BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 06:36 PM

Uninsured citizens number over 40 million.
The health insurance corp propoganda says its only 15 million.


Don Firth, You got off easy with several sticks of dynamite 8*(
My son had numerous blockages that can be life threatening and spent 4 days on a drip. Gladly those days are long over.

Your triple play combination complication was a damn shame but your care sounded very good.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 06:50 PM

Specificallt, the VA and BIA systems.

Ya mean the systems that the Republicans since Reagan and especially your hero Georgie- boy cut the budgets of, while exhorting us to "Support the Troops"?

That one, BB?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 06:56 PM

And YOU will now make Obama President for life, so there is no risk of any reductions in the future? If not, how will you stop the rationing needed to make his other promises ( balanced budget et al) happen????


Or is a little logic too much for you to deal with?

If we can't keep funding for those under the BIA ( which have NEVER been funded to the degree needed, under ANY administration) why do you think this will be different?

It takes the entire working population of the US to fund the PRESENT Medicare syste ( look at your paystub) : How is it going to be expanded? Or has it been so poorly implemented ( by ALL administrations) that the "savings" will magically appear? If so, I want a refund of (some of) my past contributions. Just the ones during Democratic administrations, OK?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 07:19 PM

Yeah, Donuel, most of the actual medical care I've had over the years has been pretty good. Most of the hassles I've had in the process came from insurance companies.

Polio at the age of two left me with paralyzed legs and scoliosis (spinal curvature, which is why my back goes out easily). Also, there is what is known as post-polio syndrome, which often affects polio victims when they get older (such as me). It manifests itself as tiring very easily, with lots of sore muscles because of the need to substitute one set of muscles to do the job of another. I have to use my arms and shoulders a lot because I can't use my legs. My shoulders can get pretty danged sore. Overuse. But what's the choice?

Another post-polio manifestation that one must stay on top of all the time is the intestines—elimination. "Lack of motility" is what they call it, making it necessary to ride herd on anything resembling constipation, which can develop into worse, life-threatening things.

With that lovely scenario to go on, I sometimes wonder, when I get into the kind of binds that sent me to the emergency room on June 12th, when and if the insurance company will claim that it stems from a "pre-existing condition" and leave me hanging in mid-air.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 07:21 PM

Sigh.

You're perilously close to becomming a Frankian dining room table, Bruce.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Aug 09 - 08:11 AM

P.S. BB- the budget was balanced before your hero Georgie & his crew took office.

Remove his excesses & idiocies & the financial picture will look whole a lot better.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Maryrrf
Date: 22 Aug 09 - 08:53 AM

Max has posted a video on Facebook that I think warrants viewing. The campaign to derail the public option is slick, well organized, well financed and relentless. I personally know a person who works for a well known insurance company who is outraged and considering quitting her job of 23 years (she's clerical, not in a decision making position, and has a family to support) because she is so disgusted at how this company is bussing people out to "Town Hall" meetings in the guise of "ordinary citizens". America is being manipulated. Here's the You Tube Clip .

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 22 Aug 09 - 10:19 PM

Funny, no one is complaining about Acorn and Union members being bussed to Town Hall meetings to support Obama Care. Lots of complaints about normal every day citizens showing up to oppose it though.

Don: If I needed knee replacement and had to wait six to eight weeks to get the operation, I'd be less charitable than you are. My wife had to have a knee replaced and there was nothing like that lapsing between the diagnosis and the operation. As a matter of fact, she went for her last check-up on the knee on a Friday and I mentioned to the surgeon that she had been complaining about her hip hurting too. I took a picture of the hip and even I could see that it was broken. We estimate it had been for fifteen months. He scheduled hip replacement for the following Wednesday.

Somewhere out there there MUST be somebody who, though he or she could afford health insurance but doesn't have it drives a Rolls Royce.

No, Ebbie, I would not be surprised to see someone who is a staunch defender of Obama's efforts to nationalize health care interviewed on Fox news. As I matter of fact, proponents are on Fox News daily. I don't recall seeing professional people such as the former president of the Canadian Medical Society interviewed, but there are few of them around. When someone like Dr. Brian Day, MD, speaks, he does so with experience and authority.

Dr. Day also said: 5 million Canadians do not have prescription drug coverage; at any given time, 1 million Canadians are waiting for services and another million waiting for surgeries; Doctors in Canada have overwhelmingly urged an overhaul of the Canadian system. The evaluation of the 29 medical systems (with Canada coming in 29th)was NOT the effectiveness of teh system, but value for money spent.

