BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: pdq
Date: 16 Aug 09 - 08:21 PM

Polls support what?

"Public support for the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats has fallen to a new low as just 42% of U.S. voters now favor the plan. That's down five points from two weeks ago and down eight points from six weeks ago.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that opposition to the plan has increased to 53%, up nine points since late June.

More significantly, 44% of voters strongly oppose the health care reform effort versus 26% who strongly favor it. Intensity has been stronger among opponents of the plan since the debate began.

Sixty-seven percent (67%) of those under 30 favor the plan while 56% of those over 65 are opposed. Among senior citizens, 46% are strongly opposed.

Predictably, 69% of Democrats favor the plan, while 79% of Republicans oppose it. Yet while 44% of Democratic voters strongly favor the reform effort, 70% of GOP voters are strongly opposed to it.

Most notable, however, is the opposition among voters not affiliated with either party. Sixty-two percent (62%) of unaffiliated voters oppose the health care plan, and 51% are strongly opposed. This marks an uptick in strong opposition among both Republicans and unaffiliateds, while the number of strongly supportive Democrats is unchanged."

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Amos
Date: 16 Aug 09 - 08:25 PM

I am suspicious of current polls in the current situation, in which huge number of high visibility mellerdramatic horrorstories based on complete alterations and downright falsehoods about the reform plan have left a lot of peowple not even knowing what the plan IS or which of the many twists and spins provided by vested interests are true.

Obama's discussion in this morning's New York times should be required reading. The antics of the right in town hall meetings is a national disgrace, and Sarah Palin should be shot for adding fuel to an insane fire.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Aug 09 - 08:36 PM

Like Amos said.......

We need a 'poll' that asks "which news media did you GET your fears & worries from?" and

"Do you really think your situation will be better after 10 MORE years of Republican pressure to do nothing, so that their contributors in the drug & insurance industries don't lose a dime?"?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Amos
Date: 16 Aug 09 - 10:16 PM

"The Los Angeles Times leads with a report on the burgeoning Republican resistance to healthcare reform ? a campaign that's energized the party's base, but about which many party leaders remain deeply ambivalent. The so-called "August revolt," powered by activists' antics at Democratic town-hall meetings, has helped reinvigorate conservative groups; still, some GOP lawmakers are wary of associating themselves with the campaigners' increasingly cartoonish attacks. "The hostility went straight through to hysteria," said South Carolina conservative Rep. Bob Ingliss after being booed down at one recent town-hall. "You cannot build a movement on something that is not credible." " (Slate's 'Today's Papers' feature)

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Peace
Date: 16 Aug 09 - 10:23 PM

"Health care reform: Let the propaganda begin!"

The best article I have read on the current situation. More than worth a read--maybe even two.

Article here.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Aug 09 - 11:10 PM

From that I would conclude the first thing one would want to do would be to cut the salaries of executives and put caps on malpractice insurance.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Peace
Date: 16 Aug 09 - 11:18 PM

"Everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die."

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: bobad
Date: 16 Aug 09 - 11:25 PM

The first thing I would want to do is remove the middle man, ie. the insurance industry, from the health care picture, but that's because I live in a Canadian-style Nazi slave state.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Peace
Date: 16 Aug 09 - 11:27 PM

Commie!

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 16 Aug 09 - 11:49 PM

Peace: Thanks for posting that information from the Emergency Room Physicians group. It is very helpful.

I NEVER said the Emergency Room care was FREE! Obviously, anyone using the emergency room facilities is billed for the service. What I DID say, is that anyone showing up for care at an Emergency Room at a US hospital that receives any form of federal funding, cannot be turned away without being treated.

Only about fifty percent of those who do show up at ER for care pay the bill, though, evidently. The difference in cost, and the amount paid by the patient is offset by the hospital collecting more than cost from privately insured patients.

I see that some of you are already preparing yourselves for the Democrats distancing themselves from a public option, and naturally it's the Republicans fault. I think what happened was the members of Congress went home and got an ear full of what their individual party thought about the public option. Balancing the public option against not being re-elected in 2010 may have been a close call for some of them, but when push came to shove, they are going to choose holding on to their jobs.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Peace
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 12:34 AM

Thank you, Doug.

