Isn't it a strange, strange world where a person can work to get health care to
the people and others can make that into a bad thing. It is a great humanitarian
accomplishment to get health care to the people, but there are those bought and
paid for by the armaments war industries and corporate big money interests who
scream it is bad. First we need to make sure everyone is getting health care,
then we work out the details for organizing it. You all understand the drill,
start the war now, get the details later. As a people we have no civil way to
debate an issue and then move ahead. Instead we need to commit to what should
happen and then work out the details. Health care is the right thing to have a
available for all. We need to move forward with health care (including Medicare)
and Social Security and not backwards as the right wingers would have us do. Yes
it's expensive, but it's worth giving up pointless wars to have a social system
that works--not welfare--but something that really works.
Socialized medicine will never be effective and affordable. Without the
invisible hand of competition, our health care will be just like England's....a
rationing of care and a "who you know" system. We can start by
uncovering the prices that are charged by doctors and hospitals. Then, let the
American people shop around for the best and most affordable care and coverage.
If Obamacare were to run McDonalds, here is what your bill would look like for a
hamburger...Lettuce.....5 centsspray of water....2 centsburger patty.....49 centsburger flipped by certified burger
practitioner......35 centssplash of mayo.....13 centsmayo splashed
by condiment server in training......13 centsmayo container recycling
charge..........7 centstomato.......16 centsbun.......17 centssesame seeds....7 centssesame seed sprinkler specialist....12 cents
(with time and a half for weekend work) And remember,
healthcare will not be expensive because the democrates will weed out waste,
fraud, and abuse..LOLYou get my drift....are am I being too obtuse!
Would like to ask what would be the problem with a sliding scale plan for paying
for individual health care/insurance? If everybody paid SOMETHING, there would
be less need to pay for those who now pay nothing. For those
on welfare, they would be required to pay a percentage of what they receive too.
If they showed responsibly in using selected doctors/clinics/urgent care
specified for them, instead of jamming hospital ERs, they would see considerable
savings. And if they chose to use the ER for things other than a true emergency,
then they'd get a great big chunk taken out of their entitlements.20
years ago, we went to a doctor who used a sliding scale for his patients. He was
compassionate, but EVERYBODY paid SOMETHING. Those who truly could not afford to
pay at time of service paid something monthly, without interest. Worked Great. Everybody was made responsible. The students with young
families, many of which didn't have insurance, could have never made it without
him. Thanks Doctor Wells! :)
'If Obamacare were to run McDonalds, here is what your bill would look like for
a hamburger...' - seer | 9:34 a.m. I disagree. If
Private Insurance ran healthcare like McDonalds, you would be DENIED your
hamburger entirely...after paying for it due to 'Pre-existing conditions.' *'Wellpoint Drops Coverage For Some Women With Breast Cancer' - By Mary
Ellen Egan - Forbes Magazine - 04/23/10 'Yesterday, an investigation by
Reuters revealed that Wellpoint routinely drops coverage of women with breast
cancer. According to the report, Wellpoint used a computer algorithm that
automatically targeted...' But isn't the article about
'RomneyCare?' Oh! Wait! That's right! It's ok if a
Republican does it!
Mitt needs to be proud of his accomplishment with health care in MA. Just need
him to stay firm on that and quit bashing Obamacare that is patterned after it.
Of course there are differences but when Mitt goes around bashing and promising
to overturn Obamacare you have to wonder what little differences are making him
so angry.Mitt is too sensitive about healthcare because of MA and
even if he won he would not be able to help this country with healthcare due to
that over-sensititivty.I am glad he is now decided to re-trench and
stick to his guns about his healthcare choice. He has admitted it is not
perfect and yet he would want people to overlook the imperfections. He is not
willing to do the same for the current federal healthcare program even though it
is based upon the one he instituted.Were he to get elected we would
have to watch closely to see if we were getting up on the forgiving side of the
bed or not.
The problem with healthcare in America is that it's a for profit business.