Please note: I am not saying the above, I'm merely reporting what the former president of the Canadian Medical Association said.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Alice
Date: 22 Aug 09 - 10:29 PM

Mary, thanks for that video link!

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Aug 09 - 10:51 PM

There are always improvements needing to be made in any existing health sytem, Doug, and the Canadian one is no exception to that. It has, however, been of great benefit to the general population since it was begun in the early 1960s (as far as I recall, that's when it started), and it has worked far better than the USA's health care system...and at less cost.

It's not perfect. Neither is yours. It is under strain from a growing population and a weakened economy. So is yours. You can always find someone to complain about our health system. I can find plenty more people to complain about yours.

87% of our public favors our health system. When was the last time you got 87$ of your public to approve of something like that?

How does 87% support for our Canadian health care compare to 7% disapproval for it, Doug? How happy would you be if you were president and you could get that kind of public support for the national health care system in the USA?

I think you'd be ecstatic. It practically amounts to acclamation.

The reason Americans are afraid of socialized medicine is simple:

1. they don't know anything about it
2. they aren't familiar with it
3. they are subjected to a flood of scare propaganda by the private interests that are profiting from robbing your public to make big profits

It is ignorance that keeps Americans stuck right where they are.

But don't worry too much, Doug, because I think Obama is just going to strike the sort of deal the health insurance companies want him to...it will benefit them, not the public...and you won't get socialized medicine. You'll get some kind of bastardized system that is not anything like socialized medicine, and the rest of the world will look at you and shake its collective head in disbelief.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 23 Aug 09 - 01:34 AM

Tell me it ain't so, L.H.! Tell me you ain't bailing out on Obama!

All Obama is interested in is serving another four year term. I think he might settle for less if he could be assured of that.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Aug 09 - 11:59 AM

Since the proposed reforms don't actually envisage anything in any way comparable to the NHS, or involving any kind of single payment provider, it seems very peculiar that the attention seems to be focussed on such irrelancies by opponents.

Even if it were accurate to describe as "socialized medicine" systems of health care supported by conservative governments around the world, there appear to be no proposals to introduce such a system.

There doesn't seem to be much attention paid to such aspects of the proposed reforms as stopping insurance companies from imposing unfair restrictions on paying customers, or imposing conditions about "existing conditions". I can see why the insurance companies might dislike that kind of change, but I cannot see why anyone else, however suspicious they might be of "socialized medicine", could be anything but enthusiastically in support of such measures.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Alice
Date: 23 Aug 09 - 12:08 PM

The answer McGrath, is that the "anyone else's" are stubbornly ignorant of the facts and/or believe that being patriotic means opposing anything Obama supports.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Aug 09 - 12:11 PM

As far as I can see, Doug, Obama is pretty much doing what all your presidents do. He's cooperating with the Big Money corrupt forces that run your country. I think you know, Doug, that I despise both the Democratic and Republican parties... ;-) I like the Democrats a bit better than the Republicans in a general sort of sense (and so do about 80% of the other people in Canada), but I still despise both those parties anyway. They are the chains that bind you.

This does not mean I despise the ordinary Americans who belong to those parties or vote for them...it means I despise the party machine at the top of each party, the machine that controls the whole thing.

I like Obama as a person. I like how he carries himself and I like the way he speaks. I don't like the corrupt $ySStem he is serving. Therefore I expect I will disagree with many of his decisions and policies as time goes by. That was inevitable.

The one politician down there I really appreciate is Dennis Kucinich, and he's the only one I would have worked for if I were an American citizen. (I also do like some of Ron Paul's ideas.)

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: The Barden of England
Date: 23 Aug 09 - 12:57 PM

'When will you ever learn?'
'When will you ever learn?'

with my apologies to Pete Seeger.

John Barden

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Aug 09 - 02:32 PM

Ron Paul Quotes


Dennis Kucinich Quotes


Moonbeam Candidate? More Kucinich Quotes


I do like much of Kucinich's thinking, especially: "You say the American people need health insurance? I say the American people need health care.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 23 Aug 09 - 03:08 PM

""Don: If I needed knee replacement and had to wait six to eight weeks to get the operation, I'd be less charitable than you are.""

Yes mate, but I'm talking about a system that treats EVERYBODY who needs it, and not just those who have the right company package, or a well stacked deposit box.