We have come back to what the real problem is for the US I think. As Doug noted, it has to be paid for.

One thing that happened in Canada was a shift to more local medicine. Much of Canada is rural or isolated. In the NWT (part of Canada's frozen North--it's frozen lots, not all the time) we used to have BSNs (bachelor of science in nursing) in every settlement (locations of 60 to a 1000 people). They treat minor stuff, do some sewing when needed, and be on the phone or radio to speak/seek treatment advice/directions from doctors in Yellowknife or Inuvik (or Edmonton, Alberta if necessary). It wasn't perfect, but as with old age, it was better than the alternative. Today, small towns--and we have lots of 'em--have places where people can go to seek help, and yes it's a kinda 'socialist' thing, but it speeds up the service and weeds out some cases wherein the person really needs psych as opposed to medical help. The money to pay for an NHP is there. It's just in the wrong hands.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 02:20 AM

Only about fifty percent of those who do show up at ER for care pay the bill, though, evidently. The difference in cost, and the amount paid by the patient is offset by the hospital collecting more than cost from privately insured patients.

I realise I am making assumptions here, DougR, but I presume you are not really in favour of "the hospital collecting more than cost from privately insured patients". How would you like that changed? OR do you see it as just something that has to be lived with?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 04:31 AM

Obama is back-pedalling on a "national healthcare system" because like most "liberals" he has no real conviction.....the right will sacrifice anything but the system itself for their "principles",but we on the left lack the belief that would give us courage to press on. To the left, politics is simply a career, any conviction socialist is smothered at birth by the "liberals".

Look back at American history and see that any real change was achieved not by any mealy mouthed politician, but by people of conviction who led us on a straight path to a better society.

"liberalism" will never give us real change, only change the words that say "you are slaves and will stay slaves!"....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 05:56 AM

Given your views elsewhere on the protection of minorities, ake (ie that you are against it) I am surprised you did not choke on (some of) your words above.

As for residents of the USA, if you have indeed abandoned the idea of universal healthcare, may your God (if any) have mercy on you. You have had none for yourselves, nor your less fortunate. The insurance companies and the medical industry will also have none.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 06:11 AM

Obviously, anyone using the emergency room facilities is billed for the service.

Thank God I don't live somewhere where that is true.

Growing up sick in the US, and being treated by a humane NHS here, has shown me that Britain's system is far better - an article in today's paper which reinforces that appreciation of what we are fortunate to have here.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Stu
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 06:37 AM

I have to say, from the UK side of the Pond this discussion looks increasingly insane. Although it isn't, this is a matter that should be above politics; it's about everyone chipping in via taxation to ensure every member of society regardless of social status gets looked after if they're ill. It's all comes down to conscience: if you care about your fellow humans you will vote for it, if you couldn't give a shit then you won't. It really is that fundamental, that black and white. If the majority of people are in favour and it doesn't happen the you don't live in a democracy.

One good thing to come of this is the fact the Tories are in a spot of bother due to me laddo bullshitting the great US public about the NHS. Several of his bestest mates are distancing themselves from him, including David Gove on The Andrew Marr Show (prime political talk show in the UK) yesterday morning who in an excellent display of crapping on his mate's head went to great pains to explain how much he was in favour of keeping the NHS and ring-fencing expenditure in the face of the inevitable public service cuts to come after the election - a vote-winner for sure (Americans take note).

Coupled with that The Observer also reports a rift in the shadow cabinet as it appears some shadow ministers seem to want to do privatise the lot; I honestly think there would be riots on the streets should that happen. The toff Cameron is now trying to patch up the rift but as the paper points out the majority of his parliamentary party are the same old school Thatcherite sheep that so hate the poor and would gladly run down the most treasured institution in the country. We must beware!

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Penny S.
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 06:47 AM

How health works in Tennessee.

The GOP are mad. Or bad. This is a Christian country? (To be fair, once they knew about the charity, many gave. But should it be necessary?)

