Barack Obama

[The Conquistador]

Veterans who don't get healthcare through the VA; if the Gov. is so unwilling to give them healthcare after they bravely serve their country, what makes you think that the same Gov. will give it to them through another Gov. instituted program?

Miss Fran is right about what she said.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

Veterans who don't get healthcare through the VA; if the Gov. is so unwilling to give them healthcare after they bravely serve their country, what makes you think that the same Gov. will give it to them through another Gov. instituted program?

Miss Fran is right about what she said.

Perhaps you both should reread the report.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by randolph

Perhaps you both should reread the report.

I did read it and still it sounds bogus. Canada's Healthcare system. Sure...

Let's see what John Stossel says: Sick in America

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEXFUbSbg1I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpsEA...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=refrY...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzhiG...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xsp_J...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_KCLm9cekU&NR=1

[randolph]

[QUOTE=TheAngryPostman;116638]I did read it and still it sounds bogus. Canada's Healthcare system. Sure...

The study was done by doctors at Harvard, that would seem to provide it with considerable credibility.
I find it tragic that there are veterans that have fallen through the cracks and are not getting adequate health care.
Our so called "competitive" private health care system is the most expensive and inefficient in the world.
In Japan health care is paid for by the government. Hospitals, however are all private. A typical room is ten dollars a day and a luxury room is eighty a day. Hospitals here charge you five thousand dollars a day just to sit in the emergency room waiting for help. Until we get profit obsessed companies out of the health care system we will have nothing but endless escalation of health care costs.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by randolph

Until we get profit obsessed companies out of the health care system we will have nothing but endless escalation of health care costs.

The "Costs" of Medical Care by Thomas Sowell

We are incessantly being told that the cost of medical care is "too high" — either absolutely or as a growing percentage of our incomes. But nothing that is being proposed by the government is likely to lower those costs, and much that is being proposed is almost certain to increase the costs.


There is a fundamental difference between reducing costs and simply shifting costs around, like a pea in a shell game at a carnival. Costs are not reduced simply because you pay less at a doctor's office and more in taxes — or more in insurance premiums, or more in higher prices for other goods and services that you buy, because the government has put the costs on businesses that pass those costs on to you.


Costs are not reduced simply because you don't pay them. It would undoubtedly be cheaper for me to do without the medications that keep me alive and more vigorous in my old age than people of a similar age were in generations past.


Letting old people die would undoubtedly be cheaper than keeping them alive — but that does not mean that the costs have gone down. It just means that we refuse to pay the costs. Instead, we pay the consequences. There is no free lunch.


Providing free lunches to people who go to hospital emergency rooms is one of the reasons for the current high costs of medical care for others. Politicians mandating what insurance companies must cover is another free lunch that leads to higher premiums for medical insurance — and fewer people who can afford it.


Despite all the demonizing of insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies or doctors for what they charge, the fundamental costs of goods and services are the costs of producing them.


If highly paid chief executives of insurance companies or pharmaceutical companies agreed to work free of charge, it would make very little difference in the cost of insurance or medications. If doctors' incomes were cut in half, that would not lower the cost of producing doctors through years of expensive training in medical schools and hospitals, nor the overhead costs of running doctors' offices.


What it would do is reduce the number of very able people who are willing to take on the high costs of a medical education when the return on that investment is greatly reduced and the aggravations of dealing with government bureaucrats are added to the burdens of the work.


Britain has had a government-run medical system for more than half a century and it has to import doctors, including some from Third World countries where the medical training may not be the best. In short, reducing doctors' income is not reducing the cost of medical care, it is refusing to pay those costs. Like other ways of refusing to pay costs, it has consequences.


Any one of us can reduce medical costs by refusing to pay them. In our own lives, we recognize the consequences. But when someone with a gift for rhetoric tells us that the government can reduce the costs without consequences, we are ready to believe in such political miracles.


There are some ways in which the real costs of medical care can be reduced but the people who are leading the charge for a government takeover of medical care are not the least bit interested in actually reducing those costs, as distinguished from shifting the costs around or just refusing to pay them.


