BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 03:46 AM

"said he would leave the country "

Haha! In Toowoomba they had a local referendum as to whether the residents would accept 'recycled water from sewage treatment' - many prominent money makers accustomed to throwing their weight around said they would leave too... they didn't :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: romanyman
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 06:05 AM

Im amazed there is even a discussion about it, sadly when i was in texas for a few years i saw seveal people who were outside the health insurance world, suffer and yes indeed die, the trouble with u.s. thinking is always based around the dollar and how much the individual can make at the expense of those less well off. it is the ultimate them and us world, the haves have loads and the havenots really do struggle, but its the american dream crap, yes we would all like to have loadsa money or even enough to get by on with out worry, sadly there is a real world out there, free health care for all is a wonderfull idea, when a friend of mine was here from the states and he was involved in an accident, the ambulance arrived in ten minutes , he was is accident and emergency in twenty five minutes, his broken leg was in a cast after xrays etc within an hour and a half, cost, nothing , nought , nada, had it happened stateside , well your guess is as good as mine, im not saying the national health service is perfect, its not, but hell its better than in some places. oh and as an aside he got a bill from the nhs, compared it with stateside and it was less than one sixteenth of what he would have paid. his travel insurance of course covered it.
had he not been a visitor he would have paid nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 06:09 AM

We enjoy a freedom that few countries enjoy except the U.S.

Yeah, McGrath, living in a socialist nanny state like you do, you just can't imagine the exhilarating sense of liberation that comes with living in a country where we are free to die for lack of access to proper medical care.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 07:19 AM

I'm with Carol on ths one...

Bye, bye, Rush!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 09:29 AM

The morons are trying to take over...

Sorry, Bobert- wrong tense. Doug's only one of many.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 10:43 AM

Greg-

No, Doug's too bright to be classified as a moron. He just has a different set of political and social priorities and probably can afford to pay for full health insurance.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: romanyman
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 01:08 PM

sounds like ya,ll need some of our free mental health care

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 01:11 PM

No, Doug's too bright to be classified as a moron.

Documentation, please. Certainly not evident from the crap he posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 02:55 PM

I have to say, I am mystified how someone who is regarded as "bright" could find it so easy to swallow without question the outright lies and misinformation that are passed off as journalism on FOX News.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 03:52 PM

Nationalised health care is a great idea, but for it to work long term, people must be educated into understanding that it is to be treated with respect as a "national" service.

Unfortunately our economic/social system does not encourage such a mindset....everyone, from our top politicians, to the benefit inflicted poor, are on the take. Indeed, the poor are obliged to screw the system, the abuse is built into the machine; the same applies to the self employed and the rich....all screw the system for all they are worth, it is expected of them.
The people who pay for everything are those on PAYE who have no escape, the machine gobbles them up lock stock and barrel.

How does this affect healthcare? In the UK the "health service" has become a gigantic money trough, abused by everyone, GP's, consultants, nurses, drug companies, and worst of all a general public who have no idea what they are fortunate enough to have inherited and rip it off at every opportunity.

For any of the great "national sevices" to work, the system must change, we must develop respect for society and ourselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 04:25 PM

CarolC and GregF-

I also find it mystifying (with regard to Doug's posts) but I do assume he sincerely believes in what he is posting. I certainly disagree with him and I'm very pleased and relieved that we finally have a comprehensive health care law. And I hope our politicians have the guts and intelligence to make major improvements to it in the years ahead.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: katlaughing
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 04:31 PM

This is rather long, but I think Kucinich is well worth listening to...this came in an email from his office..it's from an interview he did with Esquire Magazine:

What President Obama Didn't Say

The gentleman from Ohio - the last man standing on health care, as he put it in this conversation with Esquire.com just before Sunday's vote - reveals the personal moments behind his decision, and how the fate of a nation, if not a presidency, could have turned out a lot differently had he said "no."

By: Dennis Kucinich - as told to Mark Warren, Sunday, March 21, 2010
From Esquire.com - March 22, 2010, 2:35 pm

The meeting that took place on Air Force One was the fourth in a series of meetings that I had attended with the president in the last few months. There was a meeting on March 4 where the president called nine members to the Roosevelt Room at the White House, and eight of the members had voted for the bill when it passed the House last fall. I was the only one who voted against the bill. I thanked the president for inviting me even though I was a "no" vote. And in the more than hour-long meeting, the president covered a lot of territory about what he thought was important to consider. I sat quietly and listened carefully and took some notes. And at the end of the meeting, you know, we thanked each other, and I left.

