|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/04/2009 06:50:53 PM · #276 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by AJHopp:
Name a country that has more superior care than the United States. |
France, Italy, San Marino, Andorra, Malta, Singapore, Spain, Oman, Austria, Japan, Norway, Portugal, Monaco, Greece, Iceland, Luxembourg, Netherland, United Kingdom, Ireland, Switzerland, Belgium, Colombia, Sweden, Cyprus, Germany, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Israel, Morocco, Canada, Finland, Australia, Chile, Denmark, Dominica, and. Costa Rica.
Now guess how many of those are entirely free market, private systems whose profit depends entirely on providing as little healthcare as possible? That's right: zero. We are at the mercy of the very same system of greed that gave us hedge funds, nicotine-enhanced cigarettes, insanely overpriced defense hardware, the auto industry and 21% credit card interest rates. Health insurance is Big Business, in every sense of the word, and they'll say anything to keep the status quo. Nationalism is great... rah, rah, woohoo... America is the best at everything!!!," but in this case we are only the best at giving our money to insurance companies. |
You honestly believe that all those countries have better doctors and better technology? Really? You would rather be treated for cancer in Saudi Arabia or Malta?
If socialized medicine is so great, then why are Congressmen/women, Senators, Obama, and his minions opting out of it? It's good enough for us but not for them?
I'm 37 years old and actually fear for my freedom and my future...... |
|
|
|
08/04/2009 08:16:26 PM · #277 |
Originally posted by AJHopp:
[
You honestly believe that all those countries have better doctors and better technology? Really? You would rather be treated for cancer in Saudi Arabia or Malta?
If socialized medicine is so great, then why are Congressmen/women, Senators, Obama, and his minions opting out of it? It's good enough for us but not for them?
I'm 37 years old and actually fear for my freedom and my future...... |
Do you honestly believe that it is about the quality of the training or technology? No, it is not. Granted, those countries can buy GE stuff and Siemens stuff and Agilent stuff as well. There are no export restrictions, and some of the manufacturers of the equipment aren't even here in the US. Training - you don't think that nowhere else people can read the books and learn equally well? But again, that is not the point - it is access to those "superior" resources that is an issue.
Yes, I would rather be treated for cancer (God forbid I ever get one) in any of those countries than be here and not have access to treatment. Plain simple. |
|
|
|
08/04/2009 08:26:27 PM · #278 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
Originally posted by AJHopp:
[
You honestly believe that all those countries have better doctors and better technology? Really? You would rather be treated for cancer in Saudi Arabia or Malta?
If socialized medicine is so great, then why are Congressmen/women, Senators, Obama, and his minions opting out of it? It's good enough for us but not for them?
I'm 37 years old and actually fear for my freedom and my future...... |
Do you honestly believe that it is about the quality of the training or technology? No, it is not. Granted, those countries can buy GE stuff and Siemens stuff and Agilent stuff as well. There are no export restrictions, and some of the manufacturers of the equipment aren't even here in the US. Training - you don't think that nowhere else people can read the books and learn equally well? But again, that is not the point - it is access to those "superior" resources that is an issue.
Yes, I would rather be treated for cancer (God forbid I ever get one) in any of those countries than be here and not have access to treatment. Plain simple. |
Obviously you didn't read my previous posts... |
|
|
|
08/04/2009 08:41:00 PM · #279 |
Originally posted by AJHopp:
You honestly believe that all those countries have better doctors and better technology? Really? You would rather be treated for cancer in Saudi Arabia or Malta? |
It doesn't matter who has the better doctors and technology if you can't afford it. Heck, you'd be better off in Cuba than sitting at home wondering how you could pay for it when your insurance provider (if any) suddenly refuses to cover the therapy. A trip to the "free" emergency room won't help you with cancer.
Originally posted by AJHopp:
If socialized medicine is so great, then why are Congressmen/women, Senators, Obama, and his minions opting out of it? It's good enough for us but not for them? |
For the same reason executives with $40,000/yr uber-inclusive insurance plans would likely opt out: they'd have a choice and can already afford premium coverage at a premium price. Duh.
