BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Mar 11 - 06:20 AM

I thought I'd revive this old thread rather than start a new one.

I think a new thread with a link to this one in the opening post would make a lot more sense. Makes for fewer problems in loading the thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: gnu
Date: 18 Mar 11 - 05:47 AM

I saw the ENT referred to in my last post. Revisited her in September. She said she would try to get me in for an op by November or refer me to another doc as she was going on 6 months maternity leave. I am still waiting for a call from whatever doc I was referred to.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 18 Mar 11 - 05:12 AM

Good find IanC... but what is the quality of that long life in the UK? If it is longer time in poorly run residential and palliative care, is that really a win?

Sorry... I am depressed because I want to go home to US but can't afford to because of the health care situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: IanC
Date: 18 Mar 11 - 04:10 AM

I thought I'd revive this old thread rather than start a new one.

The latest figures, published today, on life expectancy show that people in the UK now live to an average 80 years. Two years more than in the US.

Life expectancy is the ultimate measure of general health (unless you're at war) so this is significant. The cost of health care in the US is almost twice what it is in the UK.

I think that gives an idea of what a nationalised health care system can do for you.

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Apr 10 - 04:40 PM

"I think the NHS is a wonderful, wonderful thing. What it did for my
family and for my son, I will never forget. I went from hospital to
hospital, A&Es in the middle of the night, sleeping in different wards
in different places. The dedication, and the vocation and the love
you get from people who work in the NHS just, I think, makes me
incredibly proud of this country, so thank you for all that you've
done.

"I think it is special, the NHS, and we made a special
exception of the NHS and said yes, there are going to have to be
difficult financial decisions elsewhere, but we think that the NHS
budget should grow in real terms, i.e., more than inflation, every
year under a Conservative government. My vision is that we
improve it, we expand it, we develop it, we make sure that it's got
more choice and more control for the patient."

Quote comes from the leader of the British Conservative Party, speaking in the course of the first TV debate with his rivals to be elected to become Prime Minister. That's the kind of thing that makes it so hard for non-Americans to begin to understand where the fanatical hatred for advocates of health reform in the USA comes from.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: ichMael
Date: 01 Apr 10 - 08:46 PM

...it is estimated that a record $120 million was spent lobbying for health reform. In addition to direct lobbying, some of the top firms also rewarded members of Congress with campaign contributions through political action committees and individual lobbyist donations....

OTHER LOBBYIST / CONTIBUTORS:
Amgen—the nation's largest biotechnology firm
BIO—a muli million dollar biotechnology firm
Merck—the largest pharmaceutical company in the world
Blue Cross—a federation of 39 health insurance organizations
Humana—the fourth largest health insurance company in the United States
UnitedHealth Group—the nations largest health insurance company
Cigna—the nation's fifth largest health insurance company

The largest health insurance providers in the nation are UnitedHealth Group, WellPoint, Aetna, Humana and Cigna.   Ever since the healthcare debate began over a year ago, shares of Cigna, UnitedHealth Group and WellPoint have been up an average of 120%.   Upon passage of the bill, health insurer's stocks soared with Aetna hitting a 52 week high. The share price of Cigna surged 375% compared to 46% for the stock market overall...

http://revoltoftheplebs.wordpress.com/2010/03/30/the-k-street-hustlin-of-obamacare/

WHY they did it

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: gnu
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 01:32 PM

I picked the ENT with the shortest referral time. Referral was on July 13 and I just called and asked when an appointment could/would be made... my appointment is June 1.

The only way to get quicker attention is by bleeding. If I win the looto (yes, it was), I am getting a referral from Kendall. >;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 01:22 PM

Yes, that could well be the plan. I can't think of any way that would work better to accomplish that end.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 06:34 AM

Maybe they're trying to get rid of it by making it so bad, people will demand that it be gotten rid of.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 12:10 AM

By the way, gnu, I think that your suspicion that the government is controlled by large business interests is right on the mark. That is the case in both Canada and the USA. Big business owns the political parties and the government. Perhaps what they have in mind is to put our existing health system under ever greater stress in order to bring in a two-tier system...one which will profit them, but not the public, needless to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 11:52 PM

If there's a shortage of doctors, then waiting times go up. I gather that there is an extreme shortage of doctors in New Brunswick at the moment, gnu. There is somewhat of a shortage of family doctors in central Ontario...but I haven't heard much complaint about delays in getting treatment at local hospitals or walk-in clinics.

Clearly the system as it exists now is not perfect. I bet it would be darned hard to find one anywhere that is.

I usually go to an excellent Naturopath for most stuff I need...which is completely outside of the regular health care system. I've had the best experience with him, and have little reason to go anywhere else so far.....except the dentist, and periodic checkups on my eyesight at the optometrist. For the most part, I figure my health is entirely up to me, which means I have to eat right, drink enough water, avoid toxic food and toxic drugs (like caffeine, nicotine, aspartame, etc), get enough exercise and fresh air and sunshine, get enough sleep, and not get overly stressed out.

All that will strengthen my immune system which is my main guarantee of continued good health.