Disease = dollars & convalescents = customers. It should not be that way.Insurance is what's driving up the cost of healthcare in the first
place. It wouldn't cost a couple hundred bucks to go see the doc about a cough
if it weren't for insurance.Why? Because insurance skews
the market and throws the laws of economics out the window. Traditionally, goods and services are priced at a level that the customer can
afford. Which is why an oil change for your car costs $20. However you throw
insurance into the mix and costs skyrocket.Why? Because
when insurance is paying the doctors can charge the insurance company whatever
they like. The insurance company just ups the rates to its customers and the
trend continues.Now I'm not saying get rid of insurance. It does
serve a valuable purpose in protecting people from catastrophic circumstances.
HOWEVER basic things like checkups or office visits for a cold should not be
covered.Health insurance should be like car insurance. It's there if
you get in a wreck but does not cover basic maintenance.
seer:Luckily, Obamacare is not socialized medicine. It is insurance
reform. Medical bills are paid through private insurance. Hospitals are not
government owned. Doctors are not government employees. The entire model
revolves around private industry and capitalism.Republicans should
love it. They should honor Republican Mitt Romney for getting the ball rolling.
They should be glad a moderate Democrat implemented the Republican idea
nationally.You may not like the solution. You may think it doesn't
address rising health care costs. But one thing Obamacare is NOT, is socialism.
Seer...the itemization you show is exactly how healthcare bills look you get
from any hospital today. This did not nor will it start from the health care
bill passed a year or so ago. Waste and fraud plague our healthcare system now
and have for many years, not just since the Healthcare Reform Act was past. We
do indeed need to "fix" our healthcare system. No one has presented a
good program to do it as yet but the Healthcare Reform Act was a start. Our
country at present is not getting the level of healthcare the rest of the
industrialized world enjoys and we pay more than they do for what we do get.
Look at the studies and statistics. Just pointing fingers and spouting
platitudes will not improve our healthcare situation in America. Healthy ideas
and debating them, exploring them will. Let's move in that direction.
Half of my problem with Obamacare is the way it was passed. No one really knew
what was in the bill and it was pushed through in such an underhanded, rushed
way that it makes everyone wonder even more what was in the bill. I have never
heard anything about Romney's bill being shoved down the throats of the people
of Mass that way.I'm glad that Mitt is sticking to his guns about this. It
takes courage to do that, the kind of courage we need in the White House for
someone to make the hard decisions about our budget we need to make.
To all who replied:Churchhill once said, Capitalism is the unequal
distribution of wealth; Socialism is the equal distribution of misery!I agree that the current health care system needs to be tightened with cross
state coverage and pre-existing condition broadening, but a government take over
with a 2,700 page "how to" manuals is always a bad idea. Does anyone
honestly think that the living organism of goverment healthcare will not grow
into a monstrosity of inefficiency? Post office, Amtrak, Fannie/Freddie, even
Congress. C'mon Pagan, look at England for heavens sake! There
teeth are bad and there wait for average health-care is miserable. If you
dictate the rules of healthcare, you own it! And by the way....they do have
rationing in the U.K. Do each of you think that you can rid the system of
inequalities...does the queen of England and her family have a better
health-care provider than the average dole recipient...hhhhmmmm. Does Congress
have a better provider than you...of course so. Inequalities will always
exist....so will the grab for power!
Tami, I disagree with you. Harry Reid is to be honored as the hero of the decade
for getting anything through and forcing the country to deal with the problem.
Of course it needs fixing, but at least everyone is forced to deal with the
question of what is really needed for health care in the country. The debate now
is great! Generations of Bushes and both Carters couldn't pull this off. Now
Obama and Reid have gotten it on the table to really talk about. America really
wants great health care. Socialization doesn't work. The private health insurers
are behaving like the bankers did. Can we shame them into behaving better or
will they have to be clawed down so that America can have quality and good value
health care delivery. Folks, we have to deal with this and not try to make it go
away. Thank heavens it is now on the table, and I have great confidence in our
politicians to deal with it when they are forced to. Otherwise they behave as
badly as the bankers and worry only about their next election during their whole
term. Way to be, Harry Reid!
Obama details own birth two years later...
I repeat..If you write the rules for something, dictate how funds
are spent, and control the hiring/firing, and organizational structure of said
industry, you have socialized it!
