Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafesj

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]


BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?

CarolC 25 Mar 10 - 02:36 AM
CarolC 25 Mar 10 - 02:32 AM
Sandy Mc Lean 25 Mar 10 - 02:18 AM
ichMael 24 Mar 10 - 10:24 PM
Greg F. 24 Mar 10 - 10:15 PM
McGrath of Harlow 24 Mar 10 - 09:58 PM
Maryrrf 24 Mar 10 - 09:57 PM
Bobert 24 Mar 10 - 07:50 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 24 Mar 10 - 07:17 PM
Bill D 24 Mar 10 - 06:33 PM
Greg F. 24 Mar 10 - 06:09 PM
The Barden of England 24 Mar 10 - 05:26 PM
CarolC 24 Mar 10 - 04:53 PM
beardedbruce 24 Mar 10 - 04:50 PM
Little Hawk 24 Mar 10 - 04:40 PM
katlaughing 24 Mar 10 - 04:31 PM
Charley Noble 24 Mar 10 - 04:25 PM
akenaton 24 Mar 10 - 03:52 PM
CarolC 24 Mar 10 - 02:55 PM
Greg F. 24 Mar 10 - 01:11 PM
romanyman 24 Mar 10 - 01:08 PM
Charley Noble 24 Mar 10 - 10:43 AM
Greg F. 24 Mar 10 - 09:29 AM
Bobert 24 Mar 10 - 07:19 AM
CarolC 24 Mar 10 - 06:09 AM
romanyman 24 Mar 10 - 06:05 AM
The Fooles Troupe 24 Mar 10 - 03:46 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 24 Mar 10 - 03:37 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 24 Mar 10 - 03:32 AM
CarolC 24 Mar 10 - 02:59 AM
The Fooles Troupe 24 Mar 10 - 02:56 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 24 Mar 10 - 02:34 AM
DougR 24 Mar 10 - 01:25 AM
CarolC 23 Mar 10 - 10:56 PM
McGrath of Harlow 23 Mar 10 - 08:34 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 23 Mar 10 - 08:21 PM
McGrath of Harlow 23 Mar 10 - 06:16 PM
Bobert 23 Mar 10 - 05:49 PM
Charley Noble 23 Mar 10 - 05:21 PM
CarolC 23 Mar 10 - 05:06 PM
DougR 23 Mar 10 - 04:42 PM
CarolC 23 Mar 10 - 03:24 PM
CarolC 23 Mar 10 - 03:18 PM
McGrath of Harlow 23 Mar 10 - 03:13 PM
Greg F. 23 Mar 10 - 10:17 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 23 Mar 10 - 09:34 AM
Bobert 23 Mar 10 - 07:19 AM
CarolC 23 Mar 10 - 01:36 AM
CarolC 23 Mar 10 - 01:34 AM
DougR 23 Mar 10 - 01:13 AM

Share Thread
more
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:













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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!!!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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 :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 03:37 AM

!2oo...Whoop-Ty-Doo!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 03:32 AM

Not sure what your point is GfS.

Haven't been on much...just thought I'd check out re-actions, and what people were thinking, as the details are coming out....wasn't making a point...I don't think...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 02:59 AM

Not sure what your point is GfS.

On a humorous note, Rush Limbaugh said he would leave the country if the health care bill passed. The country he said he would move to is Costa Rica. Costa Rica has nationalized (socialized) health care.

I think he would be happier in Somalia where they don't really have any government to speak of to screw things up. Bon Voyage, Rush!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 02:56 AM

I am somewhat bemused, that, to an outsider, the public attitude of many US politicians and their supporters seems to be highly 'anti-social'...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 02:34 AM

I just came in to check it out...I've been REAL busy(in case you needed a 'Sanity check')...but I saw this:

CarolC: 'Even some Third World countries have universal affordable health care."

GfS: "Well, were on our way, too!"

Just reading to catch the spins, or to check out the approval, and/or apprehensions'...and second thoughts......

Waving,
GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 01:25 AM

McGrath: Your last post deleniates a major differenc between your country and mine. 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. We do not rely on our government to dictate what we need. Our country was founded on the freedom to choose. 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.

There are some who MAY benefit from the health care Bill that Obama signed today, but I wonder if in twenty years that will be the case. The figures supplied by the CBO are unreliable because the information provided them is flawed. Their projections must be based on the information they are provided. There is a real possibility that this program will bankrupt our country.

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 10:56 PM

Yup. Denying people preventative care and thereby causing their deaths at an early age is the ultimate money-saving "death panel".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 08:34 PM

While early treatment can save individual patients money, research shows that the benefits don't outweigh the costs of the additional screening procedures. But if it saves your life...