In so doing (and I've had excellent advice from the naturopath on how to keep myself healthy and what minerals and vitamins I need, etc...) I have cost the mainstream national medical insurance system just about nothing in my whole adult life so far. That doesn't mean something can't happen...but it's worked very well thus far.

That also means I've been subsidizing other people's health care through my yearly taxes....and that's just fine with me. I am glad to do so, because I live in a community and I'm part of it. Other people pay for lots of stuff I use too, after all, so what goes around comes around.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 10:18 PM

Well, I hope you get looked at soon. I don't know if this would make you feel any better or not, but if I had your problem, if we hadn't passed our health care reform law, I would have to wait until around 2021 to get any help.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: gnu
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 08:44 PM

Well... if it's a political thing, that doesn't help me at the momemnt. What matters is my Medicare is not helping me. And I am not the only one. There are a lot of us "waiting". Peeps in other countries don't get to read our newspapers about the long waiting periods to get access to health care.

I am not gonna get into why... greedy politicians trying to line their pockets along with the insurance and health care companies if they can bring in a two tier system? I dunno.

I just dunno. It seems that my government just continues to do all the wrong things and has no respect for it's citizens. It's as if they are controlled by big business.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 06:59 PM

gnu, I was given to understand by one of your fellow New Brunswickers, that the situation in that province is much worse than for the other provinces because of something that was done by your premier that discouraged doctors from wanting to practice there (or something like that). I don't think the situation in your province is necessarily an indictment of the system overall, but of the particular circumstance found in your province. My family members in other provinces are not encountering the problems you are having there.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: gnu
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 06:55 PM

Still waiting to get an appointment with an ENT since July 13. Wretching terribly many mornings for up to five minutes and spitting blood (once) does not seem to matter.

Canuck medicare is not perfect. You get sick and see what happens.

Kendall asked me about sommat he read in this forum... it was to the effect... fine, free healthcare sounds great, if you have access to it. Apparently, I do not. My GP just shrugs his shoulders and says, sometimes it takes more than a year to get an appointment.

Oh, BTW... over 6 months so far to see the eye doc.

Sorry, but I am beginning to wonder about our wonderful Canuck Medicare.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 06:37 PM

Yeah, I got that... ;-)

I think you're right that a majority of Americans don't hold Doug's opinions. The last election indicated that very strongly. The problem is that Doug's opinions are held by a majority of rural white Americans in certain regions of the country such as the Deep South and the more sparsely populated states in the Midwest and much of the West (east of the Rocky Mountains). His opinions are also more prevalent among older white people than among younger white people.

That's the traditional base of the Republican party...rural white people, and specially the older generation. They're people who are much more likely to go out and vote than younger people are, and they are people more driven by anger and frustration than younger people (whose attention is more occupied by dating, having a lively social life, getting married, looking for a new job, etc...than bitching about political issues)

The core of the conservative base both in the USA and in Canada (and, I suspect in almost all countries) is the older people from the cultural mainstream, people who are set in their ways, afraid of change, and locked into a cultural holding pattern that's a few decades out of date.

It's the forces of reaction, not innovation.

I am living in a part of Ontario that's exactly that kind of demographic, since the majority of the population right around here is older white people who used to live in Toronto when they were young liberals and who moved out to escape the rapid cultural changes and increased urbanization there. They have metamorphised into crabby old conservatives who are busyily defending themselves against change. ;-)

Whereas Toronto tends to vote for more "liberal" parties and candidates, the people in this more rural region where I live will virtually always elect a conservative to office...even if the Conservative Party runs a dog or a chimp! (I jest....but it's kind of like that)

They are afraid of change, and they are easily bamboozled by the very conservative political forces funded by big business, the very forces who are robbing them all the time in 1,000 insidious little ways.

One interesting thing, though. All those conservative people hereabouts are very much in favor of maintaining our single payer socialized health coverage. Why? Well, they've had about 50 years to try it out by now, and they like it! They don't have to fear going bankrupt if they get sick......and they're not stupid. Reactionary maybe, but not stupid. They're learned by direct experience what a damn good idea it is to have that kind of health coverage.

The jerk who's in power now (Stephen Harper, Conservative, minority government) would love to dismantle our health system and make us just like the USA, but he's not going to. He'd be committing political suicide if he tried it, and he knows that. He's not stupid either. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 05:06 PM

Pardon the typo- that should read:

... but that doesn't mean that these opinions AREN'T a crock of shit...

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 05:03 PM

Doug's opinions ... indicate that he's a fairly typical product of the society and area he was born in and the family and peer group he grew up in, and the political influences that were woven into all that.

I don't dispute this for a minute, but that doesn't mean that these opinions are a crock of shit based on misinformation, lies, mythology & wishful thinking.

And his opinions -Thank God! are NOT held by "a majority of Americans", despite what he - and you -might believe.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 04:35 PM

"If you're saying that Doug's mindset, ignorance & lack of critical thought is similar to that which allowed the Nazis to take over in Germany..."

