic campaign promises.
My dad was an active individual and ran everyday, did all kind of stuff and at 32 was dead from cancer. I agree with you to an extent, but there just isnt much he could have done.
Obama also wants amnesty for Illegals. He gets a big **** you from me on that one. I would die and go to heaven to see INS given authority and manpower to remove all illegals while we create a comprehensive and strict guest worker program. And while Im ranting, English should be made the official language.
searl12
Banned
"Obama also wants amnesty for Illegals. He gets a big **** you from me on that one. I would die and go to heaven to see INS given authority and manpower to remove all illegals while we create a comprehensive and strict guest worker program. And while Im ranting, English should be made the official language."
I like this, immigration needs to be slowed to a near halt as we are having enough problems these days with the people we already have. Why should we bring in more people to compete with what minimum wage jobs are left.
I like this, immigration needs to be slowed to a near halt as we are having enough problems these days with the people we already have. Why should we bring in more people to compete with what minimum wage jobs are left.
lutherblsstt
Guest
Great post!
lutherblsstt
Guest
Why not run for office so you can get some of your ideas actually implemented?
searl12
Banned
dude if you dont agree thats fine ok, you dont even live here, lots of people feel this way, my girl is an immigrant her parent are the hadrest working people ive ever met, I have no problem with them being immigrants and living here, its simply that the economy is in shambles, we should shore up what we are already working with instead of funneling in new citizens to compete with us.
lutherblsstt
Guest
So what,I am from there and lived there for over 30 years.
Even if you keep them out there is still outsourcing which does not need physical people entering the country to work.
See: Outsourcing Greenville the story of what happened when the world's largest refrigerator plant outsourced to Mexico leaving 1/4th of Greenville, Michigan residents unemployed.
Invalid Link Removed
somewhatgifted
Registered User
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkGGDOp4uUg"]YouTube - Health Care Reform: 450,000 Doctors Can't Be Wrong[/ame]
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
lutherblsstt
Guest
450,000 doctors can indeed be wrong.
There is a real need for health care reform but that's not what is being proposed. Instead what is being proposed is a new government insurance program. That won't necessarily increase access (look into how many doctors restrict who they see and how that relates to what insurance they have) and will definitely not do anything to decrease health care costs (according to the CBO).
A big problem is that insurance is tied to employment, that needs to change. Instead of insurance ebing considered part of your compensation, you should be paid more and buy your own insurance.
Also, while I support increasing coverage for children and older people, if you work you can get coverage and pay for it on your own (I was surprised at how much coverage actually is, often less than 100/month).
roids1
Banned
Holy Sh!t Luther! Maybe you need to get back on your meds. You started to make some sense there!!! :surprised: Yes, maybe the answer isn't a new govt program filled with bureaucracy, govt red tape, and eventual rationing of services.
There are other ways to insure people and their families besides group plans through employers or the federal govt. If there were a way to give individual policy holders a more competitive hand, then the insurance companies would have to be more competitive with one another for individual business. But, as it stands now, you have to take what your employer offers, through a group plan, with no bargaining power. Yet, the idea that private insurance companies can compete with the federal govt, an entity that can operate with net losses year after year, is ludicrous.
The idea of a "public option" as an alternative is bull****. In the long run, it will reduce competition and drive the quality of everyone's healthcare into the ****ter. Keep in mind, you can sue your insurance company, but you can't sue the federal govt. Under a "public option," if you don't like what you get, you have no recourse. Thanks Barry!
lutherblsstt
Guest
I think you are the one who temporarily went off the meds and thus actually saw the merits of what I posted,for once.
Agreed.
youngandfree
Well-known member
I'm with you, Luther has showed he does have some common sense. maybe everything else is just to see how much he can stir up things and isn't his true colors.
GuyverX
Well-known member
my two cents.
I agree with somewhatgifted in the sense that one's health should be one's own responsibility aside from accidents and things that a person cannot fix themselves.
Many of us who are fitness oriented already take responsibility for our own health.
Even people on the the harder things take steps to minimize the bodily harm.
As well as having a clean diet and pushing our bodies hard with exercise.
Cannot speak on Canada, but in the USA some have become excuse makers and blamers.