There's bound to be a bit more competition, but it gives the lie to the twerps YOU choose to quote, who falsely claim that patients wait years or even die on waiting lists.

I could, of course have chosen to go private, since that system IS ALSO AVAILABLE HERE, and saved a couple of weeks. I may still end up in the local private hospital, since the NHS also purchases care from them, at reasonable rates, which takes up any gaps in their private schedule. The SOLE advantage of the private route is, so I have heard, that the food is better.

THE CARE IS IDENTICAL!

Cut it any way you like mate, we have completely destroyed every objection you have raised. Get wise to the FACTS. OUR SYSTEM WORKS!

And it would work just as well for YOU.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Aug 09 - 04:13 PM

We've got a decent enough private hospital near us. Big reception room with comfy chairs, which some people like, I suppose. (I don't, it doesn't feel like a hospital to me.) Sometimes our local NHS hospital will make use of the private hospital's services, to ease some rush. More typically the private hospital will call in the NHS to take over when something is going wrong with a case, and they need a bit more expertise.

Or people in a hurry will use the private hospital to carry out a test of some kind - if it indicates treatment is needed, that can be carried out by the NHS, making use of the private hospital's test results to save time and expense.

But all this is completely irrelevant to what should be the issues in the States at present. Whatever happens they are going to have to muddle along with their strange and costly system. The relatively minor changes being proposed would make it fairer and less damaging to the millions who fall through the net, or get chucked overboard, but it would still be essentially the same system.

Looking at it selfishly, the big advantage of the proposed reforms would it that it would be harder for those in positions of responsibility to fend off criticism of any aspect of the NHS by pointing at the USA. "Think how much worse it could be if you lived over there..."

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Aug 09 - 04:39 PM

FFS, this is very simple. Should people suffer and die because they cannot afford healthcare?


"If living was a thing that money could buy
The rich would live, and the poor would die
All my trials, Lord.."

Dammit, it may be an American song but I think I WILL start singing it.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 23 Aug 09 - 09:20 PM

TRUTH

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Aug 09 - 10:28 PM

That's a brilliant piece of political satire, Sandy, and right on the bullseye.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Aug 09 - 10:09 AM

Sally's Onion link includes;
"We have over 40 million people without insurance in this country today, and that is unacceptable," Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) said. "If we would just quit squabbling so much, we could get that number up to 50 or even 100 million. Why, there's no reason we can't work together to deny health care to everyone but the richest 1 percent of the population."


In reality, 100 million is just about right when you include people who pay at great expense for privately owned health care INSURANCE but then are denied partial or total compensation by HMO fine print.

Do not forget that our current privatized health insurance system/scam was a golden goose invention ushered in by the Nixon Administration. In this case they were not crooks, they were murder for profiteers.





_________________________________________________________________
FOX News Alert (as I heard it from a Megyn Kelly interview of the National Review editor this morning at 9:15 )

The National Review says that all people in wheel chairs and ALL returning Veteran soldiers who end up in wheel chairs will be given end of life advice to end it all. If you are unable to contribute to society or "chew the leather anymore" you will be urged to consider your options since goverment health care will do its utmost to keep you in hopeless poverty with diminished benefits.
Our newly uncovered study gives legitimacy to the the spectre of DEATH PANELS as an insidious plan to eliminate undesirable high cost medical care for Veterans, our sacrificing heros, as well as anyone the government considers undesirable. Perhaps all outspoken Christians will be the undesirables that the Socialist Goverment will want to eliminate.




Well I guess we better say goodbye to all our wheel chair friends and Christians while there is still time. (Do not confuse the National Review Magazine with the Nation Magazine)

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Aug 09 - 11:31 AM

You know what, Donuel? The basic program is to drive up fear, hatred, and division between different groups of people in the society through extreme rhetoric. So Fox agitates the most doctrinaire Christians and hardline conservatives with those sort of scare stories. At the same time, the more liberal media outlets agitate their constituency with other types of scare stories from the opposite angle. The 2 sets of stories work in tandem to great effect. Both sides drive up the fear and outrage factor in the population. Christians get scared of gays and atheists. Gays get scared of Christians. Atheists get scared. Conservatives get scared. Liberals get scared. People on this forum get scared.

They all think to themselves...."if only it weren't for those bastards (the other section of the population that they're scared of)...this would be a decent country!"