Of course, if you die sooner I suppose that's likely to come a lot cheaper than if you live and continue to require medical treatment from time to time. Infant mortality is the biggest healthcare moneysaver there is.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 08:21 PM

"" By Angie Drobnic Holan
Published on Friday, March 19th, 2010 at 3:21 p.m.
Related rulings:
Pants on Fire!
The president's health care proposals will cause "most Americans to have their premiums increased, not decreased, and hundreds of millions of people lose their current insurance coverage."

Nancy Pfotenhauer, Wednesday, January 27th, 2010.

Ruling: Pants on Fire! | Details False
______________________________________________________________________

"Forcing Americans off of their current health coverage and onto a government-run plan isn't the answer, but that's exactly what the Democrats' plan would do."

John Boehner, Monday, October 26th, 2009.

Ruling: False | Details False

______________________________________________________________________

In the health care bill, "The 'Health Choices Commissioner' will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None."

Chain e-mail, Tuesday, July 28th, 2009.

Ruling: Pants on Fire! | Details
Bookmark this story:
Buzz up!
ShareThis

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats on their way to winning votes on health care reform.

We've been fact-checking claims about health care for more than a year now, and have noted several distortions that won't seem to die. Here's five that resurface again and again.

1. It bans private insurance in favor of a government-run plan. Opponents have repeatedly said the plan would force Americans off their current plans, even though most current plans would be allowed to continue. Republican House Republican leader John Boehner said that "forcing Americans off of their current health coverage and onto a government-run plan (is) exactly what the Democrats' plan would do." We rated that False.

2. Preventive care saves the whole health care system money. People who favor the plan regularly imply that preventive care will lower its overall cost. While early treatment can save individual patients money, research shows that the benefits don't outweigh the costs of the additional screening procedures. President Barack Obama said preventive care "saves money." We rated that False.

3. Millions of people will lose coverage. Opponents of the plan have argued that millions of people would lose their health insurance. But the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has projected that the proposal would result in insurance for 94 percent of the country. Republican commentator Nancy Pfotenhauer said that "hundreds of millions of people (will) lose their current insurance coverage." We rated that Pants on Fire.

4. The plan will lower health insurance premiums for most people. A few people will see significant reductions in what they pay for health insurance if they qualify for low-income tax credits to buy their policies. But the vast majority of Americans will see no decrease or a very slight decrease in premiums, according to projections. Obama said, "The costs for families (in the individual market) for the same type of coverage that they're currently receiving would go down 14 percent to 20 percent." We rated that Half True. Obama's statement is true only for those in the individual market who are buying comprehensive plans right now. For people buying high-deductible, low-cost plans, the premiums will increase, because they'll have to buy plans that offer more coverage.

5. Bureaucrats will dictate treatment for patients, or tell you what insurance plan you have to buy. The proposal does include new boards to make recommendations on evidence-based treatment. But they won't consider any individual cases or deny procedures for specific patients. The bill also sets minimum standards for insurance companies, creating a baseline for basic coverage. People will still be able to pick the plan they prefer. We received a chain e-mail that said, "The 'Health Choices Commissioner' will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None." We rated that Pants on Fire..""


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 06:16 PM

When you pay taxes you are paying for all kinds of things, including things you might not particularly want, but which the government thinks you need. Including "the nation's largest health insurance program", Medicare, ifyou are old enough to qualify for it, like Doug for example.

So what is the significant difference when it comes to a statutory insurance program for people who aren't old enough to get their health insurance through Medicare?

Apart from the fact that it's private insyrance companies getting the money - but then for opponents of health reform to complain about that is a bit like the old definition of chutzpah - a man who shoots his parents and then asks the court to be lenient on him because he's an orphan...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 05:49 PM

Fine, Doug... I'd be all for an ammendment that any Neaderthal who wants to opt out can opt out but that means that they go one a registry and 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...

The only exception would be people who can and will prepay for any treatment they get...

I mean, I hear ya'll talkin' about personal responsibility... Hey, I don't wnat my premiums going up 'cause some dumbass redneck opts out, then accidently shoots himself while deer huntin', can't afford treatement so the hospital treats the moron, he doesn't pay the bill and it gets passed on to all of us...

Yeah, opt out means opt the *f* out... No excuses!!!

But these folks won't do that... I live in the heart of Redneck Nation... Thay hate the government but when they want somethin' then they can't get enough of the governments help...

Let's just pose this scenerio... You got to any danged nursing home in America and it is filled with folks who are just layin' in their beds, pooping themselves and having to be fed... Millions of these folks are there because of Medicaid... I'd love to see Redneck Nation if Obama were to say, "Sorry, ya'll but granny is gettin' kicked out of nursing home so ya'll gonna have to start taking care of her in yer double-wides...".... Yeah, talk about the Tea Baggers screamin'... There would be the loudest scream ever heard... It would sound like a nuclear bomb was detonated over every town in America... That is reality, folks...