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 07:47 AM

Penny, I don't think it's a matter of religion. It's a matter of humanity. I think the options for descriptions of those who would deny adequate healthcare to millions are bad or hoodwinked. Those who apply the hoodwinks can only be bad - but they have their own religion, based on the mantras of a "free market economy" - which with the benefit of hindsight we KNOW does not work.   

Sugarfoot Jack, I agree. I smelt the ifs and buts the moment I heard the shadow health minister making promises with hidden getouts. But if the opressed in the UK did not take to the barricades against Thatcher, what hope have we that they will ever do so?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 08:07 AM

What I DID say, is that anyone showing up for care at an Emergency Room at a US hospital that receives any form of federal funding, cannot be turned away without being treated.

And- as was shown conclusively by several posters- it was just as untrue the second time you said it as it was the first time.

Repeating a lie doesn't make it true, Douggie-boy!

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 10:35 AM

Whta does "treated" mean in that context?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 11:20 AM

And, of course,the shortfall from the people that don't pay their emergency room fees--which can be pretty damned steep--is made up by raising rates of non-emergency-room patients. If I'm going to be taxed, I'd rather it be one by the government than by a hospital administrator...at least I can vote in the first case.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 11:51 AM

""Whta does "treated" mean in that context?""


Stabilised, I believe, so you don't actually pop your clogs on their doorstep.

After all, they don't want their lobby made to look untidy by a Non Paying Corpse.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: heric
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 12:06 PM

So far, Obama hasn't captured the middle. The Democrats don't need the right. They look silly and ineffectual blaming the far right for their own failure to persuade the middle.

Besides funding, I think Obama has to market and explain four things about the public option:

(1) it is needed by people who don't but should have entitlements to coverage under the existing public options;
(2) it is needed by people who don't have adequate benefits under the existing public options;
(3) it will save people who do not suspect they could run afoul of the employment based coverage they think they will always have;
(4) it will not coerce people away from their existing insurance into a public program, but accept them when they will be glad it's available.

Four is a bit tricky*, but if they tell the truth on all other things so their credibility is high, and they've structured the program so that (4) is true, they should be able to remain on target.

*especially where employers can dump their plans and give 8% of payroll to the government, and automatically enroll their employees.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Amos
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 12:18 PM

Obama is back-pedalling on a "national healthcare system" because like most "liberals" he has no real conviction

THis is horse-pucky, AKe. First, he is not back pedlaing. He went tot he mat yesterday in the NEw York Times, for example. Secopnd of all, he has plenty opf conviction, and your bizarre generality is way off base. The fundamental definition of liberalism is based on principles, and good ones--reciprocal respect, tolerance, honoring of individual liberty, and compassion for the species in general. COme off it.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Alice
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 12:20 PM

There was an excellent interview on CNN last night by Don Lemon. He interviewed Tim Wise, the author of "White Like Me", on racism and how it relates to welfare and health care legislation and the attitudes of conservative white citizens. The discussion related to the behavior of people at the "town hall" meetings. The interview was on 8/16/09.

Here is a video of the Tim Wise interview.
Whenever we talk about spending on support for people who are the "have nots", there is hostility for social welfare spending that has a racist component.
I could not find it on you tube, but it is available as a CNN video and is posted on this blog:
http://thisweekwithbarackobama.blogspot.com/

Tim Wise wrote this online today, as he of course has been getting responses from that interview last night:

"...Indeed several of the e-mails made this same argument about opposing "government dependence," all the while oblivious, it appears, to the way in which that concept has become so color-coded in the white imagination over the past several decades. In fact, this is a point I had made on the program: that according to a significant body of social science research (among the most prominent, Martin Gilens's brilliant book, Why Americans Hate Welfare), most whites perceive social program spending aimed at helping the have-nots (be they income have-nots, housing have-nots, or health care-have nots) as being about giving something to those people, who are, of course, conceived of in black and brown terms, and taking from "hard-working" white folks in order to do it. So if the notion of government dependence itself has been racialized--and the evidence says it has been--to say that it is only this dependence you oppose, and that racism has nothing to do with it is to either lie or engage in self-deception of a most unfortunate and unbecoming variety.." Tim Wise


Alice

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: heric
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 12:29 PM

A brilliantly destructive argument that would be.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Stu
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 12:50 PM

That's really scary.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Amos
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 01:00 PM

A fairly clear analsyis of different methods of health care is provided in today's NY Times by writer Paul Krugman who points out that Obama's plan veers closer to the Swiss model than the British one.