That keeps the public disorganized and it consumes their energy in fruitlessly fighting with each other. It provokes a few violent incidents here and there which helps to further drive up the fear factor. This provides apparent justification for increasing police powers and reducing civil rights and surveillance in order to "protect" people. It results in the world's largest per capita prison population.

The screws on society tighten.

The people actually running the show benefit from all that and increase their control.

If the shit REALLY hits the fan someday, they will declare martial law. And at that point the game is up. They will have won totally, they will have established their fascist New Order, and the public will have lost the game by wasting all its energy fighting amongst itself and against itself instead of challenging its real masters and controllers.

This is not a fight between the "Right" and the "Left". It's just made to look that way in order to keep ordinary people divided against themselves. It's a fight between a few incredibly rich "haves" (who own both the conservative and the liberal major media outlets) and 150 million "have-nots".

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Aug 09 - 06:11 PM

But there is an asymmetry in this.

In all political battles there are two ways of operating and thinking. One is about trying to achieve a desired goal, insofar as that can be done.   The other is about exploiting the situation as a way of doing down the other side.

And that latter way of thinking appears to be dominant among the opponents of the proposed (and extremely moderate) changes whch are being pushed by Obama. So far as I can see, nine-tenths of what is being proposed is perfectly consistent with stuff that has at various times been proposed by Republcans, and the rest of it is stuff that in any other country would be seen as pretty conservative.

But instead of seeing this as a chance to cut a deal and produce soemthing which, however imperfect in their eyes, would get rid of at least some shameful and degrading aspects of American society, they smell blood and throw over all principle in search of a victory of sorts - in which the actual wellbeing of millions of their fellow Americans are seen as totally irrelevant.

It's all rather disgusting.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Aug 09 - 06:36 PM

Partisan politics is almost always disgusting.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 24 Aug 09 - 06:44 PM

LH-
It's only disgusting when either of the sides has nothing to offer in terms of solving a problem. There's nothing at all wrong about arguing two different philosophies.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 24 Aug 09 - 07:04 PM

On Tuesday I called an ambulance since I had sudden chest pains. The crew did an ECG with the vehicle parked in the street, didn't spot anything much but drove me to the hospital anyway.

I was seen by a doctor within minutes of arriving, hooked up to an ECG, had blood tests and was taken to the acute admissions ward later that night.

Blood tests showed I'd had a mild heart attack, so I was sent up to the cardiology ward, was seen by pretty much the whole cardiology team including the top guy, got an angiogram on Thursday, sent home with a month's supply of various pills on Saturday and I'm to see them again on Wednesday. Meanwhile I've been assigned to an acute cardiac rehabilitation nurse and should have a community home-visit nurse later in the week.

Cost: nothing. Forms filled out: two - consent forms for the angiogram and a prospective research study. Insurance bureaucrats involved: none.

I would NEVER, EVER consider visiting the US again.

The food was shit, though. (That bit of the NHS is contracted out to private enterprise).

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Peace
Date: 24 Aug 09 - 07:12 PM

Ralph Nader on Health Care. (His 2008 candidate position.)

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Alice
Date: 24 Aug 09 - 07:51 PM

Jack, I hope you have a speedy recovery.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 24 Aug 09 - 07:52 PM

Donuel: You personally heard Sen. Hatch say that, or did you read it on a blog?

L.H.: The one politician you respect down south, the Congressman from Cleveland, has about the same chance of becoming president as Greg F. has.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Aug 09 - 08:04 PM

It's best to read a post before responding to it, Doug. That Sen. Hatch quote was specifically identified by Donuel as being part of a satirical piece in The Onion, not as a genuine quote.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Aug 09 - 09:15 PM

Peace - Ralph Nader was right about a whole lot of things, and it looks like he was spot-on about health care, but in America you can't get elected if you "ain't got the do re mi."

                   Sad, ain't it!

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 12:16 AM

It's best to read a post before responding to it, Doug.

Never has. Never will.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 12:19 AM

Yes, Doug, I know Dennis Kucinich has no chance of becoming the USA's president. Naturally. He's an honest man who works for the general public, not for the corporations and banks.

Why would I be surprised that he has no chance to be elected as your president? What does surprise me a bit now and then is that he is still alive...but I guess he's just not a big enough threat to the powers that be that they would consider him necessarily "expendable" at the moment.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 12:37 AM

Little Hawk feels that playing the public off one another with fear is a divide and conquer strategy. He asks how great it would be if we both dropped our fears.