When I arrived home that evening - March 4 - I still had this deep sense of compassion for the president for what he was struggling with in trying to pass the bill. And it was very clear to me that there was a lot on the line here - that he didn't say. I was just thinking about the scope of American history, and here's a president who's trying to do something, even if I don't agree with him. I told my wife, "You know I kinda feel bad about the situation he's in here. This is really a tough situation - his presidency is on the line." And I had a sense of sadness about what I saw him grappling with. I still maintained my position, still went forward in debates, arguing in meetings, arguing against the bill because it didn't have a public option, didn't have an opening for the states to pursue single-payer in a free manner. But at the same time I kinda remember the feeling that I had about watching him as he was dealing with this and, you know, trying to do what he felt was best for the nation.

Now keep something in mind about my relationship with President Obama: He and I campaigned together. A meeting with the president is always important - he and I have met dozens of times, during the campaign and since he became president - but we've met on many occasions. Four or five times about health care. So the relationship I have with him is a little bit different than other members who weren't on the campaign trail with him and who hadn't developed a relationship with him apart from the relationship that members of Congress ordinarily have with the president.

So I was really looking at Barack Obama the man, and thinking about his presidency. I've had differences of opinion with him on a number of issues. But I understand how this is a pivotal moment in America, and in his presidency. It's also a pivotal moment in American history. Of course, I carried that awareness with me into the next meeting, which took place on Air Force One on the fifteenth of March. Last Monday. So much has happened in just one week, but during that time, there had been a lot of speculation. I had done many interviews attacking the bill for its well-publicized shortcomings and I was not relenting. After we met on Air Force One, I didn't tell the president that "Look, I'm changing my position - you got me." We didn't have that discussion.

My decision came last Tuesday morning. There's a place where I go in the Capitol, just to kind of reflect - before I have to make very important decisions. It's in the rotunda - right next to Lincoln's statue. It's just a bench. And I went over there early Tuesday morning, about seven in the morning when the sun was just coming up, and no one else was around - there wasn't a sound in the Capitol at that moment in the morning. And I just sat down there in a quiet place and thought about this decision. And that's literally where I made up my mind that, notwithstanding how much there was in the bill that I didn't like, that I had a higher responsibility to my constituents, to the nation, to my president and his presidency, to step forward and say, "We must pass this bill. And we must use this bill as an opening toward a renewed effort for a more comprehensive approach to health care reform."

The Speaker and I also had many discussions about the bill. And I talked to her briefly on Monday night and told her that I was giving some thought to the appeals that she had made to me. And she said, "Oh, Dennis, you know, I just hope that you'll be with us on this. This is so important." And I said, "Well I'm giving some thought to what your concerns have been, Madame Speaker." And on Monday night, I talked to my wife, Elizabeth - at home, it was late.

Elizabeth asked how the day went. And I told her. I said, "You know I'm giving this a lot of thought." I asked, "What would you think if I decided to support this?" And she said, "Look, I'll support - whatever decision you make, I'll stand behind you." And it was important for me to talk to her because, you know, spouses live with the decisions that members of Congress make. I mean, I have had occasion to ask Elizabeth's opinion, and if she feels very strongly about something, I'm open to being persuaded. That's just what happens when you have a partnership. So I asked what she thought, and then I got up in the morning and headed right over to the Capitol just to meditate on all the discussions that I'd had - with the president, with Speaker Pelosi, with my wife, and with my constituents.

And then after being in the rotunda for about fifteen minutes, I left and went over to my office. That afternoon, I had a meeting with my staff, and I told them that I was going to come out in favor of the bill. But I had no discussions with anyone. And I did not notify the White House - the White House found out about it when I announced it from the press gallery. Because I just felt that this had to be a decision that I made on my own, without any coaxing one way or another. I wanted even people in the White House to know that this decision came ultimately from my own willingness to pay careful attention to the concerns that the president, the Speaker, and others had expressed to me.

This was a particularly hard decision because the private insurance model is something that I don't support. As I've said before, I don't take back any of the criticisms I've made of the bill. This is reform within the context of a for-profit system. And the for-profit system has been quite predatory - it makes money for not providing health care. Now, the reforms in this bill may provide some relief from that impulse. But, nevertheless, I have my work cut out for me now in continuing the effort toward a much broader approach to health care reform, which would include attention to diet, nutrition, complementary alternative medicine, and empowering states to move forward with single-payer.