All the harumscarum bullshit being flogged by panic-heads and boogey-man pundits is really tiresome, I must say.

KRugman also has, in this earlier piece some intelligent things to say about the public option.

Finally, Barack Obama explains why reform is important in an op-editorial for the New York Times.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Alice
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 01:08 PM

Sad to say, I have a sister who has exactly the attitude Tim Wise describes. She thinks the Social Security and Franklin Roosevelt's presidency was one of the worst things to happen to America (her words, even though she and her husband get social security). She has a brand of conservative Catholic beliefs that are mixed up with her political beliefs. She is very upset about anything being printed in a language other than English in the US, very upset when she saw a Spanish version of the Denver phone book. For decades, she has been very upset about "People" taking jobs away from white, male Americans, etc.

There are many people with these "Us versus THEM" beliefs who are agitated by Limbaugh, Beck, Michael Savage and others to attack universal health care because "they, the other, the not-real-Americans, the not-us" will get something supported by tax payers.

Alice

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 01:19 PM

The bizarre thing is that it can be demonstrated that, though black or brown people in the States are more likely to on the breadline than white people, since there are a lot more white people than black or brown people, most people on the breadline are white.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Alice
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 01:44 PM

The call for going back to "founding fathers" as you saw in the video of the young woman I posted earlier in the thread, is what Tim Wise describes so well. The talk radio shows hammer away at people who are not all that well informed about history or the constitution, but basically condition their listeners to think that there is some ideal, superior white past in the country that must be "returned to". It means going back to segregation, which they will not come right out and say, but instead use coded language that implies the same thing (and of course we had slavery at the time of the founding fathers).

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 01:54 PM

Paul Krugman has offered an impediment to the efficacy of the public option.

Obama has made a deal with Pharma that the government will stop
lowering costs for prescription drugs and the purchasing of generics. It will
still be illegal to buy lower-priced drugs in Canada.

Pharma has interfered with the political process by dictating their policy through
intimidation.

Drug prices will now soar. Do you trust Pharma to give an 80 billion tax break to
consumers? Where is this money coming from?

This deal was made behind close doors with no sunlight.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 01:57 PM

McGrath: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: "Treat": To give medical aid to.

For another interesting "take" on health care provided in Tennessee: Google today's edition of The Wall Street Journal, page 2, "Tennessee Experiment's High Cost Fuels Health-Care Debate." (I assume if Amos providing Paul Krugman, columnist, at the New York Times is acceptable as a resource, the Wall Street Journal will be acceptable too).

It seems to me this discussion (argument)is moving away from whether nationalized Health Care is good or bad, to "Is Medical Care a 'Right' or a 'privilege'. As far as I know, only citizens in the United States who have reached the age of 65, and have contributed to the Federal Social Security Program during their working years have a guaranteed "Right" to some form of health care.

If the Democrats in Congress are successful in adopting Obama's plans for "fixing" our health care program, the one I have now will be abolished. I have already said in previous posts that I am perfectly satisfied with the one I have. I assume many here on the Mudcat are of the opinion that my concerns are not legitimate. Is correct?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Alice
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 02:12 PM

So, Doug, we all have a "right" to police protection, fire protection, city water testing, and public schools, but we don't all have a right to stay alive if we are in an accident or have an illness. I see your point of view - you've made it clear. You've got yours, to hell with anyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 02:23 PM

Who in their right mind would want Goverment controlled health care and be slated for death or have thier treatment rationed by Democrats?

The free market privately owned competitive health care insurance companies do not ration, withhold or exceed real American's ability to pay whatever the free market decides.




Who in their right mind ?...warped right wing minds, (brain washed by private insurance companies in the name of 6 different right wing corporate think tank commercials and Fox Inc) ...thats who!





Obama should simply sell The Congressional Health Care Plan for ALL.
(the same health care plan that Senator Grassly gets.)