The high costs of "defensive medicine" — expensive tests, medications and procedures required to protect doctors and hospitals from ruinous lawsuits, rather than to help the patients — could be reduced by not letting lawyers get away with filing frivolous lawsuits.


If a court of law determines that the claims made in such lawsuits are bogus, then those who filed those claims could be forced to reimburse those who have been sued for all their expenses, including their attorneys' fees and the lost time of people who have other things to do. But politicians who get huge campaign contributions from lawyers are not about to pass laws to do this.


Why should they, when it is so much easier just to start a political stampede with fiery rhetoric and glittering promises?


http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell110309.php3







Mr. Polar Bear. I am not saying you are wrong or anything, but the majority of Canadians I've met seem to dislike the system you guys have. Same with the majority of British I've met likewise. However, I think that your opinion is insightful and helps give a balanced view to this debate.

[local]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

The "Costs" of Medical Care by Thomas Sowell

Mr. Polar Bear. I am not saying you are wrong or anything, but the majority of Canadians I've met seem to dislike the system you guys have. Same with the majority of British I've met likewise. However, I think that your opinion is insightful and helps give a balanced view to this debate.

Uh, then I don't think you've met many Canadians in Canada. In the last year I was in Emergency twice in downtown Toronto. The first one I was in and out within 90 minutes (stitches on badly gashed hand) and the second time. The second time I was checked out for a very serious issue requiring an MRI and was out within 6 hours after seeing 1 doctor and 1 specialist. No hassle, no phone call to the bank to mortgage my home to pay the bill! Yes, there are issues, but we all have easy access to high quality health care.

The rabid hyperbole is VERY similar to the rants and threats of strikes by the doctors in Saskatchewan where this was first introduced in the 50s. NOw you would be hard pressed to find a doctor who would want to go back to what you have in the US. The only difference with what we have in Canada and what there is in the US is that the government here pays the bill, not the user. We still have the freedom to chose who treats us, where and how.

[randolph]

The "Costs" of Medical Care by Thomas Sowell

All of these arguments sound reasonable, but the truth of the matter is that good health care in many other countries is better, covers everybody and costs the government a lot.
There is a difference however, in most countries health care is not viewed as a profit making business. Look at the attitude of the bankers in this country in this country. They think its their right to make obscene incomes at our expense. The drug companies and the medical profession seem to have the same attitude.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by randolph

They think its their right to make obscene incomes at our expense.

So success should be punished rather than rewarded? If you don't like Company A, go buy from Company B. Vote with your dollar.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by randolph

The study was done by doctors at Harvard, that would seem to provide it with considerable credibility.
I find it tragic that there are veterans that have fallen through the cracks and are not getting adequate health care.:

I guarantee you that there are more than 1.4 million veterans enrolled in the VA system considering there are 26,549,704* vets in the US and Puerto Rico. Also, your study does not differentiate as to whether or not those that were part of those roughly 2300 vets have had their healthcare voided due to felony convictions or other dishonorable behavior. Beating your spouse, illegal substance possession or any other felony will revoke your privliges faster than you can say,"I just fucked myself in the ass" and get your ass sent to Fort Leavenworth, Kansas(federal prison).


*http://www1.va.gov/vetdata/page.cfm?pg=1

[randolph]

I got this from a friend this morning. I LOVE it!

Q. What is an Economic Stimulus payment?
A. It is money that the federal government will send to taxpayers.
Q. Where will the government get this money?
A. From taxpayers.

Q. So the government is giving me back my own money?
A. Only a smidgen.

Q. What is the purpose of this payment?
A. The plan is that you will use the money to purchase a high-definition TV set, thus stimulating the economy.

Q. But isn't that stimulating the economy of China ?
A. Shut up.

Below is some helpful advice on how to best help the US economy by spending Your stimulus check wisely:

. If you spend the stimulus money at Wal-Mart, the money will go to China .
. If you spend it on gasoline, your money will go to the Arabs.
. If you purchase a computer, it will go to India .
. If you purchase fruit or vegetables, it will go to Mexico , Honduras and Guatemala .
. If you buy a car, it will go to Japan .
. If you purchase useless stuff, it will go to Taiwan.
. If you pay off your credit cards, or buy stock, it will go to management bonuses, and they will hide it offshore.