When it comes to analyzing the law we've just passed, it's hard to use terms like good or bad. Because ultimately what was decisive for me was not the bill, but rather the potential to create an opening for a more comprehensive approach toward health care reform. If the bill were to go down, this whole discussion about anything we might hope to do in health care in the future is not going to happen in this generation. We had to wait sixteen years after the demise of the Clinton plan to come to this moment. And the angst that members are feeling about this bill - the temperature that's been raised in the body politic over this bill, the characterizations of the bill in a debate that's been quite distorted - all of those things argue against bringing up another health care bill in the near future if this bill were to go down.

Well I had to consider that. Because I have to take responsibility for that.

Someone in the media said that I was prepared to be the Ralph Nader of health care reform. If by the Ralph Nader of health care reform someone means someone who holds crooked corporations accountable, then that's a compliment. If they were referring to the 2000 presidential race, I think those who were closest in the Gore campaign realize that that campaign was death by a thousand cuts. And to try to put it all on Ralph Nader is, you know, historically glib.

But the synthesis of that argument was this: People were telling me, "Dennis, you are helping to gather momentum in the direction toward the defeat of the bill." That's what people were telling me. That's what the message was. And: "Is this something you really want to do?" And of course I have to consider, when the vote is close, and however the final tally turns, but whether the bill passes by one vote or five votes or more, the question of momentum was something everyone was concerned about at that point. And people were concerned that if I continued to maintain my position of hammering away at the defects of the bill that I may cause its defeat. That's a legitimate criticism. It's something that I had to take into account in terms of my personal responsibility for the position that I held, and the impact that it would have on my constituents. We always have to be open to people who may hold a view that may be different than yours. Because you might learn something.

And so as we came closer, and it appeared that I would be in a pivotal position, I realized that the moment required me to look at this in the broadest terms possible. To look at this in terms of the long-term impact on my constituents, of the moment in history in which we now stand, of the impact on the country, of the impact on the Obama presidency, on the impact on the president personally. I had to think about all of this. I couldn't just say, "Well here's my position: I'm for single-payer, and this isn't single-payer, so I'm going to defeat the bill."

Last year, seventy-seven members of Congress agreed that if the bill didn't have a public option, they were going to vote against it. And there were only two members who had kept that pledge when it was voted on the first time in the House. And I was one of them. And the other one's no longer in Congress. So I basically was the last man standing here. So I'm aware of the debate that took place in favor of the bill. My concern was that this bill was hermetically sealed to admit no opening toward a not-for-profit system, no competition from the public sector with the private insurers. Which makes the claims of a government takeover such a joke. You know, those who claim that this is socialism probably don't know anything about socialism - or capitalism.

Those claims are just part of an effort to destroy the Obama presidency. And, of course, to produce gridlock - so that nothing can happen. Because if this bill goes down, which figured into my calculus - the bill goes down, we'll be gridlocked. We will be unlikely to pass any meaningful legislation about anything. The presidency will be weakened, the Congress will be in a place where the leadership will be undermined.

But let's go deeper than that. We're at a pivotal moment in American history, and in contrast to a crippled presidency, I have to believe that this effort, however imperfect, will now have a broad positive effect on American society, and make possible many things that might not have otherwise been possible. Once this bill is signed into law, more Americans are going to be aware of this as they ask, What's in it for me? And as they become more familiar with the new law, more people will be accepting this bill. The president will have a stronger hand in domestic and international affairs, and that will be good for the country. The Democrats will be emboldened to pass an economic agenda, which has been waiting for this bill to pass. Wrong or right, as far as a strategy, the White House invested so much in this health care bill that everything else was waiting. Now, I think there's a chance that the party will regain some momentum. And if it does, then the American people will finally have a chance to see something done about creating jobs, about keeping people in their homes, about helping small businesses get access to credit, which is a huge problem right now.

And so I think that the pivot here could be toward a very exciting time where the Obama presidency gets a chance to hit the reset button. This is my hope, at least.

All of this went through my mind as I sat in the quiet Capitol rotunda last Tuesday morning. I thought about what could happen if I was willing to show some flexibility, and to compromise for the sake of a broader progress. That was all part of my thinking as I got the point where I stepped to the podium in the Capitol to announce my decision. And right after I finished what I had to say and left the room, the president called. I understood the importance of the call, and he understood the importance of the decision that I made. There was gravity in the moment. There is a lot at stake here.