'C'mon Pagan, look at England for heavens sake! There teeth are bad...' - seer |
11:18 a.m. How, exactly, did we go from a debate about
socialisim...to racism as justification for a evident double standard in regards
to 'RomneyCare' vs. 'Obamacare?' Regardless, healthCARE reform, was
needed. *'Wellpoint Drops Coverage For Some Women With Breast
Cancer' - By Mary Ellen Egan - Forbes Magazine - 04/23/10 *'Utahns
with HIV, AIDS upset with Legislative committee's indecision on federal grant
program' - By James Thalman - Deseret News - 04/14/10 *'Only in
America: Bankruptcy Due to Health Care Costs' - James E. Dalen, MD, MPH -
08/04/09 '...the The American Journal of Medicine documents that health
care expenses were the most common cause of bankruptcy in the United States in
2007, accounting for 62% of US bankruptcies compared with 8% in 1981.' *'Uninsured ER patients twice as likely to die' - AP - 11/16/09 *
'Heavy infant in Grand Junction denied health insurance' - By Nancy Lofholm -
Denver Post - 10/12/09
seer: "If you write the rules for something, dictate how funds are spent,
and control the hiring/firing, and organizational structure of said industry,
you have socialized it!"That's not the Webster's definition of
socialism. What you described is called "regulation". We have
regulation in many industries, so why should health care be any exception? Yes,
There can be "too much regulation", but in general those are in place
to protect public safety and prevent price fixing.
The biggist issue with Obamacare vs. Romneycare is the concept of Federalism.Romney's correctness in touting his plan and condemning Obamas hangs one
one simple question: Did Obamacare expand federal power outside of the bounds
set by the consitution.We will see how the courts rule in 2012.
Requiring people to have health insurance...Thanks Romney! Completely
Constitutional!Got to love how many ways Romney lovers will try to
explain away and parse tiny details of how different the plans are but they are
essentially arguing the trim level of a car, still the same car.
It's all a grab by the insurance companies anyways. Require everyone to have
insurance and they suddenly got a huge influx of new customers.Socialized medicine is the ONLY WAY to make sure that everyone is treated
fairly. Thus why every other modern nation in the world has it.
Re: Pagan | 10:05 a.m. May 31, 2011 When Obamacare hits the US
Supreme Court it appears that it will be a 5/4 victory for those opposed to
socialized medicine. And no, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas isn't
going to recuse himself from hearing the case as the Democrats are demanding.
'When Obamacare hits the US Supreme Court it appears that it will be a 5/4
victory for those opposed to socialized medicine.' - Rifleman | 3:03 p.m. May
31, 2011 Well, so long as Republicans aren't using an agenda to
manipulate the judicial process. WHAT was all that about federal
TAMI,, Your problem with the heathcare bill is the way it was passed?? By
majorities in both houses is the way it was passed. The senate passed it first
60-40. Then the house took it up after all the wailing and gnashing of teeth ,
it was passed by a majority. What problem do you have with the way our
government works? Just because you didnt like the results, Too Bad. Thats called
democracy.Courage is what President Obama has shown passing the healthcare bill,
and restoring the economy. Flip Flopper Mitt has No courage, He will say
whatever it takes to get elected. I got news for you Tami,, Mitt will never be
president. He isnt crazy enough to get the nomination. Plus he has no integrity.
@seer"Socialized medicine will never be effective and affordable.
Without the invisible hand of competition, our health care will be just like
England's....a rationing of care and a "who you know" system."Effective = europe has just as good a life expectancy as the U.S.affordable = western european nations spend 8-12% of GDP on healthcare, U.S.
spends 15% of GDP on healthcarerationing = we already have that since
insurance companies choose what they will and won't cover, socialized medicine
has the benefit of not having a need to worry about profit margin"who
you know" = no worse than current system since we're talking about
insurance, private or public it's run the same way... except private has a
profit margin they want to maximize
@rifleman"When Obamacare hits the US Supreme Court it appears
that it will be a 5/4 victory for those opposed to socialized medicine.
"Those corporatists on the court love handing corporations
power so badly (see: Citizens United) that they might just rule Obamacare
constitutional since after all, health insurance companies love having millions
more people required to purchase something from them. They like that part, it's
the part where they have to spend at least a certain percentage on actual
healthcare that they don't like. Nor do they like the pre-existing condition
part. Nor do they like the public option or Medicare buy-in (both of those were
of course blocked). But they love the mandate.