Perhaps we all need a fearless day proclamation.

But in the meantime the right wing is playing hardball and urging people to violently overthrow the goverment and pointing out that the best way to do that is to strike at the heart of the national socialism that has taken over the United States.

The right feels as though their militia and reverence toward the use of their guns makes them proud right wing terrorists...

IN FACT a man stood up at a town hall meeting in PA yesterday in front of Republican Congressman Hesh and shouted "I am a proud right wing terrorist" and the Congressmen quickly repoid "Now there is a proud and brave American!" followed by other remarks of admiration.

I would not have thought I would hear Republicans proudly embrace Terrorists at a town hall meeting.



The game of terrorizing politicians and viewing audiences with these antics is orchestrated and prescribed by Dick Morris, Congressmen and Clear Channel jocks. But suppose there is a crazy out there who does not see this as a scare tactic but as a heroic action?

Playing with fire over health care is ironic don't you think??????

Especially in a country as sick as America is right now. I say sick because there are now counter voices to the chanting for death.   
Where is Colin Powell
Where is Oprah"
Where is today's Walter Chronkite to tell people what they need to know instead of what they want to know?



While the kettle is calling the frying pan "black" or a "socialist fascist tyrant" the administration has kept its cool wonderfully.
Keep it up. Even if you have to keep secret the fact that there are 5 times more threats intercepted by the Secret Service as well as actual crazies who take a shot. Such reporting inspires copy cats and emboldens cowards who have no self worth.


Now lets all proclaim 9-11 as a day without irrational fear of any kind. Lets prove the terrorists did not win!

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 01:24 AM

A day without irrational fear would be wonderful. A week without it far better. A year without it much better yet. I'm all for it. People who do not fear one another are people who can find common ground and get along reasonably.

Yes, Donuel, there are a few very dangerous people on the Far Right who have been duped or pandered to by the Divide and Conquer strategy....and there are fanatical and self-righteous prats (if I may use the British slang term which means a very fatuous person) on the Left who have been duped or pandered to by the Divide and Conquer strategy too. Each serves as a lightning rod for the other...almost a symbiotic relationship, but in a very destructive symbiosis.

It is in the interests of the great Divide and Conquer strategy to keep those people fighting with each other ever more viciously and hatefully and encourage them toward every possible form of character attack, provocation, mutual contempt, and even outright violence. The harder the pot of discontent and division boils in the nation, the easier it is for the Oligarchs at the top to tighten the screws and reduce people's civil rights and move in the direction of authoritarian rule.

They deliberately encourage divisions, hatreds, accusations, and every form of emotional negativity through sensational and provocative media coverage.

It's exactly like putting on a WWF wrestling match. The intent is to get the public very excited, angry, fearful, emotional, and in a mood for a good fight. Don't be surprised that a few genuinely crazy and violent people show up at ringside. It's inevitable that they would. That's the nature of the show that is being put on. It instigates anger and violent emotions.

To make peace, you must yourself BECOME peaceful and constructive. You must become the person you would wish others to be. That is your point of real power in changing the world...not to change others, but to change yourself.

And I'm not singling you out in any way when I say that, Donuel. I am simply speaking in general terms about the crucial choice that faces each one of us every day of our lives. We have the choice to become the positive changes we wish to see in the world...or to change nothing by wasting our own energy just blaming "the other guy" for everything that's wrong and attacking other people in various hurtful ways. As long as we do that...then war (on some level) is what we will get...and suffering is what will result.

It's a no-win scenario. (Unless you are the Oligarchy.)

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 11:53 AM

There you go again :) Little Hawk - and others - you give them way too much credit.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 01:53 PM

That actually does appear to be Obama's approach.   The downside is that it can involve giving too much away. The halfway position between a liberal conservative (such as Obama) and extreme rightwingers is not going to be a moderate position in any normal sense of the word.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Peace
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 01:55 PM

McG of H is right, imo.

The 'right' is somewhere next to John Birch and the 'left' is right next to Bush. The average "don't look too good" from here.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 02:31 PM

"It's a no-win scenario. (Unless you are the Oligarchy.)"