I took it all into account - everything that I hoped would happen if this were to pass, everything that I hope will happen. And if those things come to pass because of the small role I may have played in switching the momentum, then my service in Congress has been worth it.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 04:40 PM

Well, I think Doug grew up among a peer group who espoused a certain set of social values...those most associated with individuals like John Wayne or Ronald Reagan...and he has never altered that original set of values in the passage of the years or had the slightest doubt about them, and he reads and listens to material that endorses that set of values, and therefore he feels continually reinforced in them.

It's a self-perpetuating cycle. That doesn't mean he's stupid, it means he's working from a different set of basic assumptions.

He believes what most of us here would laugh at in astonishment. But that's normality for Doug.

In Canada he would represent a very, very small minority of public opinion. Canadians who are opposed to our single payer universal health plan are as rare as hen's teeth, although Fox TV has probably managed to find one or two such demented people to put on their news programs at some time. This would be sort of like finding the one or two non-Muslim White Americans who want to join Al Queda and bomb the USA. Not easy.......but if you look really F-in hard, you can probably find them. ;-) And that's what propaganda saps like Fox do, at the behest of the American health insurance industry, who will pay lotsa money to someone like that if they can possibly find them, so they can present false and misleading testimony on Fox News.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 04:50 PM

LH,

Cannot the same be said of all others here, including yourself?



"That doesn't mean he's stupid, it means he's working from a different set of basic assumptions."




On some topics, YOU believe what most of us here would laugh at in astonishment. But that's normality for Little Hawk.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 04:53 PM

LH, my father grew up surrounded by the same culture and mindset, and while he doesn't normally look outside the mainstream news sources for information, he is capable of critical thought. People who accept without question everything told to them by the people at FOX do not appear to be capable of critical thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: The Barden of England
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 05:26 PM

DougR wrote:-
We enjoy a freedom that few countries enjoy except the U.S. If we were so bad, there wouldn't be so many risking their lives to sneak into our country.
Here's the news for you DougR - King George III doesn't rule here in the UK, and I could quite easily substitute 'UK' for 'U.S.' in your post. How on earth you can glibbly insinuate that 'few countries enjoy freedom except the U.S.' is quite simply astonishing. Been to many of them have you? No wonder the 'free' world has such a poor impression of the USA.
John Barden

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 06:09 PM

I do assume he sincerely believes in what he is posting.

That just makes him delusional as well as a moron. Its an explanation, not an excuse, Charlie.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 06:33 PM

Barden... that quote from Doug R. was from a paragraph that was simply 5-6 slogans the Republicans are fond of declaiming. Each of the sentiments he throws out are subject to extensive analysis and correction as to relevance and accuracy....for example..."If we were so bad, there wouldn't be so many risking their lives to sneak into our country.".... Yep... we ARE better off than some of the countries he means (mostly Mexico)... but we are NOT as well-off as SOME ...especially as to health care (for example, Denmark --look it up).

   "Freedom" is a relative thing, and can mean many things, and 'our government' "of the people, by the people, for the people" always needs some regular course correction. When insurance companies do NOT play fair, the government is the ONLY institution who can force then to play fair, and even that is gonna take work.

This bill does NOT yet effectively rein in insurance charges, but this is a start. The insurance companies fought against it because it DOES make a start, and they don't want even a precedent of having their way of doing things changed! They want to control the rules ABOUT making rules. They will still make unfair profits under this current bill...(3% of trillions is a LOT of money!)... but they want unfettered "freedom" to rake it in with no regard for who is helped.....and to this end, they fund the election campaigns of Republicans (and some Democrats) who are likely to vote their way!

This system needs to be changed!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 07:17 PM

""Our government is not omnipotent, our elected representatives are supposed to work for us, we do not work for them. I think this difference accounts for the frustration many of our friends across the pond experience when it comes to debating US politics.""

Your total ignorance of just about everything that goes on outside your blinkered and sheltered existence, is astonishing.

Our government too is not omnipotent.

Our health care is funded as a result of a consensus of opinion which recognises the benefits of donating a small proportion of our income to healthcare (about one tenth of what you pay), so that everybody gets needed treatment without having to pay at the point of receipt.

Nobody in the UK goes bankrupt trying to pay for healthcare.

Nobody is excluded, because they turn up at the hospital without their credit card, or insurance policy.

Nobody is excluded because they had a pre-existing case of acne twenty five years ago.

Nobody is excluded because their newly acquired disease will need long term care.

In fact, NOBODY is excluded!!!