Originally posted by ericwoo:
I do not see one that our governments, especially with the democratic party in control, is capable of implementing and saving me money. |
Even with all the recent economic troubles, you're in the minority on that one. According to a June survey by CBS News and the New York Times, "when asked whether they favored creation of a government-administered health plan to compete with the private insurance industry, 72 percent of respondents said yes, while only 20 percent said no." Even 50% of Republicans are in favor, and 59% believe the government would be better at holding down costs. Notably, there is a sharp divide between Dems and Republicans in the issue, which shouldn't surprise anyone given the deceitful propaganda their insurance lobby-backed leaders are touting.
Message edited by author 2009-08-04 22:25:30. |
|
|
|
08/04/2009 08:43:55 PM · #280 |
Originally posted by AJHopp:
You honestly believe that all those countries have better doctors and better technology? Really? You would rather be treated for cancer in Saudi Arabia or Malta?
If socialized medicine is so great, then why are Congressmen/women, Senators, Obama, and his minions opting out of it? It's good enough for us but not for them?
|
Saudi medicine might not be the best example to use for your case, their medicine is the best that money can buy, and they have a lot of that, most of it trained here or in Europe. Yes Saudi and many other countries have better medicine, not because our top flight is worse than their top flight medical centers, but because everyone get treated. If you have ever heard the story of a person who was dropped from coverage on the day before cancer surgery because they failed to disclose being treated for acne when they applied for coverage years earlier then you might see the flaw of our current system. If you can afford to stay covered our system works well enough, but more and more people are being squeezed out of the coverage and into what is the worst system of medical care in the first world. Those who it is not profitable to bother keeping alive.
Congress, and "Obama's minions" have a system of single payer system that covers them from election to the grave with everything covered, no cost, no exclusions, no dropping coverage. They would be fools to give it up to the mish-mash that is the compromise upon compromise to the fear of a socialist state and the influence of big insurance money is making of this bill. Congress has a single payer system, why can't I?
Message edited by author 2009-08-04 20:46:25. |
|
|
|
08/04/2009 10:30:12 PM · #281 |
Originally posted by AJHopp:
Obviously you didn't read my previous posts... |
I'm not sure which one of your previous posts would alleviate the statements you made in the one I quoted, or change their meaning? The one where you are sick of people criticizing the very system that is built on the premise that the people have the right to petition the government? Or the one where you are inviting people to leave and seek better life elsewhere? I do not follow your comment here... sorry.
I haven't read anything in this thread yet that is supported by facts. All I see is mention of 'socialism' and fear that stems from ultimate ignorance of what socialism is and what forms it takes around the world today.
As far as your fear, I am too afraid that, if nothing changes, when I grow old and am left without employment, this great and dear individualistic and govt-keep-your-hands-off system will drive me to the brink of poverty. My 401(k) (private, down 50% or more right now with no chance of ever getting on par with what I invested in it), nonexistent govt pension plan, SocSec, medical care etc.) I'd be lucky if I survive 3-4 years after retirement...
And you speak bad of systems that protect their citizens once they're out of workforce. I'll talk to you in 30 years and ask you again what would you prefer. In the meantime, enjoy the money you'd "save" by not paying more in taxes... but that's our choice as citizens to choose our destiny. |
|
|
|
08/04/2009 11:07:42 PM · #282 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
The lowest salary the teachers in our school district get is $44,176. Not exactly peanuts. And I know for a fact that they all get free health insurance.
|
That's about the average salary for a teach in NC. Average. The lowest in NC is about 27K a year (typically a first year teacher with a BS or BA).