Yeah, Redneck Nation is all about screaming... Heck, I heard it as a socail worker... No matter what it was that they thought granny should be gettin' from the government if the programs weren't there to give (YES, GIVE!!!) granny what Redneck Nation thought granny ***deserved*** from the governemnt then they were real pissed off!!! You know, just like the Tea Partiers... Talk about hypocrits????

Beam me up, Scottie... The morons are trying to take over...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 05:21 PM

It would be nice if the Republicans focused positively on making specific improvements to the new health law, instead of trying to repeal it. Lord knows there is room for improvement but that doesn't seem to be their goal.

Well, we'll see how many of them survive the campaign carnage in November.

Charley Noble


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 05:06 PM

The government forces us to purchase stuff all the time, DougR. The most obvious example is car insurance. You will probably say that we are not being forced to buy that insurance because we don't have to own a car if we don't want to pay for car insurance. But I could just as easily say that we don't have to pay for health insurance if we decide not to have any income. Both are true, and both are equally reasonable (or not reasonable) arguments.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 04:42 PM

Greg F.:I would think that someone with such a brilliant mind would know that driving an automobile is a priviledge, not a right. Therefore one who CHOOSES to drive an automobile is REQUIRED to purchase auto insurance because the possible damage he/she might do to others.

Carol: I NEVER said people will be REQUIRED to purchase health insurance from a particular company. That's not the point. The point is the federal government cannot force a citizen to purchase ANYTHING!

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 03:24 PM

By the way, a lot of our taxes already do go to private companies rather than to the government. Since so many of the services our government uses come from private contractors, some of my tax dollars, for instance, are going to the company formerly known as Blackwater, and these people are known murderers. And my tax dollars are going to KBR, a private company, who are responsible for the electrocution of several of our service members in Iraq. I was never given any choice about whether or not my tax dollars would go to them. I am forced to pay for their services whether I want to or not.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 03:18 PM

Even some Third World countries have universal affordable health care.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 03:13 PM

You have to pay taxes don't you? The onlty difference is that these are taxes paid to private companies, but that's only because the public option got excluded.

Any politician in any country with a universal affordable health care system in place - that's virtuually everywhere apart from some Third World countries and the USA - would be committing political suicide if they proposed to abolish it. Once the USA joins the human race the same will be true there as well.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 10:17 AM

DougR: The law suits will claim that it is unconstitutional to require citizens to purchase anything. I believe they may be successful.

Put your tinfoil hat back on, Douggie-boy. Everyone's required to purchase automobile insurance, for one example of many.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 09:34 AM

Waste of breath Bobert, trying to talk sense to people who haven't got the brain power to look at what the rest of the world is doing, and realise that, with everybody paying a share, the individual yearly cost is one tenth or better of what they are currently paying themselves.

Anyone too stupid to recognise that "the more people who share the cost, the lower the individual premium" isn't likely to be taking notice anyway. Too busy buying tickets for the next Nascar Merry-go-Round, and trying to figure out how a ring pull can of Bud works.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 07:19 AM

Well, add my state, Virginia< to the list of Redneck Nation states that have filed suit even before the law goes into effect??? Little knee-jerkin' going on in Redneck Nation these days...

The problem with the concept of these law suits is that, yeah, the Repubs did a very nice job in the "lost decade" in creating the perfect storm of a Supreme Court... I mean, the Roberts/Alito court will more than likely take the case and override the US Congress... But the scarey thing is that their reasoning will be that yhe federal government really shouldn't have any power at all to force folks to do this of that... One of those this or thats is Social Security... That has me a little concerned 'cause I can see Cowboy Roberts and his sidekick Alito overturning the "mandate portion" of the act, thereby gutting it, and then Redneck Nation will go for Social Security with the precidence that is set in knocking out the mandate...

I tell ya'll that the passing of this bill, unless the progressives can tell a better story to the moderates in this country, may be the beginnin' of the unraveling of the New Deal...

Think about it... You know that the Repubs have hated the New Deal ever since the Dems got it going... And this hatred has been passed down from generation to generation much the way Redneck Natioon has passed down racism and bigotry....

Gonna be interesting...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 01:36 AM

DougR, they're not telling people which insurance to buy, so it's pretty ridiculous to suggest that making it possible for more people to have insurance is going to cause them to tell us which car to buy. But I expect ridiculous was what you were going for.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 01:34 AM

Please show some documentation for that 3% figure, DougR.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 01:13 AM

The margin of profit for Insurance companies is less than 3% Carol. That's about the same as your neighborhood grocery store.

I join you ichMael in hoping that the challenge to the legislation is successful. If it's not, the next time you need to buy a new car, the federal government will decree that you must buy one made by General Motors.

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate


Next Page

 


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.



Mudcat time: 16 October 5:58 AM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.