Now, what were you saying about freedom?.......Oh YES! Freedom for the Well Off, The Well Connected, and the Well Employed, but, and it's a big but, what happens when you lose your job, or get too sick to work?

Your attitude finally changes!!.....THAT'S WHAT!!

I find myself kind of looking forward to the day when you become one of the "losers" you refuse to help because it might cost you a few dollars.

That's why your country isn't free, isn't a democracy, and isn't fully civilised. Because you won't let it be any of those things.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 07:50 PM

Well, ya'll would love to hear what Redneck Nation, which BTW Page County, Va. could be its capitol, is saying today aout the health care reform...

No, on the other hand, you wouldn't...

Even Doug R would be offended...

b~

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Maryrrf
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 09:57 PM

I'm glad the bill, flawed though it was because of all the negotiation that had to be done in order to get it through - has passed. But the opposition has revealed a very, very disturbing and ugly side of American society.

I agree with Bobert. If anybody wants to opt out and not have health insurance then let them. But they should NOT receive medical treatment of any kind unless they prepay.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 09:58 PM

I can't see how that post of yours at 24 Mar 10 - 01:25 AM , Doug, relates to the last post I made, which was about how the value of clinical tests shouldn't be seen primarily in terms of financial savings but rather in terms of whether they save people's lives.

Maybe you were referring to a previous post of mine.

So far as not letting governments tell you what to do, they do it all the time, in line with the promises politicians made when standing for election, or at least that is how it's supposed to work. You have taxes and laws and police and armies, and my impression is that in fact you may well have a lot more regulations about all kinds of things than we do here.

When it comes to health care, already people eligible for Medicare can't opt out it, as I understand it, though of course they can always choose to use non-medicare health providers, just as we can use private health rather than the NHS if we wish to and it suits us better. Having equivalent cover for younger people as well doesn't involve a change of principle.

I believe at one time fire brigades operated on a private insurance model - if you weren't insured they let your house burn down. One problem was that it meant that other peoples houses got burned down too. Hence what I suppose you might call the socialist model of public fire brigades, which operates in both our countries - including a lot of volunteer input as well in some parts. I suppose you could call that aspect anarchist...

As for "If we were so bad, there wouldn't be so many risking their lives to sneak into our country" all countries are a mix of bad and good, and immigrants, legal or illegal, balance such things out, taking the bad with the good. After all there were plenty of people who were keen to go to live in the USA in the days of slavery, or later during the Jim Crow years.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 10:15 PM

The mistake, folks, is attempting to deal with Douggie as if he was a rational individual, capable of critical thought and the accurate analysis of information.

Since he's a delusional ideologue with little or no grip on reality....

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: ichMael
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 10:24 PM

Maybe I'm wrong here, but are some of you arguing that people who don't support this so-called "healthcare" abomination should DIE? This was supposed to be about helping people, but now you're arguing for their DEATHS?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 02:18 AM

I have not posted to this thread for many moons and its size has become totally unwieldy, but that being said has anything really changed? Obama has managed to pass a bill that has been gutted by his opponents, but is that a victory for the people or for the corporations? Is win/win equivalent to lose/lose?
What he tried to do from the start had great merit but it seems that fools were determined to derail his initiative. Those fools still seem to try to justify their being used as pawns of the insurance industry as an accomplishment. How stupid can some folks be?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 02:32 AM

A lot has changed for those of us who have been without access to health insurance. Most people won't see the effects of the changes right away (although some will, including a lot of children and young adults), but some of the changes will go into effect right away and will be implemented as soon as they can be.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 02:36 AM

By the way, a lot has changed for people with insurance, as well. When the new law is fully implemented, insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse to cover people with pre-existing conditions, deny care for people with pre-existing conditions, kick people off their insurance because they got sick, or place any yearly or lifetime caps on how much people can receive in benefits. Rate increases will be subject to review and insurance companies will have to provide a good reason for raising their rates.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 07:04 AM

Nah, ichM, we ain't saying that more people should die... We are sayin' that if there are people out there who believe so strongly in "personal responsibility" that they can pay their own way, regardless of their future circumstance such as lost income, catestrophic illness or whatever, that if that's what it takes for people to be happy with this bill then...

...let them opt the heck out!!!

Yeah, that would mean that they are out there alone on their own little halth care islands... I can live with that... We have living wills that say "do not ressessitate"... We could put them into a system that says "do not treat without prepayment...

