Liberal free for all coming to an end

[Rainrider]

Originally Posted by ila

Being a doctor does not necessarly make one knowledgeable about the intricacies of socialised medicine. It has never been done in the US so I rather doubt there are many doctors that have enough knowledge of the subject to speak intimately of it. One should actually examine how other countries with socialised healthcare operate before making blanket statements such as what you have posted.

Will to truly understand thing one must have at lest some first hand knowledge of how it works. You know as well as I do that should I tell you how an 18 wheel works it would seem Greek to you. (Well if you never had to deal with one that is) Yet for some one that has spent better than 1/2 his life in or under one, it would be clear as a bell. I made this statement at work, that was when we found and printed a copy of the bill, before it was passed, and gave it real close look.
Now keep in mind I have said before I am dyslexic, so rather than take the week it would have taken me to really read it, I had some one read it to me, then I went back to the parts I wanted to really look at. So what I have to say about the parts of the bill I did study, come from my understanding of the thing.
The thing I find sad about the who thing though, if it could be made to work, why is it that Canada and England, are now looking for a way to replace it. They both clam they can not keep it going. The cost is to high, and there some other reason that I can not call to mind right off.

[Tread]

Originally Posted by Rainrider

The thing I find sad about the who thing though, if it could be made to work, why is it that Canada and England, are now looking for a way to replace it. They both clam they can not keep it going. The cost is to high, and there some other reason that I can not call to mind right off.

I don?t know and doubt that Canada and England are looking to replace their whole health system, but they are still significant cheaper than the old US health system.

If you have knowledge about it you possible can explain me [B]rational[\B] how it gets more expensive with a system that is cheaper in every other country. I have no interest what you think of single persons, only about what is financial wrong about the health reform? What is different to other countries where a social health care with comparable quality works?

Originally Posted by Tread

I don?t know what is made with Obama care, but how can it be more expensive to your insurance payments? What are they doing wrong with the Obama care that it doesn?t get closer to other countries in price?
The cost to start this should be taken by the government, the trillion you (Tracy) mentioned. There is no surprise that this cost much at the beginning, but this should be amortized over time.

[randolph]

A Federal judge has struck down Obamacare as unconstitutional, based on the stipulation that everyone must have healthcare or be fined. Since that requirement cannot be modified, the entire bill is struck down. He stated Congress does not have the authority to require people to have health insurance.
A single payer system, like Canada's would have avoided this problem.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

A Federal judge has struck down Obamacare as unconstitutional, based on the stipulation that everyone must have healthcare or be fined. Since that requirement cannot be modified, the entire bill is struck down. He stated Congress does not have the authority to require people to have health insurance.
A single payer system, like Canada's would have avoided this problem.

Any objective person knew that Obamacare violated the Constitution. Yet Obama and the House & Senate all charged ahead with passing Obamacare anyway. Why? Are they really that out of touch with the Constitution and the American people? Isn't Egypt looking for a new dictator? Let's send them all there.

[Hedonistman]

All I can say is that I've never met any doctor in the US who was not in it for the money. I'm sure there are some,,, possibly even many, but I produced health care and related teleplays for the health care industry, and this quote from a recognizied top shelf surgeon, I think says it best " my patients are the stupidiest people I've ever met'. There will never be true reform until those who are sick can decide for themselves, how best to treat (spend on) their illnesses. No 3rd party system will ever approach self determination, about anything.