We have it and by God its nothing to write home about. For example the dental plan will match $1,000 dental work a year.




PS
The average American has had his employer change health care plans 3 times during their employment.

Private corporate health insurance rations by treating the wealthy and denying the poorer and unemployed. IF you make over a quarter million a year your taxes will go up to cover Medicare for all.


How Doug R could lose his health care plan if Medicare for people under 65 became law is a secret and conundrum known only to his own imagination.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 02:28 PM

Doug said earlier:

"I think what happened was the members of Congress went home and got an ear full of what their individual party thought about the public option.

Oh, indeed! They went home and found enough folks had been scared silly by lies and distortions to cause waffleing.... The moneyed interests KNOW they they don't have to convince everyone...just enough of the panicky ones.

Eliminating the public option will not help most people at all! It will ONLY keep the pharmas & insurance guys from losing one-thin-dime! Those interests will do a shell game of pretending to offer a little discount here and a 'special deal' there, while making SURE that THEY get any new folks that the govt. pays to enter the system....thus assuring themselves of even higher revenues as they 'pretend' to be cooperating.

Wanna bet on it?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 02:31 PM

I get it: the "pursuit of happiness" in actuality refers to the quest for decent, affordable health care. Some make it to the goal, some never do. Right, DougR? Your happiness is evident.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 02:43 PM

The trouble is "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" might be classed as "unalienable rights" in your Declaration of Indeoendence, but that never made it through to your Constitution.

Maybe it's time to write the words in as a Constitutional Amendment... That'd set the cat among the pigeons...

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 02:50 PM

Remember that the whole HMO scheme to charge for but deny claims was presented to Nixon and approved by Nixon after the scam was explained to him. Yep trickey Dick even taped those meeting and can be heard as simply as seeing them in SICKO by M Moore.



;/

Hey what about shutting down gubermint controlled care such as Medicare or goverment controlled military like the US army or all your Social Security food stamps and local Fire Departments which are Socialist financed unless they are Real American Volunteer Fire Departments.

Jeez come to think of it, the goverment is guvermint controlled too

OMG the only politicans who are not Government controlled are; Sarah Palin, Dick Army and Rush Limbaugh. I bet they have private health care ?????????????????? Actually it is a good question if Palin or Dick Army have any remnants of a goverment health plan!!!!!!!!!

IF they do , that would be a story to tell.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Alice
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 03:43 PM

This article is on CNN.com today.

Editor's note: Wendell Potter has served since May 2009 as senior fellow on health care at the Center for Media and Democracy, a nonprofit organization that says it seeks to expose "corporate spin and government propaganda." After a 20-year career as a corporate public relations executive, Potter left his job last year as head of communications for one of the nation's largest health insurers, CIGNA Corporation.

"What I'm trying to do as I write and speak out against the insurance industry I was a part of for nearly two decades is to inform Americans that when they hear isolated stories of long waiting times to see doctors in Canada and allegations that care in other systems is rationed by "government bureaucrats," someone associated with the insurance industry wrote the original script..."
Click Here

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Amos
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 04:03 PM

" It was my job to "promote and defend" the company's reputation and to try to persuade reporters to write positive stories about the industry's ideas on reform. During the last couple of years of my career, however, I became increasingly worried that the high-deductible plans insurers were beginning to push Americans into would force more and more of us into bankruptcy.

The higher I rose in the company, the more I learned about the tactics insurers use to dump policyholders when they get sick, in order to increase profits and to reward their Wall Street investors. I could not in good conscience continue serving as an industry mouthpiece. And I did not want to be part of yet another industry effort to kill meaningful reform.

I explained during the press conference with Rep. Slaughter how the industry funnels millions of its policyholders' premiums to big public relations firms that provide talking points to conservative talk show hosts, business groups and politicians. I also described how the PR firms set up front groups, again using your premium dollars and mine, to scare people away from reform.

What I'm trying to do as I write and speak out against the insurance industry I was a part of for nearly two decades is to inform Americans that when they hear isolated stories of long waiting times to see doctors in Canada and allegations that care in other systems is rationed by "government bureaucrats," someone associated with the insurance industry wrote the original script.