But no... Even this wouldn't make the rigthies happy because this ain't about health care... It's about them being out of power and having a black president... That bugs them... They don't like either and they are just going to have hissy-fit after hissy-fit over it until the cows come home...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 07:12 AM

BTW, I signed an online petition and send off a few comments to Virginia's attorney general last night protesting the fact that he wasted my tax dollars preparing a law suit against the health care reform bill before it was even signed into law... The fact that he files the papers 10 minutes after the signing was nothing but partisan granstanding... It would have taken days, if not weeks, to write the appeal and therefore it can only be assumed that he was busy with that other than doing the state's more prsssing business...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Sawzaw
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 10:48 PM

"insurance companies will have to provide a good reason for raising their rates."

What would be a good reason?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 03:35 AM

The reason will have to be tied to the actual cost of doing business.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 04:24 AM

I think Akenaton's analogy is correct. ...that being said, a lot of the debate, here in America, at this time, is that we cannot afford this now, and it was wrought with a lot of deceit, and pushed through against the will of the majority of the people. That is FACT, whether you want to admit it or not.

Personally, I believe we need not only 'health care' REFORM, but insurance company reform, as a separate thing...though they are so interwoven. Medicine should not be a political issue, nor should who gets what treatment be based on political values, but rather the NEEDS of the infirmed....and health care can be properly executed as a SERVICE, to the public, and not as an usurpation of power, greed, or politically driven agendas.

If we can help with the needy, let's do it....but do it honestly, effectively and efficiently. Let the MEDICAL community, have a real say, as to what they need, to do their job...and shame on both sides for using doctors and nurses, as mouth pieces to promote either side of the political agendas!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 04:27 AM

It was not pushed through against the will of the majority of the people. Most of the polls show that most of the time, the majority of people supported the bill. And when the polls showed otherwise, a large percentage of the people who didn't support it said they would support it if it included a public option. What you said is not a fact, and that's a fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 04:44 AM

Wrong Carol! The majority of the people were NOT represented....besides, how can you say that they supported it when even Pelosi, said, 'Let's pass this bill, so we can see what's in it'??

Gosh, didn't Obama say that he was going to post it for 5 days on CNN for all to see?......How does that reconcile with Pelosi's statement?????????????????????????????

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 12:50 PM

GfS, most of the polls showed that most of the people favored the bill most of the time, and many of those who didn't would have had the bill included a public option. That's an easily provable fact. Get over it.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 05:21 PM

Maybe some kind of system in which the will of the majority of the people at any particular time determined what should be done might be a good system, but it's not the system that is operative, or in the case of the USA, not the system laid down in the Constitution.

Public opinion polls have no authority or legitimacy whatsoever, in political terms, any more than astrological star charts do.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 05:30 PM

Most of the people are never represented, GfS... That's reality...

As for folks being clueless about what is in the bill??? That is not accurate... The basics (bones) are understood by anyone following the last year's debates... Being able to recite every little detail and understanding the basics are two different things... If there were deatils that were so wrong then the Repubs wouldn't have missed an opportunity to turn those small details into mountains mcuh the way that the "death squads" lie was born...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Lox
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 07:15 PM

A good day today.

I went into hospital a week and a half ago as I had been having recurring chest pains and needed to get myself checked out.

I was seen straight away and given a 24 hour heart monitor to take home. Three electrodes were attached to my chest and a mobile phone sized electrical impulse recorder was clipped to my belt.

To cut a long story short, this was analyzed, I was then sent to another hospital for blood tests, I had a good in depth chat with my GP who saw me twice to ensure the matter was dealt with properly, and ... in short ... I was given First Class attention and treatment from beginning to end, culminating with the prescription of some pills whose effect was instant, Since then I have felt quite back to my usual self.

Just to reassure those who might find this worrying, and to disappoiint those for whom it might have been cause for celebration, I have no heart problems.

.... oh ...

I nearly forgot ...

What fabulous insurance company made this possible?

Well, I live in about the grittiest, grimiest and grimmest inner city area of South London, where access to, and competition for healthcare are bigger issues than in just about any other part of Britain ...

and guess what ...

... everything ... Every-Thing was Free ... no cost to me at all ... none ... it was all laid on by the NHS.

Thanks

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 07:24 PM

Well, strictly speaking, you paid for it, and I paid for it, and we all paid formit - and you all paid for my health care too. And that's how it's supposed to be in a civilised country. We all look after each other, and there's nothing extra to pay when we need it.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Lox
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 07:31 PM

Thanks McGrath,

I appreciate your contribution.