[Trogdor]

Originally Posted by Hedonistman

All I can say is that I've never met any doctor in the US who was not in it for the money. I'm sure there are some,,, possibly even many, but I produced health care and related teleplays for the health care industry, and this quote from a recognizied top shelf surgeon, I think says it best " my patients are the stupidiest people I've ever met'. There will never be true reform until those who are sick can decide for themselves, how best to treat (spend on) their illnesses. No 3rd party system will ever approach self determination, about anything.

american should be able to seek other forms of medical treatment, other drugs and surgery for things. I seen parents threatened if they did not make their cancer stricken kids take chemo and radiation.....one teenager was forced by a judge to take it, despite the fact he did not want to....luckily public outcry forced this stupid (and pay off, I bet) judge to change his decision. Many of these people, ie politicians or FDA people, after leaving their current line of work, go on to be either lobbyists or the heads of various big pharma. And before some of you people (I've been hounded for saying this on both hung angels and hung devils), who most likely invest in pharma stocks, that some drugs and surgery can be useful and helpful...but there are many, many that don't work and are harmful.....like viox and avandia....the latter of which, I think, killed my dad....are poisons just made to make a quick buck (they make millions, if not billions off this stuff before they pull it off the market) and many scientists were bribed or threatened not to tell of the dangers. And that fat fuck, John Engler, the former MI governor, made it illegal to sue drug companies here....even if they are at fault.

People should be given choices on how to treat themselves, not not be limited to one or two. Anyone else agree with me on this, or am I just a misfit, more so?

[smc]

Originally Posted by Trogdor

People should be given choices on how to treat themselves, not not be limited to one or two. Anyone else agree with me on this, or am I just a misfit, more so?

The pharmaceutical firms are, from a business standpoint, reprehensible profiteers who put profits ahead of everything.

To be forced to undergo certain treatments happens, but it is hardly the norm anywhere in the U.S. medical system. You really need to stop generalizing everything, Trogdor. When you see something you oppose, you can write about it without making it bigger than it really is. That only diminishes the value of your points and makes it easier for others to dismiss them.

However, separate from the pharma issue, who should pay when people show up at the emergency room with no insurance and needing care to reverse their "self-treatment" or their choices that may have been contrary to medical advice?

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Any objective person knew that Obamacare violated the Constitution. Yet Obama and the House & Senate all charged ahead with passing Obamacare anyway. Why? Are they really that out of touch with the Constitution and the American people? Isn't Egypt looking for a new dictator? Let's send them all there.

The level of generalization is just so ridiculous as to be almost dismissable, were it not for the danger inherent in these generalizations. ANY OBJECTIVE PERSON? Give me a fuckin' break.

First off, the ruling is only about the "individual mandate" clause. Second, it's open to judicial interpretation ... the basis of how the system works. You are so hell-bent on seeing your views vindicated that you don't even stop to think about the full story.

The courts have given wide latitude to Congress to regulate markets, and that's what the individual mandate is about. The logic -- whether you agree with the law or not - is that a person without coverage who is hospitalized might run up huge medical bills that then would be absorbed by others with insurance or by taxpayers.

That one judge in a particular jurisidiction noted for a particular politican bent makes a ruling is no cause for such hyperbole. But it's what we've come to expect from you, Tracy, just like equating Congress with a dictatorship. In Egypt, 30 years of dictatorship has had the kind of consequences for people that you make a mockery of with your false equivalency.

It does, though, point once again to the underlying vitriol in your views that seems to make it impossible for you to sustain a rational discussion for more than a post or two.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

The level of generalization is just so ridiculous as to be almost dismissable

I thought you'd get a kick out of that. I know I can count on you not to dismiss it though.

[TracyCoxx]

btw about the dictator comment, if I see a government that has a supermajority and uses that as a go-ahead to ram something as big as nationalized health care through when the public is telling them to stop then I call it as I see it. Yes they had a vote, but that was merely a formality.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Any objective person knew that Obamacare violated the Constitution. Yet Obama and the House & Senate all charged ahead with passing Obamacare anyway. Why? Are they really that out of touch with the Constitution and the American people? Isn't Egypt looking for a new dictator? Let's send them all there.

Because of the stranglehold of the healthcare industry, a national healthcare plan could not support itself unless everybody was paying into it. The young people who had minimal healthcare needs would support us olderfolks who need more care.
The only way we can have a "free" national healthcare plan is for the government to run it as a single payer and get the greedy profit obsessed healthcare providers out of it. Yes, it would be expensive. Restoring the Bush tax cuts would be take care of it, however.