And our insurance wasn't free. (and i don't think it is now)
Which brings up another interesting issue. Will rates for service (that is the amount that the drs and hospitals, et al. get paid) be standardized, or will wealthier areas draw more money, etc. etc.? |
|
|
|
08/04/2009 11:50:45 PM · #283 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Even with all the recent economic troubles, you're in the minority on that one. According to a June survey by CBS News and the New York Times, "when asked whether they favored creation of a government-administered health plan to compete with the private insurance industry, 72 percent of respondents said yes, while only 20 percent said no." Even 50% of Republicans are in favor, and 59% believe the government would be better at holding down costs. Notably, there is a sharp divide between Dems and Republicans in the issue, which shouldn't surprise anyone given the deceitful propaganda their insurance lobby-backed leaders are touting. |
Since you bring up surveys lets look at a long standing and reputable source. CBS News and the New York Time are, IMO, bias in some areas so let's look at a video from Gallup. You may find it interesting. Gallup poll on Healthcare reform (July 29, 2009)
Message edited by author 2009-08-04 23:53:25. |
|
|
|
08/05/2009 12:43:14 AM · #284 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Even with all the recent economic troubles, you're in the minority on that one. According to a June survey by CBS News and the New York Times, "when asked whether they favored creation of a government-administered health plan to compete with the private insurance industry, 72 percent of respondents said yes, while only 20 percent said no." Even 50% of Republicans are in favor, and 59% believe the government would be better at holding down costs. Notably, there is a sharp divide between Dems and Republicans in the issue, which shouldn't surprise anyone given the deceitful propaganda their insurance lobby-backed leaders are touting. |
There's a more recent CBS/NY Times poll out. The NY Times has an article about it: New Poll Finds Growing Unease on Health Plan. The results of these two questions are surprising:
Originally posted by CBS/NY Times Poll 7/24/09 - 7/28/09:
"From what you've heard or read, do you think the health care legislation under consideration in Congress will or will not benefit you personally?"
Will Will Not Unsure
ALL 31% 59% 10%
Republicans 20% 73% 7%
Democrats 41% 48% 11%
Independents 29% 61% 10%
"From what you've heard or read, do you think the health care legislation under consideration in Congress will increase health care costs for most Americans, decrease health care costs for most Americans, or will it have no effect on health care costs for most Americans?"
Increase Decrease No Effect Unsure
7/24-28/09 59% 15% 16% 10%
|
Message edited by author 2009-08-05 00:45:35.
|
|
|
|
08/05/2009 01:39:00 AM · #285 |
| My dad has three different insurance coverages (MediCare, his insurance from being a teacher for years, and through the Screen Actors Guild, from my mom). He's lately been having some mental deterioration and has been suffering a lot of falls, and will likely need some kind of supervised care soon ... none of those three insurance policies will cover any long-term care ....:-( |
|
|
|
08/05/2009 01:55:35 AM · #286 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by CBS/NY Times Poll 7/24/09 - 7/28/09:
"From what you've heard or read, do you think the health care legislation under consideration in Congress will or will not benefit you personally?"
...
"From what you've heard or read, do you think the health care legislation under consideration in Congress will increase health care costs for most Americans, decrease health care costs for most Americans, or will it have no effect on health care costs for most Americans?"
|
|
These polls are idiotic. They have no meaning other than to show which part of the population is leaning which way. There is nothing 'democratic' about the effect of the plan. "From what you've heard or read" is the most condescending part - nobody (or less than 0.001% of the population) have actually familiarized themselves with the legislation details. Heck, some of the Representatives haven't even read the whole thing (here referring to the statements from these representatives in M. Moore's documentaries where they admit to not reading those).
What in the world someone's opinion whether the cost will increase or decrease has to do with what the actual plan contains? What is the point? Are we supposed to derive the meaning and effect of the legislation that no one read based on the Gallup poll on how people of different political backgrounds feel about it based on their party affiliation!? Give me a break!
Sorry - this is painful but it helps to understand the way things work around here. Yes- these polls will be used ad nauseum both here in the DPC forums as well as in other media publications to try to fulfill the gap left by the same media that ran the polls - the fact remains that no one understands these proposed laws that change from hour to hour... me included. Notice that I have never expressed support for the existing/proposed bill. I only express support for what I think the govt should do, admitting not knowing what is in the most recent draft...