I hope one day mine helps to give you the peace of mind you need.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Sawzaw
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 01:52 PM

Hate projected on others:
"soemthing that the Repubs have hated for 7 decades"
"You know that the Repubs have hated the New Deal"
"I live in the heart of Redneck Nation... Thay hate the government"
"folks who still ahte Socail Security"

Selfishness:
"no matter what the circumstance they will not be treated in any health care system... Period!!! I don't care if they get shot, they get in an accident, they get cancer, etc., etc..." [Read the Hippocratic oath that Doctors have to take Bobert.]

Pejoratives:
"any Neaderthal who wants to opt out"
"some dumbass redneck"
"so the hospital treats the moron," [ In 2003, both Democrats and Republicans worked together to pass the Medicare Modernization Act, which dedicated $250 million per year to help hospitals recoup the costs they incur for giving emergency care to patients who cannot pay their bills. This provision, called Section 1011, has helped alleviate the financial hardship for a number of participating hospitals and likely prevented many emergency rooms throughout the country from shutting down.

Unfortunately, Section 1011 expired last year and Congress has yet to extend it.

Currently, this extension appears to be mired in the legislative clutter - neither the President's nor Congressional Republicans' healthcare proposals contained any reimbursement provisions consistent with Section 1011. I urge the administration and my colleagues to act quickly to address the issue of reimbursing hospitals for mandated emergency care.

If a healthcare reform plan is passed, ERs will still be needed to administer emergency care, and serve as a safety net for both insured and uninsured patients. .]

I thought Bobert was one of those kindly, humanitarian, let's take care of everybody progressives as opposed to a hateful, fear mongering, stingy, selfish, R********n.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 02:03 PM

Right, Lox, and WHO pays for NHS?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 02:20 PM

Doug...everybody pays for NHS, through taxes. Obviously.

Just like everybody pays for highways, schools, a police force, public libraries, public transit, a court system, a governmental system, a legal system, the mint, the fire department, and the other essential services that one must have in a modern society.

It's all paid for by taxes, and everyone pays (unless they're homeless or in jail or something, in which case they obviously don't have the means to).

Why do you not get this, Doug? Can't you see that if everyone in an entire nation shares the cost of medical services equally, then everyone can easily afford them when they themselves need them?

Can't you see the sense in spreading the cost of national around so that a specific family or individual is not blindsided and bankrupted when a medical emergency arises? That's why we spread the cost of police services around, Doug....so the police will come and help you when you need it, and they won't ask you to pay them $30,000 for the privilege of giving you help when your house is broken into or you get mugged or something. That's why we spread the cost of a fire department around, so the firemen won't send you a bill for $25,000 after your house catches on fire!

It's the same thing, for God's sake. Medical aid is an essential public service and it should be paid for by taxes, not turned into a profit-driven operation which drives citizens into bankruptcy when they get sick.

Doug, I have told you before and I'll tell you again...I pay a bit less than $1,000 Canadian dollars in taxes each year for my right to medical care with no additional charge at all. Can you match that in the USA? I know you can't. The reason you can't is because you're at the mercy of rapacious private health insurance companies who charge you WAY more for your health coverage than I will ever pay in taxes for my health coverage. WAY more. That's because my health coverage is publicly insured by the entire populace through taxes...and NOT for profit! Because it's an essential public service and a civil right of every Canadian.

How can you keep hiding your head in the sand on this issue, Doug?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 02:32 PM

We were just having a telephone conversation with JtS' mother in Canada. She is still shocked that the richest country in the world still doesn't have the kind of health care system they have in Canada. She thinks the way health care works in the US is barbaric.

She agrees that the new law will make an improvement, but she finds it shocking that insurance companies are allowed to make money at the expense of the consumers, and that even with health care reform, people will still have to pay far more for their health care in the US than people in Canada have to pay (the amount that Canadians pay in taxes for their health care is far less than we do in this country, even with the new health care law).

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 04:24 PM

Everyone up here is shocked by it, Carol.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 07:10 PM

You didn't read my post right after Lox, did you Doug? Or Lox's post after that.

You do seem to avoid reading the posts that answer your questions before you ask them. And the posts that ask you questions you'd rather avoid answering...