[Rainrider]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Any objective person knew that Obamacare violated the Constitution. Yet Obama and the House & Senate all charged ahead with passing Obamacare anyway. Why? Are they really that out of touch with the Constitution and the American people? Isn't Egypt looking for a new dictator? Let's send them all there.

Got to love it. LOL

[Rainrider]

Originally Posted by Tread

I don’t know and doubt that Canada and England are looking to replace their whole health system, but they are still significant cheaper than the old US health system.

If you have knowledge about it you possible can explain me [B]rational[\B] how it gets more expensive with a system that is cheaper in every other country. I have no interest what you think of single persons, only about what is financial wrong about the health reform? What is different to other countries where a social health care with comparable quality works?

http://www.burtonreport.com/infhealt...healthserv.htm

Not the page I was looking for but it will do.

The cost is not in the price tag, it is in the budget. If a government can not find the funds to pay for something, ( and they are of the mind of the liberal left here in the USA, ) then the cost does not matter. If you have a piece tag of $20 but only have $5 on hand then it simply is not affordable.

[Tread]

Originally Posted by Rainrider

http://www.burtonreport.com/infhealt...healthserv.htm

Not the page I was looking for but it will do.

I assume the above was a reply to my first paragraph and not my question.

The Link doesn?t do it for me. It names flaws of mostly the British system. I could also say that a republic doesn?t work good, look at Egypt who are formal a republic (maybe a bit extreme as an example).
If I get it right the article is written by one doctor, Charles V. Burton, and all further Links go to the same site, and there are no references. Mr. Burton seems to me somewhat biased in that area:

Originally Posted by www.burtonreport.com

There are some indications (however slight) that the seemingly inexorable rise of the socialistic mentality (along with its more virulent cousins, fascism and communism) may have reached their "high tide."

There is not the perfect health system, and no one says you have to adopt the English system.
As example take Italy who have developed a system close to the British, and they are doing pretty well. Or take France as a different example. There are also systems with a basic health care and an extra private care for everyone who wants more.

Originally Posted by Rainrider

The cost is not in the price tag, it is in the budget. If a government can not find the funds to pay for something, ( and they are of the mind of the liberal left here in the USA, ) then the cost does not matter. If you have a piece tag of $20 but only have $5 on hand then it simply is not affordable.

That is a very bad analogy with the price tag. You totally forget the ongoing costs.
If you assume the USA exists more than 20 years, you could take a ?credit? and save/spent less money over the time.
Simplified you pay twice as much as countries with comparable health care, relative few people get health service or too late, and a lot of people get bankrupt to afford health care in your country.

But I want an answer to:
What did they wrong with the Obama care that it wouldn?t get closer to other countries in price? Why so many say you can not afford it, when your ongoing health costs eat a bigger hole in your budget over time.

[Rainrider]

Originally Posted by Tread

I assume the above was a reply to my first paragraph and not my question.

The Link doesn?t do it for me. It names flaws of mostly the British system. I could also say that a republic doesn?t work good, look at Egypt who are formal a republic (maybe a bit extreme as an example).
If I get it right the article is written by one doctor, Charles V. Burton, and all further Links go to the same site, and there are no references. Mr. Burton seems to me somewhat biased in that area:



There is not the perfect health system, and no one says you have to adopt the English system.
As example take Italy who have developed a system close to the British, and they are doing pretty well. Or take France as a different example. There are also systems with a basic health care and an extra private care for everyone who wants more.



That is a very bad analogy with the price tag. You totally forget the ongoing costs.
If you assume the USA exists more than 20 years, you could take a ?credit? and save/spent less money over the time.
Simplified you pay twice as much as countries with comparable health care, relative few people get health service or too late, and a lot of people get bankrupt to afford health care in your country.