Shannon, Yanko, Scott, I'm not sure what was the point of showing/linking to those polls? |
|
|
|
08/05/2009 02:15:42 AM · #287 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
My dad has three different insurance coverages (MediCare, his insurance from being a teacher for years, and through the Screen Actors Guild, from my mom). He's lately been having some mental deterioration and has been suffering a lot of falls, and will likely need some kind of supervised care soon ... none of those three insurance policies will cover any long-term care ....:-( |
 GeneralE, I feel bad about that and it is true on most insurance; they don't cover long-term care unless one purchase it separately from their medical insurance. And the bill set fourth by the government is the same from what I have read so far or at least very vague on long-term care. See pages 424-430 of the current bill being considered form HR3200)
5 SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION.
6 (a) MEDICARE.—
7 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 1861 of the Social
8 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x) is amended—
9 (A) in subsection (s)(2)—
10 (i) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of
11 subparagraph (DD);
12 (ii) by adding ‘‘and’’ at the end of
13 subparagraph (EE); and
14 (iii) by adding at the end the fol15
lowing new subparagraph:
16 ‘‘(FF) advance care planning consultation (as
17 defined in subsection (hhh)(1));̢̢۪۪; and
18 (B) by adding at the end the following new
19 subsection:
20 ‘‘Advance Care Planning Consultation
21 ‘‘(hhh)(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the
22 term ‘advance care planning consultation’ means a con23
sultation between the individual and a practitioner de24
scribed in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning,
25 if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has
VerDate Nov 24 2008 00:08 Jul 15, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00424 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
425
â€Â¢HR 3200 IH
1 not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such
2 consultation shall include the following:
3 ‘‘(A) An explanation by the practitioner of ad4
vance care planning, including key questions and
5 considerations, important steps, and suggested peo6
ple to talk to.
7 ‘‘(B) An explanation by the practitioner of ad8
vance directives, including living wills and durable
9 powers of attorney, and their uses.
10 ‘‘(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the
11 role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.
12 ‘‘(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list
13 of national and State-specific resources to assist con14
sumers and their families with advance care plan15
ning, including the national toll-free hotline, the ad16
vance care planning clearinghouses, and State legal
17 service organizations (including those funded
18 through the Older Americans Act of 1965).
19 ‘‘(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the
20 continuum of end-of-life services and supports avail21
able, including palliative care and hospice, and bene22
fits for such services and supports that are available
23 under this title.
VerDate Nov 24 2008 00:08 Jul 15, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00425 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
426
â€Â¢HR 3200 IH
1 ‘‘(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of
2 orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar
3 orders, which shall include—
4 ‘‘(I) the reasons why the development of
5 such an order is beneficial to the individual and
6 the individual̢۪s family and the reasons why
7 such an order should be updated periodically as
8 the health of the individual changes;
9 ‘‘(II) the information needed for an indi10
vidual or legal surrogate to make informed deci11
sions regarding the completion of such an
12 order; and
13 ‘‘(III) the identification of resources that
14 an individual may use to determine the require15
ments of the State in which such individual re16
sides so that the treatment wishes of that indi17
vidual will be carried out if the individual is un18
able to communicate those wishes, including re19
quirements regarding the designation of a sur20
rogate decisionmaker (also known as a health
21 care proxy).
22 ‘‘(ii) The Secretary shall limit the requirement
23 for explanations under clause (i) to consultations
24 furnished in a State—
VerDate Nov 24 2008 00:08 Jul 15, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00426 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
427
â€Â¢HR 3200 IH
1 ‘‘(I) in which all legal barriers have been
2 addressed for enabling orders for life sustaining
3 treatment to constitute a set of medical orders
4 respected across all care settings; and
5 ‘‘(II) that has in effect a program for or6
ders for life sustaining treatment described in
7 clause (iii).
8 ‘‘(iii) A program for orders for life sustaining
9 treatment for a States described in this clause is a
10 program that—
11 ‘‘(I) ensures such orders are standardized
12 and uniquely identifiable throughout the State;
13 ‘‘(II) distributes or makes accessible such
14 orders to physicians and other health profes15
sionals that (acting within the scope of the pro16
fessional̢۪s authority under State law) may sign
17 orders for life sustaining treatment;
18 ‘‘(III) provides training for health care
19 professionals across the continuum of care
20 about the goals and use of orders for life sus21
taining treatment; and
22 ‘‘(IV) is guided by a coalition of stake23
holders includes representatives from emergency
24 medical services, emergency department physi25
cians or nurses, state long-term care associa-
VerDate Nov 24 2008 00:08 Jul 15, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00427 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
428
â€Â¢HR 3200 IH
1 tion, state medical association, state surveyors,
2 agency responsible for senior services, state de3
partment of health, state hospital association,
4 home health association, state bar association,
5 and state hospice association.