Instead, keep the money in America by:
1. Spending it at yard sales, or
2. Going to ball games, or
3. Spending it on prostitutes, or
4. Beer, or
5. Tattoos.

(These are the only American businesses still operating in the US .)
It would be best if you went to a ball game with a tattooed prostitute that you met at a yard sale and drink American beer with all day.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by randolph

It would be best if you went to a ball game with a tattooed prostitute that you met at a yard sale and drink American beer with all day.

As long as she's a tranny, it's all good. I love tatted trannies!

[transjen]

Originally Posted by randolph

I got this from a friend this morning. I LOVE it!

Q. What is an Economic Stimulus payment?
A. It is money that the federal government will send to taxpayers.
Q. Where will the government get this money?
A. From taxpayers.

Q. So the government is giving me back my own money?
A. Only a smidgen.

Q. What is the purpose of this payment?
A. The plan is that you will use the money to purchase a high-definition TV set, thus stimulating the economy.

Q. But isn't that stimulating the economy of China ?
A. Shut up.

Below is some helpful advice on how to best help the US economy by spending Your stimulus check wisely:

. If you spend the stimulus money at Wal-Mart, the money will go to China .
. If you spend it on gasoline, your money will go to the Arabs.
. If you purchase a computer, it will go to India .
. If you purchase fruit or vegetables, it will go to Mexico , Honduras and Guatemala .
. If you buy a car, it will go to Japan .
. If you purchase useless stuff, it will go to Taiwan.
. If you pay off your credit cards, or buy stock, it will go to management bonuses, and they will hide it offshore.

Instead, keep the money in America by:
1. Spending it at yard sales, or
2. Going to ball games, or
3. Spending it on prostitutes, or
4. Beer, or
5. Tattoos.

(These are the only American businesses still operating in the US .)
It would be best if you went to a ball game with a tattooed prostitute that you met at a yard sale and drink American beer with all day.

And this is why free trade is a load of horse crap it made it even easier for big bussiness to move production over seas and another load of horse crap is by cutting business tax rate they'll move back yeah right tell me another one, The high unemplotment is not due to the high debit rate it is do to over twenty years of out sourcing and NAFTA, CAFTA and all the other free trade aggreements these aggreements would have been allright if anything was still made in the USA but nothing is anymore so were are now starting to feel the effects


Jerseygirl Jen

[ila]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

I did read it and still it sounds bogus. Canada's Healthcare system. Sure...

Let's see what John Stossel says: Sick in America

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEXFUbSbg1I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpsEA...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=refrY...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzhiG...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xsp_J...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_KCLm9cekU&NR=1

John Stossel was very selective in his series on Canada's health care system. He wanted to prove a point and so he interviewed only people who would support his point of view. He never looked for anyone to provide a different view.

So now it's time to hear from someone who uses Canada's healthcare system. I am able to choose any doctor that I want. It doesn't cost me anything to see a doctor. If there is something that requires a specialist to look at then I will be referred to a specialist; no costs involved there. If I get a life threatening disease everything is paid for. I won't become homeless or destitute because I can't afford to pay my medical bills. I don't have long wait times to get medical tests or procedures. My hospital stays don't cost me anything.

So what do I have to pay for:

Prescription medications - but I have group health insurance to cover those costs
Hospital stays - if I want a private room I pay extra, but again I have group health insurance
Eyes - eye examinations and prescription lenses - group health insurance for that too
Dental - all dental expenses - group dental insurance for that.

Note that should I have a serious disease I will be guaranteed further medical treatment because there is no insurance company to cancel insurance. I won't lose my group health and dental insurance because it is group coverage.

[randolph]

Hey Ila,
Its always good to have someone come into these discussions who has first hand experience. The so called news media pundits are so often misinformed, uninformed, biased or just plain dimwits.
Personally, I have health care from a non-profit HMO (Kaiser Permanente). The care is excellent, I wish everybody had such a good plan. Yes, they saved my life (burst appendicitis).