But I want an answer to:
What did they wrong with the Obama care that it wouldn?t get closer to other countries in price? Why so many say you can not afford it, when your ongoing health costs eat a bigger hole in your budget over time.

If we are to bring down health cost in this nation, I feel it be best to start by stopping all the silly lawsuits that cost doctors and or hospitals well over 2 million a year to ether fight or just pay the person off. To bring this to an end, I would say if a person does sue another, and they loss. What ever they sued for they should have to pay out. Also we need more people with commonsense to sit on the jury. There simply is no way I would have said that McDonald's should have had to pay out any thing over some one spilling coffee on them self. Or that any one other than one doing the smoking is respectable for their getting COPD from the cigarettes. This nation needs to face the fact that people are responsible for their own actions. Not look for the fast buck by saying McDonald's made me fat. If they push away the fries, and don't eat food that is know to be fating, or just stooped eating at fast food, would they loss wight?
Now get me wrong, ( seems most every one want on here wants to make any one that does see things there way as the bad guy) I do not think a doctor should be allowed to make a blatant mistake and not pay for it. How ever to sue them for simply thinking you had a cold and it turned out to be allegories, now that going to fare. And yes that did happen right in my little town. The doctor rather than fight it, simply paid them off, and went on about his rat killing. I think he should have fought it my self. Then if you look at the pay out it was less than the cost to fight. So in a way it does add up. That would just be a first step. Next I would want to know why it is that in Mexico, you can get the same drug made by Johnson and Johnson, for less that 1/2 the price.
I could go on and on about the things I see wrong. And even if there is a legit reason for any of it, there has to be a way to fix it. Like killing some of the regulations faced by business in this nation. Lower taxes and fight hard to bring jobs back into this nation that have been shipped over sea's. Trust me I can on for days and even years about what is wrong in this nation. Every bit of would lead back to the government. Ether in taxes, NAFTA, the EPA, and so on.

[Tread]

Originally Posted by Rainrider

If we are to bring down health cost in this nation, ...
...
I could go on and on about the things I see wrong. And even if there is a legit reason for any of it, there has to be a way to fix it. Like killing some of the regulations faced by business in this nation. Lower taxes and fight hard to bring jobs back into this nation that have been shipped over sea's. Trust me I can on for days and even years about what is wrong in this nation. Every bit of would lead back to the government. Ether in taxes, NAFTA, the EPA, and so on.

Even if you cut taxes to zero and pay premiums for producing in USA you can?t compete with the low wages of some countries. It?s an illusion to think that alone would solve the problem.

Except for your distend sue everything and your peculiar jury decisions, Europe has similar problems with evil pharmacy concerns, dubious price arrangements, or ?inventing? new product that do the same for double price, and so on.

But my question, you try to evade from, is about your former social health care plans. The idea all pay in, so that a single one, and in summation everyone, has to pay less.
Why they say it would get even more expensive? Why can every other country do it cheaper with a flood of different realizations?

[Rainrider]

Originally Posted by Tread

Even if you cut taxes to zero and pay premiums for producing in USA you can’t compete with the low wages of some countries. It’s an illusion to think that alone would solve the problem.

Except for your distend sue everything and your peculiar jury decisions, Europe has similar problems with evil pharmacy concerns, dubious price arrangements, or “inventing” new product that do the same for double price, and so on.

But my question, you try to evade from, is about your former social health care plans. The idea all pay in, so that a single one, and in summation everyone, has to pay less.



Why they say it would get even more expensive? Why can every other country do it cheaper with a flood of different realizations?

I never said that alone cutting taxes would bring jobs back to the USA. I know full well that we would have to pull out of NAFTA, there would have to be some kind of import tax, ( on home based companies as well as an export tax.) It would take me some time to put anything together that would have a chance of working. Though give some time I bet I can. The place to start would be looking back to see just what got them moving over sea's in the first place. Though I know it had to with the drop of both import and export tax, I also know there was a lot more to it than that. This is not something we can just put a bandage on.