We had a case in which someone won a couple of million because they spilled hot coffee from McD's on themselves. Not to mention people who sue tobacco companies because they smoke three packs a day and get health problems.
Or trying to get snack machines banned in schools instead of teaching people to be responsible in their eating choices.
And we have people who bust their tails doing something constructive. paying for the benefits of some who choose not to work.
Or those who play crazy and have multiple kids by different people to draw assistance for health care and necessities.
I have a suggestion for those of us who are independent minded.
Let's terraform Antarctica, found our own nation where our hard work directly influences our reward and ban all those who want something without any effort.
And before you can go to the apothecary and get pills, you have to prove your diet and lifestyle are on point first(that is unless you have a condition that does not depend on or respond to those).
Just a thought.
I agree with somewhatgifted in the sense that one's health should be one's own responsibility aside from accidents and things that a person cannot fix themselves.
Many of us who are fitness oriented already take responsibility for our own health.
Even people on the the harder things take steps to minimize the bodily harm.
As well as having a clean diet and pushing our bodies hard with exercise.
Cannot speak on Canada, but in the USA some have become excuse makers and blamers.
We had a case in which someone won a couple of million because they spilled hot coffee from McD's on themselves. Not to mention people who sue tobacco companies because they smoke three packs a day and get health problems.
Or trying to get snack machines banned in schools instead of teaching people to be responsible in their eating choices.
And we have people who bust their tails doing something constructive. paying for the benefits of some who choose not to work.
Or those who play crazy and have multiple kids by different people to draw assistance for health care and necessities.
I have a suggestion for those of us who are independent minded.
Let's terraform Antarctica, found our own nation where our hard work directly influences our reward and ban all those who want something without any effort.
And before you can go to the apothecary and get pills, you have to prove your diet and lifestyle are on point first(that is unless you have a condition that does not depend on or respond to those).
Just a thought.
GuyverX
Well-known member
It is interesting that companies use outsourcing to cut their costs but the prices keep going up.
Hmmmmm.....
They want americans to buy their products but would rather hire way cheaper labor.
Hmmm.........
The wonders of the service oriented economy.
somewhatgifted
Registered User
Its almost like these companies with mission statements that talk about quality, commitment and respect are full of crap... Wait they are. Everything is about money nowa days people would bludgeon you to death if they were paid well enough, given enough biased information or taught to do things without question.. war anyone?
somewhatgifted
Registered User
Lets take a look at pharmaceuticals for one second.
If a plant, herb or natural remedy works it can be harvested produced and mildly profitable!
BUT one cannot patent a herb or plant.... you can only be incompetition with other harvester/distributers and when people get HEALTHY they stop taking it.
ON THE OTHER HAND.. IF you isolate what compound or chemical causes the desired response then you can synthesize it and patent it!!!
The problem being... when you take the isolated chemical out you get side effects!!! The whole herb is what is needed including the stabalising agents!!
A synthesized, isolated chemical is nowhere as benefitial.
So they get rich, you stay sick, you keep buying and when you get side effects you buy more drugs.
The cause of all illness, disease and malcontent is lifestyle, diet and environment.
If we try to fix our problems with drugs we deserve to be sick.
Herbs FTW!!!
dsade
NutraPlanet Fanatic
We need to control our frustrations and make sure we don't expose ourselves to anti-capitalist arguments.
There's a way through this....
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
I agree. There are a TON of companies out there that stand by their product. Especially small business.
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
You will be singing a different tune when they have to shoot your ass up with a healthy dose of pharmaceutical epinephrine when you have an allergic reaction to your precious herbs.
GuyverX
Well-known member
Exactly.
Too bad I have not had the good fortune to get a job somewhere like that.
Or be able to start my own yet which focuses on quality, service, internal and external customers.
Regulation is a funny animal though. Always a little extra in the legalese that may not benefit citizens or businesses.
I guess in a perfect world we would have room for gainful employment/entreprenuership for everyone who wanted it and we would get paid well enough to pay out of pocket for certain things.
That way the mass of taxpayers would not have to shoulder the burden for certain services that are not generalized.
CDB
Registered User
In that lady's defense, you should not be able to use fresh coffee to smelt iron ore, and that's how hot the **** was. When your server needs asbestos gloves to hand over a cup of joe I think it's possible that the restaurant might want to turn the temp down on their hot plate.