6 ‘‘(2) A practitioner described in this paragraph is—
7 ‘‘(A) a physician (as defined in subsection
8 (r)(1)); and
9 ‘‘(B) a nurse practitioner or physician’s assist10
ant who has the authority under State law to sign
11 orders for life sustaining treatments.
12 ‘‘(3)(A) An initial preventive physical examination
13 under subsection (WW), including any related discussion
14 during such examination, shall not be considered an ad15
vance care planning consultation for purposes of applying
16 the 5-year limitation under paragraph (1).
17 ‘‘(B) An advance care planning consultation with re18
spect to an individual may be conducted more frequently
19 than provided under paragraph (1) if there is a significant
20 change in the health condition of the individual, including
21 diagnosis of a chronic, progressive, life-limiting disease, a
22 life-threatening or terminal diagnosis or life-threatening
23 injury, or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a
24 long-term care facility (as defined by the Secretary), or
25 a hospice program.
VerDate Nov 24 2008 00:08 Jul 15, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00428 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
429
â€Â¢HR 3200 IH
1 ‘‘(4) A consultation under this subsection may in2
clude the formulation of an order regarding life sustaining
3 treatment or a similar order.
4 ‘‘(5)(A) For purposes of this section, the term ‘order
5 regarding life sustaining treatment̢۪ means, with respect
6 to an individual, an actionable medical order relating to
7 the treatment of that individual that—
8 ‘‘(i) is signed and dated by a physician (as de9
fined in subsection (r)(1)) or another health care
10 professional (as specified by the Secretary and who
11 is acting within the scope of the professional̢۪s au12
thority under State law in signing such an order, in13
cluding a nurse practitioner or physician assistant)
14 and is in a form that permits it to stay with the in15
dividual and be followed by health care professionals
16 and providers across the continuum of care;
17 ‘‘(ii) effectively communicates the individual’s
18 preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, in19
cluding an indication of the treatment and care de20
sired by the individual;
21 ‘‘(iii) is uniquely identifiable and standardized
22 within a given locality, region, or State (as identified
23 by the Secretary); and
VerDate Nov 24 2008 00:08 Jul 15, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00429 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
430
â€Â¢HR 3200 IH
1 ‘‘(iv) may incorporate any advance directive (as
2 defined in section 1866(f)(3)) if executed by the in3
dividual.
4 ‘‘(B) The level of treatment indicated under subpara5
graph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treat6
ment to an indication to limit some or all or specified
7 interventions. Such indicated levels of treatment may in8
clude indications respecting, among other items—
9 ‘‘(i) the intensity of medical intervention if the
10 patient is pulse less, apneic, or has serious cardiac
11 or pulmonary problems;
12 ‘‘(ii) the individual’s desire regarding transfer
13 to a hospital or remaining at the current care set14
ting;
15 ‘‘(iii) the use of antibiotics; and
16 ‘‘(iv) the use of artificially administered nutri17
tion and hydration.̢̢۪۪. |
|
|
|
08/05/2009 02:33:34 AM · #288 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
Shannon, Yanko, Scott, I'm not sure what was the point of showing/linking to those polls? |
I only noted general opinions (independent of any particular legislation) about whether the government should create a plan and whether it could be effective. I agree that any poll regarding a specific proposal that virtually none have read is pointless. |
|
|
|
08/05/2009 02:35:48 AM · #289 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by CBS/NY Times Poll 7/24/09 - 7/28/09:
"From what you've heard or read, do you think the health care legislation under consideration in Congress will or will not benefit you personally?"
...
"From what you've heard or read, do you think the health care legislation under consideration in Congress will increase health care costs for most Americans, decrease health care costs for most Americans, or will it have no effect on health care costs for most Americans?"
|
|
These polls are idiotic. They have no meaning other than to show which part of the population is leaning which way. There is nothing 'democratic' about the effect of the plan. "From what you've heard or read" is the most condescending part - nobody (or less than 0.001% of the population) have actually familiarized themselves with the legislation details. Heck, some of the Representatives haven't even read the whole thing (here referring to the statements from these representatives in M. Moore's documentaries where they admit to not reading those).