Matter of fact, Greg, that is what I'm saying. I'm not directing it personally at Doug, because I don't see any use in that sort of personal attack on people I know, but I am saying it about the USA as a society in a general sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: The Barden of England
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 04:17 PM

Little Hawk - So very well put. I can only but agree with you.

John Barden

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 04:05 PM

I think they do, but one of the ways people deal with that kind of thing is to go into denial, and find a scapegoat. I'm sure that's where a lot of the hatred against Obama has its source.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 03:28 PM

Forget it, Kevin- these people HAVE no shame.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 02:42 PM

My point, Doug, was that since several people, including Lox had spelt out that under the NHS we all pay for each other, why did you ask a question which seemed to imply that Lox didn't understand that, or was trying to conceal it?

There are umpteen ways of organising a decent health service that makes sure that everyone gets the health care they need. The NHS is only one of those, the one that has been around longer than most of the others.

No reason why the USA shouldn't do it a different way - but plenty of reasons why it has a duty to organise itself so that all its people are able to get decent health care.

And those who would stop the USA at long last moving towards universal health care for all its people should perhaps be ashamed of themselves, and embarrassed at the shame they bring on their country.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 02:20 PM

LH:

1: answer the question & provide evidence.

2: If you're saying that Doug's mindset, ignorance & lack of critical thought is similar to that which allowed the Nazis to take over in Germany, far be it from me to contradict you.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 12:54 PM

Now, don't be nasty.... ;-)

Look, Greg, I've lived in the USA, okay? I was there for 10 years. I am well aware of how deeply certain cultural assumptions, such as "socialism is a terrible evil, and leads to Communism" and "we live in the best and freest society on Earth here" and "we are better off than other people are"...I'm well aware of how deeply they are woven into the thoughts of a majority of Americans, quite regardless of their basic level of intelligence, which after all is about the same as people's basic level of intelligence anywhere else...

It's cultural programming, and it starts at kindergarten age. That has a profound effect on people that usually lasts the rest of their lives.

Go back a few generations in the UK, and consider the cultural programming that was put into every English schoolboy regarding the natural right of the British Empire to expand all over the world, run and exploit other places, carry "the White Man's Burden", and lord it over the darker-skinned races in a kindly and benevolent (ha! ha!) manner..."for their own good"!

Ah, yes, it was a tacit assumption of most Englishmen, wasn't it? They didn't dream of questioning it. This didn't mean they were stupid, necessarily, it meant that they'd been very well programmed by a ceaseless flow of imperial dogma from the time they were old enough to walk.

Well, something quite similar happens to Americans from the time they are old enough to walk. It's a similar set of imperial and militaristic assumptions, the kind of assumptions that can only arise in a militarily dominant empire during its time of greatest historical power.

Doug's opinions do not indicate that he's stupid. They indicate that he's a fairly typical product of the society and area he was born in and the family and peer group he grew up in, and the political influences that were woven into all that.

If you studied the opinions of most Germans during Germany's imperial phase....from about the time of Bismark through the end of WWI...and a brief resurgence under the Nazis later...you'd find that they had a whole bunch of grand imperial mythology they mostly believed in too...whether or NOT they were bright, capable people of high intelligence. The Japanese also fell into that trap, and so have many other populations when their country went into an imperial phase.

It's a characteristic of the citizenry of great imperial powers during their time of expansion. They must believe in various grandiose, self-justifying, self-glorifying mythology in order to continue believing in the moral rightness of what they are doing, both to themselves and to others. Imperial powers, morally speaking, are robbers who take other people's land and resources by force...or by the threat of force. Their population cannot be allowed to see it that way or they'd lose faith in the system. They must believe that their government and social system stands for good and is the best one around. When they stop believing that, then the empire is about ready to fall. Some of them will go on believing it even after the empire has fallen...

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 09:52 AM

Now, I know you're an intelligent man, Doug...

On the basis of what evidence have you formed this opinion?

Please elaborate.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 03:58 AM

One thing that should be done, by the way, to improve our Canadian system is this: it should include dental care!

At present it does not, except for emergency surgery in a hospital after, say, an auto accident.

Normal dental care is not covered at all, and it's a major yearly expense for most people, because dentists charge a hefty fee. My yearly dental costs, on average, probably exceed all the taxes I pay for all the other medical stuff I'm covered for by our national health plan....and that's just for getting my teeth checked and cleaned, the odd cavity or filling repair, nothing major.

There is simply no way that dental care should not be included in our national health plan, and I think it's disgraceful that it's not, so there is need for change here too. Another thing that should be fully covered, in my opinion, is chiropractic treatment.

Would including those add some more to my yearly taxes? Yes. But it would not add as much as I already pay myself out of my own pocket to the dentist and the chiropractor...because again, the cost would be spread around throughout the entire public. Would the level of service change? No. The same dentists would still be available in the same locations, I'd still go to the one I like the best, and nothing would change regarding my service, I'd just be paying less for it, that's all....and I wouldn't get financially blindsided if something requiring me to undergo major dental work came along.

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.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: DougR
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 02:03 PM

Right, Lox, and WHO pays for NHS?

DougR

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: 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: 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 - 07:15 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 04:24 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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~