That sounds pretty defeatist to me, Little Hawk. You're not suggesting that we just throw up our hands and give up, are you? Have you nothing a bit more positive to suggest?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: romanyman
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 06:53 PM

until the over the pond brigade stand up and say no, i aint payin, refuse to take out medical insurance so the money dries up, and insurance companies go bust, and cant afford no back handers to the politicos,they will soon wonder who is right, but hey it will never happen, so best stop moanin and pay up,

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 07:58 PM

""While the kettle is calling the frying pan "black" or a "socialist fascist tyrant"""

One of the finest oxymorons of all time, with the accent on the "moron".

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 07:59 PM

McGrath: If I hadn't read the post, why would I have responded to it? Perhaps I Misread the post.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 08:08 PM

"Meanwhile the right wing is playing hardball and urging people to violently overthrow the government, etc, etc."

Horse pucky! Some evidence proving that statement would be appreciated.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 11:12 PM

Once again, Reagan is the problem!

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Aug 09 - 08:27 AM

If I hadn't read the post, why would I have responded to it?

Because you're a jackass???

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Aug 09 - 12:11 PM

Probably because most people are almost incapable of not responding to something that pushes their emotional buttons. ;-D

And that is what drives contentious threads to several hundred posts.

Ever seen 2 dogs barking at one another? Which one will stop first? And how soon? And what will be achieved by it?

Anything useful? ;-)

****

Don Firth - You have misinterpreted what I meant when I said, "It's a no-win scenario. (Unless you are the Oligarchy.)"

What I meant was that if we (people in general) waste our own energy just blaming other people for everything that's wrong and attacking other people in various hurtful ways....then THAT is a no-win situation for everyone except the Oligarchy. The Oligarchy benefits from our disunity and mutual hostility.

I did not mean that we are living in a no-win situation. I meant that being addicted to attacking and fighting with each other instead of doing something positive with our time...THAT is a no-win situation.

There are always good solutions available for people who are willing to be positive. There is no good solution for someone who lives to condemn, attack others, and express hatred.

In this respect, I am very much in agreement with Obama's typical philosophical approach to things (his rhetoric, I mean). I'm not necessarily in agreement with some of his recent decisions in foreign and domestic policy.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Aug 09 - 12:37 PM

I've been on the road for a few weeks, and I haven't had time to read what's been posted since I left. Has anyone posted any documentation to back up the accusations about ACORN and the unions?

Saying that at any given time 1 or 2 million Canadians are waiting for care is a pretty meaningless thing to say. What the doctor apparently didn't say is how long they've been waiting. 1 or 2 million waiting for care is a perfectly reasonable number if they made their appointments yesterday and are waiting until tomorrow to receive care. The doctor doesn't specify if those waiting are waiting the same amount of time people wait here in the US or if they're having to wait a significantly longer period of time. Looks to me like Dr. Day is being very dishonest.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Peace
Date: 26 Aug 09 - 12:47 PM

The wait time depends on the medical problem that the patient has. I waited six months for a hip replacement. Not bad considering I'd needed on for about ten years, and I was able to have it done by a doc who'd done literally hundreds in the course of his career. A person with the sniffles may have to wait a week, by which time the sniffles are usually gone.

People who oppose public health care (read universal) don't HAVE facts. It's anecdotal stuff and not really worth much. Opinions are like . . . .

A definite problem in Canada is the number of doctors who go to the US because they can make more money. I'm aware that medical degrees are expensive, but then any degree is expensive. Mine (B Ed) cost me about $120,000. That's what I would have made had I kept working at the job I had (sales). That was 25 years ago. The schooling was only $4500/year. It's become about money for most folks. And that includes doctors. Too bad.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Aug 09 - 12:59 PM

I'm guessing a lot of the Canadian doctors who come to the US to make more money are feeling a little disappointed in their decision these days. It's getting harder every day for doctors to get reimbursed by insurance companies and there are far fewer people these days who can afford frivolous cosmetic surgery.

The second to last doctor I had before I lost access to health insurance dropped all of his patients who couldn't pay cash (ie: all of his patients who relied on private insurance to pay for their care). He said the insurance companies didn't pay enough for him to justify keeping those kinds of patients. His plan was to just take patients who could pay cash for their botox treatments and their breast implants, and things like that. Since the economy went down the tube, I'm guessing he's wishing he had some of his old patients again. Of course, a lot of those people probably no longer have insurance because they got laid off or their insurance company dropped them because they got sick.

If things keep going as they have been in the US lately, most likely US doctors are going to start migrating to Canada so they can make more money than they can here.