What in the world someone's opinion whether the cost will increase or decrease has to do with what the actual plan contains? What is the point? Are we supposed to derive the meaning and effect of the legislation that no one read based on the Gallup poll on how people of different political backgrounds feel about it based on their party affiliation!? Give me a break!
Sorry - this is painful but it helps to understand the way things work around here. Yes- these polls will be used ad nauseum both here in the DPC forums as well as in other media publications to try to fulfill the gap left by the same media that ran the polls - the fact remains that no one understands these proposed laws that change from hour to hour... me included. Notice that I have never expressed support for the existing/proposed bill. I only express support for what I think the govt should do, admitting not knowing what is in the most recent draft...
Shannon, Yanko, Scott, I'm not sure what was the point of showing/linking to those polls? |
Oh but it does have it's place in the healthcare debate. It tells me and YOU based upon you post that people really don't know what's in this bill, and yes it changes by the hour. But lets look at it from a responsible individuals view point.
Would a responsible individual buy a home not understanding what in the contract and their lawyer has not even read the contract and/or understands it? NO!
Would a responsible individual by a car not understanding whats in the contract? NO!
Would a responsible individual sign a contract with an employer not understanding whats in the contract or even read it? NO!
So why would a responsible citizen of the US go along with a bill that they don't understand and when the majority of congress has not read the bill and/or understand it. They shouldn't and congress should not either. |
|
|
|
08/05/2009 02:56:53 AM · #290 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by CBS/NY Times Poll 7/24/09 - 7/28/09:
"From what you've heard or read, do you think the health care legislation under consideration in Congress will or will not benefit you personally?"
...
"From what you've heard or read, do you think the health care legislation under consideration in Congress will increase health care costs for most Americans, decrease health care costs for most Americans, or will it have no effect on health care costs for most Americans?"
|
|
These polls are idiotic. They have no meaning other than to show which part of the population is leaning which way. There is nothing 'democratic' about the effect of the plan. "From what you've heard or read" is the most condescending part - nobody (or less than 0.001% of the population) have actually familiarized themselves with the legislation details. Heck, some of the Representatives haven't even read the whole thing (here referring to the statements from these representatives in M. Moore's documentaries where they admit to not reading those).
What in the world someone's opinion whether the cost will increase or decrease has to do with what the actual plan contains? What is the point? Are we supposed to derive the meaning and effect of the legislation that no one read based on the Gallup poll on how people of different political backgrounds feel about it based on their party affiliation!? Give me a break!
Sorry - this is painful but it helps to understand the way things work around here. Yes- these polls will be used ad nauseum both here in the DPC forums as well as in other media publications to try to fulfill the gap left by the same media that ran the polls - the fact remains that no one understands these proposed laws that change from hour to hour... me included. Notice that I have never expressed support for the existing/proposed bill. I only express support for what I think the govt should do, admitting not knowing what is in the most recent draft...
Shannon, Yanko, Scott, I'm not sure what was the point of showing/linking to those polls? |
I wasn't making a point. Shannon mentioned the June CBS poll so I starting looking for it and found the more recent CBS poll. I was surprised by the low numbers regarding democrats and independents so I posted it. But you're right. Polls don't mean a whole lot except to illustrate where the sheep among us are pointing.
|
|
|
|
08/05/2009 04:01:12 AM · #291 |
| For those worried about the growing debt, fear not. There is a plan in place to wipe out all debt. |
|
|
|
08/05/2009 05:11:43 AM · #292 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
[quote=AJHopp]
Obviously you didn't read my previous posts... |
I'm not sure which one of your previous posts would alleviate the statements you made in the one I quoted, or change their meaning? The one where you are sick of people criticizing the very system that is built on the premise that the people have the right to petition the government? Or the one where you are inviting people to leave and seek better life elsewhere? I do not follow your comment here... sorry.
08/03/2009 11:00:25 PM
I think the following quote from Ronald Reagan sums up my feelings on the matter: "Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them." Why in the hell would anybody want the Government running our health care? Just look at Medicare and Medicaid! At the rate Obama and friends are spending money (OUR money), we'll be lucky to bring home half of our pay check before it's all said and done.