Not sure what you are asking on the next part. If you can make it bit more clear I will try to answer it.

Like I stated before, the cost would have to go up to pay all the new taxes that will be imposed. Also it will end up costing more for the tax payer do to the large # of folks that will be placed on government insurances.
Let try to show what I mean.
I will work with a made up company here. Let call it X Inc. They now have lets say 1000 people working for them. They are paying out 100,000 a year to help the employees with health coverage. Now under Obama care, they can keep paying out the 100,000 or drop alll coverage and pay out only 10,000 a year to cover the fines. What would you do? So given that almost all will drop any coverage they now keep, you have another 1000 people that will be forced to except Obama care. Add to that the some, (lets make the math easy here, ) 1000 others like X Inc that will do the same, and the cost keeps going up. I am not talking the cost of care, I am talking the cost to the tax payer. The Obama administration has already shown the world it can not run a used car lot, so what makes any one think they can run a national health care system?

[ila]

Originally Posted by Rainrider

Will to truly understand thing one must have at lest some first hand knowledge of how it works. You know as well as I do that should I tell you how an 18 wheel works it would seem Greek to you. (Well if you never had to deal with one that is) Yet for some one that has spent better than 1/2 his life in or under one, it would be clear as a bell. I made this statement at work, that was when we found and printed a copy of the bill, before it was passed, and gave it real close look.
Now keep in mind I have said before I am dyslexic, so rather than take the week it would have taken me to really read it, I had some one read it to me, then I went back to the parts I wanted to really look at. So what I have to say about the parts of the bill I did study, come from my understanding of the thing.
The thing I find sad about the who thing though, if it could be made to work, why is it that Canada and England, are now looking for a way to replace it. They both clam they can not keep it going. The cost is to high, and there some other reason that I can not call to mind right off.

I can't speak for England, but Canada is not looking to replace the current healthcare system. Every government will always make minor changes and tweaks, but there is no movement to replace the system.

Now back to my original point in your quote and the first sentence of your quote. I wrote that just because one is a doctor in the US does not necessarily make that person an expert or even knowledgeable about socialized healthcare. One would actually have to work in socialized healthcare to be able to properly form an opinion and the majority of doctors in the US have not worked in socialized healthcare.

Next point; a great many countries in Europe also have socialized healthcare and it is functioning well in those countries.

Last point; There is a good chance that I know more about 18 wheel trucks than you do so don't start making assumptions about what I know and what I don't know.

[Rainrider]

Originally Posted by ila

I can't speak for England, but Canada is not looking to replace the current healthcare system. Every government will always make minor changes and tweaks, but there is no movement to replace the system.

Now back to my original point in your quote and the first sentence of your quote. I wrote that just because one is a doctor in the US does not necessarily make that person an expert or even knowledgeable about socialized healthcare. One would actually have to work in socialized healthcare to be able to properly form an opinion and the majority of doctors in the US have not worked in socialized healthcare.

Next point; a great many countries in Europe also have socialized healthcare and it is functioning well in those countries.

Last point; There is a good chance that I know more about 18 wheel trucks than you do so don't start making assumptions about what I know and what I don't know.

Well to start with I did not make any assumption at all. If you had bothered to read, you would have seen that I said IF YOU HAD NEVER HAD TO DEAL WITH ONE> there for any assumption on that statement looks to be on your part not mine.

I will have to look for the web sight to be sure, though I do know that england is in fact looking for a way to one of 2 things, Cut cost, to make it more affordable, or find some way to raise the needed funds to pay for the health care as is. As it stands now, (should I find the web sight) you wil also see that many people in many of the places that do have socialized health care, can not get drugs they need, or in some cases the care they needed. The Government simply can not afford the cost.
This is why in Obumercare there is a close that gives the goverment the right to deny care. If you look up the text of the bill you will find this on page 380 lines 10and 11.