You're not alone in that either. The best arguments/discussions involve people actually talking to each other and listening to each other, rather than standing off somewhere on a soapbox and sounding off

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 07:36 PM

Of course health care has a cost and a way must be found in the USA to cover it! That said the cost is much lower, if you eliminate the charges of greedy for "profit health" care and drug corporations. If you eliminate this shit then universal health care is cheaper than what you would pay to another "for profit" insurance company to provide coverage. It is not rocket science that you are being ripped off!

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: ichMael
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 09:46 PM

...it takes a long time to do the necessary adminstrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people. -- U.S. Rep. John Dingell of Michigan, March 23, 2010

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xqp0eXfpiWU (45 second clip)

With the healthcare bill, the large insurance companies turned the U.S. government into the collection arm of the insurance industry:

16,000 new I.R.S. employees needed to strongarm for the insurance industry

And they WILL deal with you if you don't keep up to date on your insurance payments. Bid notice for a small allotment of illegal (14" barrel) shotguns to be used to protect the health of U.S. citizens:

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) intends to purchase sixty Remington Model 870 Police RAMAC #24587 12 gauge pump-action shotguns for the Criminal Investigation Division. The Remington parkerized shotguns, with fourteen inch barrel, modified choke, Wilson Combat Ghost Ring rear sight and XS4 Contour Bead front sight, Knoxx Reduced Recoil Adjustable Stock, and Speedfeed ribbed black forend, are designated as the only shotguns authorized for IRS duty based on compatibility with IRS existing shotgun inventory, certified armorer and combat training and protocol, maintenance, and parts.

Submit quotes including 11% Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax (FAET) and shipping to Washington DC.

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/15518/The_IRS_is_buying_Shotguns.html

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 01:29 AM

L.H., McGrath: it pains me that both of you think I am so stupid that I don't know how NHS is financed. Of course the cost is spread among the tax payers in your individual countries! What you don't seem to grasp is that the majority of citizens in the US do NOT want to adopt the type of socialized medicine that you have. I am delighted that you are happy with what you have. I would never begrudge you that, but the US is NOT like your countries, and we love the difference!

Obama's nose has grown considerably since he became president. I can't recall the number of times, while he was selling his change to health care he said, "If you like your health care plan you can keep it." Well, I can't and millions of other seniors, like myself are exactly in the same boat. And I'm suppose to love it? Gimme a break.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 03:32 AM

Okay, Doug...I'm glad you understand how our system works. I also understand that a majority of your people apparently (if I can believe your media) don't want the type of system we have.

That is what's really shocking. It indicates that a majority of your pubic, unlike you, do NOT understand our system very well at all and are irrationally afraid of what they don't understand.

I suspect, for instance, that if they knew that they'd be paying a lot less for health insurance under a system similar to ours, and still getting exactly the same quality of medical care regardless, that they'd be massively in favor of it! Trust me, people are always in favor of something that saves them money and provides the same product regardless.

Your public is swallowing myths and propaganda, I think. If so, they're being victimized by the very people they think are giving them good leadership and providing them with "freedom"...by which I mean they're being victimized by their government, their big business community, and their media.

It's simply incomprehensible, Doug, that a well-educated public who clearly understand what would happen under a system like the one in Canada and the UK would prefer what you have in the USA now. It's inconceivable. People vote with their wallents, and they'd be giving themselves and your government a big financial break and much greater financial security if they adopted a single-payer system like ours.

Now, I know you're an intelligent man, Doug, so I can only assume that you are opposed to making such a change for reasons of political philosophy rather than financial or practical reasons. If so, well...(shrug)...nothing will change your mind about it. Philosophy goes deep with people.

You seem to be saying, though, that Obama's plans are threatening your chosen form of health insurance (as a senior). I'm not clear how that is so. Can you tell me?

Quite aside from that, Doug, I am not much in favor of what Obama is doing, because he has brought in health "reform" which is, as ichMael said below: "With the healthcare bill, the large insurance companies turned the U.S. government into the collection arm of the insurance industry.

That's right! And I am completely against that. I'm also completely against the way your system was before that. I think Obama's forcing of people to purchase health insurance from the private health insurance industry might be even worse than the way it was before....but we'll have to wait and see how it works out in actuality.

What I am arguing for, Doug, is that your government should bring in the kind of system we have to protect every American citizen far better and to cost every American far less if he needs medical care. I'm not suggesting what Obama did, I'm suggesting a genuine public option that is universal. I think if your government had had the guts to offer THAT to your public, which they did not, and if the health insurance companies didn't have a lobbying strangehold on your government and media....then it could be done and it would get massive public support as soon as your people understood how it worked.