Our health care system is not perfect, but there is no need to socialize and destroy it. If it was so damn bad, then why would doctors come from all over the world to practice in the U.S.? Why do people come from all over the world to receive treatment? Who has more advanced technology and more of it? If you had a choice between a top hospital in the U.S. and one in Cuba or another country, where would you choose to go?
Yes, improvements can be made, but I would prefer to be the one in charge, and I would rather it not be crammed down my throat by a certain deadline. There are other solutions out there, but Obama doesn't want to hear any of it. Have you noticed that everything has to be done RIGHT NOW or the world will fall apart? Why is that??
I love nit picking sessions....
Message edited by author 2009-08-05 05:12:41. |
|
|
|
08/05/2009 05:32:18 AM · #293 |
I honestly think you Obama lovers are in for a rude awakening. You can't add more people (illegals included) to a health care program and expect to have the same level of care or better at little to no cost. As Scalvert recently said to me - "Duh." How is all of this going to be paid for? And I don't want to hear the pitiful stories of people without health care. Obama's plan still leaves millions in the cold after he's trashed our current system.
I never said our system was perfect. However, I do believe it deserves better than a few months of thought. These "the world is going to fall apart if we don't do this now" deadlines are pathetic. I'm sick of crap being thrown together in Congress (with extras thrown in at 3 am) and voted on days later. This is nothing more than an obsession with Obama. It's not really about us. Watch something besides main stream media and do a little research. And be careful what you wish for.....
|
|
|
|
08/05/2009 11:16:33 AM · #294 |
Originally posted by AJHopp:
And I don't want to hear the pitiful stories of people without health care. Obama's plan still leaves millions in the cold after he's trashed our current system. |
Wow, it's so nice to hear you don't give a flying f@*k about me or the 50 million uncovered Americans that HAVE worked hard and contributed to this nation.
I think the first part of this discussion is what kind of country or what kind of people do we want to be. How do we see ourselves? Are we caring human being or are we greedy animals? Do we look out for each other or is it every man for himself?
We are the richest country in the world, that spends the most money on healthcare but can't seem to make it work for everyone and people who are paying for coverage out of pocket are doing so at astronomical costs.
Amy be careful...what goes around, comes around. If you're religious, pray hard that you never lose your job and if you do, hope that you or a loved one doesn't have a pre-existing condition because you WILL be F*%$#d (pardon my French). It would be "pitiful"...wouldn't it? As I approach 47 and can't do the same kind of work I did as kid I'm a little concerned as my healthcare costs might soar somewhere between $800 to a 1000 a month...pardon me if I'm getting a little "obsessed" by the thought of shelling out such a huge sum living amongst such unmitigated greed.
I agree though, having a compassionate President really sucks...I'd prefer one in office that looks out for Big Business first.(lol)
Message edited by author 2009-08-05 12:13:59. |
|
|
|
08/05/2009 12:18:03 PM · #295 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by AJHopp:
And I don't want to hear the pitiful stories of people without health care. Obama's plan still leaves millions in the cold after he's trashed our current system. |
Wow, it's so nice to hear you don't give a flying f@*k about me or the 50 million uncovered Americans that HAVE worked hard and contributed to this nation. |
50 million? Really?
Want to back up that number? |
|
|
|
08/05/2009 12:28:09 PM · #296 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by AJHopp:
And I don't want to hear the pitiful stories of people without health care. Obama's plan still leaves millions in the cold after he's trashed our current system. |
Wow, it's so nice to hear you don't give a flying f@*k about me or the 50 million uncovered Americans that HAVE worked hard and contributed to this nation. |
50 million? Really?
Want to back up that number? |
Wow...you really got me there. Does it change the point?
Those numbers are increasing every day and when some of these people lose their insurance due to layoffs, they may not get their coverage back because of pre-existing conditions, under the present state of the system.
Let's not get into nickel and dime bullshit...because either way that number sucks.
eta:The estimate for the year 2010 is around 52 million but I'll chisel it down to 50, if it makes people happier.