The industry has been engaging in these kinds of tactics for many years, going back to its successful behind-the-scenes campaign to kill the Clinton reform plan.

A story in Friday's New York Times about the origin of the absurdly false rumor that President Obama's health care proposal would create government-sponsored "death panels" bears out what I have been saying.

The story notes that the rumor emanated "from many of the same pundits and conservative media outlets that were central in defeating Bill Clinton's health care proposal 16 years ago, including the editorial board of The Washington Times, the American Spectator magazine and Betsy McCaughey, whose 1994 health care critique made her a star of the conservative movement (and ultimately, the lieutenant governor of New York)."..."

From ALice's link above.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 04:30 PM

Here's a piece from The Times about the French way of doing this, which seems to work pretty well - Neither of the Above

France has a system of universal healthcare financed by compulsory national insurance. Premiums are charged as a percentage of income and paid to insurers that are non-government, non-profit agencies. The French have a choice of doctor whose fee they usually pay and then claim back 75-80 per cent of the cost. The poor are exempt from payment. All patients, whether exempt from co-payments or not, may go directly to a specialist.

Of course this would go a good bit further than the rather timid steps forward which Obama is pushing for, and which are being treated with such hysteria by opponents. (There's that word "treated" again, Doug - doesn't always mean treated very nicely does it?)

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 05:00 PM

The French system sounds like a perfectly reasonable way to go..... but, gee...who expects Congress, in the face of multi-million dollar lobbying and scary ad campaigns, to anything 'reasonable'.?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: heric
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 05:02 PM

On equality and the pursuit of wealth or happiness: No social benefit is served by allowing people to be financially destroyed or set back or otherwise hindered from reaching their potential by the hand of fate. Society benefits from equalized access - it is not mere charity.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 05:14 PM

The point is, there are any number of different ways of organising things so that there is excellent health care available for everyone, and the different ways have various advantages and disadvantages.

There is plenty of room for decent human beings to disagree about the best way to do it in their particular part of the world. But acting in a way that seeks to ensure that millions of people do not have such access - that isn't what any decent human being could do.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 05:14 PM

f the Democrats in Congress are successful in adopting Obama's plans for "fixing" our health care program, the one I have now will be abolished.

Since it has been explained at some length to Douggie-Boy over and over that this is complete bullshit, I guess he actually IS as stupid as he appears to be.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 05:23 PM

From: McGrath of Harlow - PM
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 10:35 AM
What does "treated" mean in that context?

Dealt with & explained at some length up-thread. See

Bobad 15Aug09 07:44PM
Alice 15Aug09 07:11PM
Maryrrf 15Aug09 04:39PM

et. al.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 05:26 PM

As you are well aware, McGrath, the word treat has many different definitions.

Alice: Let me get this straight! You criticize me because I don't want to lose the health care I have, but feel perfectly justified in supporting the plan because you would get health care that you don't currently have. Is that right? I don't criticize you for supporting Obama's plan. If I did not have coverage, I would probably do the same. Any coverage is better than having none at all!

In reply to Donuel, who questions the fact that I would lose my health care if the Democrat plan becomes law, President Obama conducted a Town Hall in Alice's home state over the weekend and very clearly stated that he would eliminate Medicare Advantage in order to help pay for the cost of the plan he is proposing. He is of the opinion that money spent on Medicare Advantage ONLY benefits the insurance companies that administer the plans for Medicare. Nothing could be further from the truth. The primary beneficiaries of Medicare Advantage are the senior citizens who are enrolled in it!

My wife has only Medicare, and she pays for a supplemental insurance program to pick up care if she exceeds what Medicare provides.

Medicare Advantage provides services that exceeds those provided Medicare alone.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Alice
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 05:31 PM

Doug, the plan IS NOT going to take away your health care!
Someone has been scaring you silly.

alice

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 05:34 PM

"President Obama conducted a Town Hall in Alice's home state over the weekend and very clearly stated that he would eliminate Medicare Advantage in order to help pay for the cost of the plan he is proposing. "

"Doug, the plan IS NOT going to take away your health care!"

SO Obama lied??? ( Again)