Message edited by author 2009-08-05 12:38:38. |
|
|
|
08/05/2009 01:03:56 PM · #297 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by AJHopp:
And I don't want to hear the pitiful stories of people without health care. Obama's plan still leaves millions in the cold after he's trashed our current system. |
Wow, it's so nice to hear you don't give a flying f@*k about me or the 50 million uncovered Americans that HAVE worked hard and contributed to this nation. |
50 million? Really?
Want to back up that number? |
Wow...you really got me there. Does it change the point?
Those numbers are increasing every day and when some of these people lose their insurance due to layoffs, they may not get their coverage back because of pre-existing conditions, under the present state of the system.
Let's not get into nickel and dime bullshit...because either way that number sucks.
eta:The estimate for the year 2010 is around 52 million but I'll chisel it down to 50, if it makes people happier. |
Yeah it does make a difference. The President is lying to us to push his agenda and some people don't care.
But I'd like to see where you got that 2010 estimate of 50 million. Does it include illegals? Does it include people that can afford it, but chose not to? Does it include the people that are eligible for medicare but have not signed up (yeah, there are a good amount of those too).
If the number does not make a difference, why do they inflate it? |
|
|
|
08/05/2009 01:35:19 PM · #298 |
All I'm saying is that either way you inflate or deflate it as you did with your link...and you can deflate it even more of you'd like (and subtract some more, again). I think our system stinks in it's present state and it's too expensive.
Keep in mind many people that ARE covered have crappy coverage that doesn't do much. I've had great plans and bad ones and the Health Care industry is constantly trying to cut what it provides.
Don't you think $700-$100 (or higher) a month is a lot to pay?
A large number of uninsured are refereed to by the Health Care Industry as "The young invincibles," young adults, ages 19 to 29.
52 million. I've been hearing that number everywhere from Fox to CNN. I'm assuming it's an accepted figure on both sides of the debate since it's been appearing on both left and right wing media and blogs. As unemployment numbers have increased the trend makes sense, as well. I'll also jump to the point where many people in that number will not be able to get coverage if they have pre-existing conditions or if they can it will be unbelievably expensive.
Keep in mind people may be able to pay for it but at a back breaking cost. Insurance companies need competition because they are out of control and it's just going to get more and more expensive if we stand by idol.
Originally posted by SDW:
Don't just love how the media and the White house choose to include or exclude people to make the figures look bad if they want to fear people into supporting a bill while on the other hand make the number look better when they they talk about unemployment. If all people count in one statistic should they all count in the other and if they are excluded in one shouldn't they be excluded in the other? |
Not that it makes it right but there's plenty of that which goes around, everywhere you look, on all sides of these debates. Kinda like the chopped up data and reports that led us into Iraq...right? Whether it's Glen Beck or Keith Olbermann it's an age old way to play the game...again, not that it makes it right.
At least this exaggeration is on the side showing some semblance of being Humane.
I need to move to Europe. I'm getting tired of this place. I know they have their problems but they seem a little less greedy over there. I also admire their public education system.
Anyway guys..enjoy the Status Quo and the waning days of our empire, if we continue down the same failed path. If our near meltdown didn't provide enough kick just wait. And whether you love or hate Obama don't blame his sorry ass for the sad state we're in.
<< pawdrix is packing his bags ;) >>
Message edited by author 2009-08-05 13:56:14. |
|
|
|
08/05/2009 01:38:49 PM · #299 |
| Don't just love how the media and the White house choose to include or exclude people to make the figures look bad if they want to fear people into supporting a bill while on the other hand make the number look better when they they talk about unemployment. If all people count in one statistic should they all count in the other and if they are excluded in one shouldn't they be excluded in the other? |
|
|
|
08/05/2009 01:50:23 PM · #300 |
The numbers shouldn't really matter. One person dying from something that could have been prevented had they had insurance is too many. That one person could be related to you! That one person could BE you! As nasty as some people are being on this thread, you'd really think we've become a nation of barbarians where it's every man for himself. I can't believe some of the stuff I'm reading. And it all comes back, always, to the almighty dollar and greed. Sad.
Message edited by author 2009-08-05 13:51:11. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/07/2025 12:00:37 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/07/2025 12:00:37 PM EDT.
|