"I know this is going to get a lot of conversation, but the health of the
people in Massachusetts is more important to me than the health of my political
prospects." This is a great statement and this is a good man. I'm glad that
he is getting more like is father. Utah ought to set the example for state
health care but something is amiss. Why not examine Dr. Deb Richter's plan in
Vermont? We are talking about health care insurance not health care. Get the
greedy hands of private insurance companies out of this.
Part 1In the public discourse over proposals for federally-managed
healthcare, government progressives have tricked us. They have been promoting
the idea that health care is a right. In promoting that false
premise, they have moved the debate from WHETHER the feds should micro-manage
health care to HOW the feds should micro-manage health care. This is a false
premise. Health care is not a right; it is a good.What is a right? A
right is a gift from God that extends from our humanity. Thinkers from Thomas
Aquinas to Pope John Paul II have argued that our rights are a natural part of
our humanity. We own our bodies, thus we own the gifts that emanate from our
bodies. So, our right to life, to think as we wish, to say what we
think, to worship or not worship, to defend ourselves, to use our own property
as we see fit, and our right to be left alone, are all rights that stem from our
humanity. These are natural rights that we are born with. The government doesnt
give them to us and the government doesnt pay for them.
Part 2What is a good? A good is something we want or need. In a
sense, it is the opposite of a right. We have our rights from birth, but we need
our parents when we are children and we need ourselves as adults to purchase the
goods we require for existence. So, food, shelter, clothing, education, a car,
legal representation, and access to health care are goods. Does the
government give us goods? Sometimes it takes money from some of us and gives
that money to others. You can call that taxation or you can call it theft; but
you cannot call it a right.When you look at health care and the US
Constitution for what they are, when you look at the history of human freedom,
when you accept the American value of the primacy of the individual over the
fleeting wishes of the government, it becomes apparent that those who claim that
healthcare is a right simply want to extend a form of government welfare.
Part 3When this argument is made Big Government supporters come back
with, Well, if people dont have health insurance, they will just go to hospitals
and we will end up paying for them anyway. We dont let people steal food from a
supermarket or an apartment from a landlord or clothing from a local shop. Why
do we let them take healthcare from a hospital without paying for it? The Big
Government supporters contend thats charity.Wrong! It is impossible
to be charitable with someone elses money. Charity comes from the heart, not
from government spending your money. When we pay our taxes and it gives that
money away, thats not charity, thats welfare. When the government
takes more than it needs to secure our freedoms, so it can have money to give
away, thats not charity, thats theft. And when the government forces hospitals
to provide free health care to those who cant or wont care for themselves, thats
not charity, thats slavery. Thats why we have constitutional chaos, because the
government steals and enslaves, and we outlawed that a long time ago.
Re: PaganDid you even read Walker's ruling?I did. I
thought it was very well reasoned.
regarding john adams commentaryi see in your list of rights a
comment about property---i wonder if property should be considered a good in
your arguments---one of the problems with the difference between rights and
"other" is that it becomes easy to get properly defensive regarding
rights and then want to continue that defense improperly as it relates to
anything that we are involved with or feel ownership of like property or issues
we feel strongly about---for example if one feels that it is his right to own,
then he might decide to own improperly by stealing, cheating, and/or
manipulating, or properly by buying and/or making---obviously in civilized
societies, there are various methods used to deal with the use of those
methods---it becomes then a "regulation of method" by which said
society determines what is proper---in our american society, amassing great
wealth has become a goal and various methods are employed, including charging
various rates for goods and sevices---as a society we are constantly changing
how we deal with those methods when we might be better served to address the
goal itself---what is proper?---(go to page 2)
page 2in regards specifically to our healthcare system and costs
there are two issues---1) who should get our healthcare dollars---2) how large
should we allow the disparity in income to get---1)---money spent
for my own healthcare should actually go to those who provide the care---i
recognize those providing the care are supported by people also involved with
administration activities but in a well integrated medical office that would be
a small percentage of time and effort---insurance creates an extra layer of
administration that not only has nothing to do with my health, but also
increases the percentage of time and effort used in administration---2) it really irks me when i see medical professionals who enjoy an
accumulation of material goods so large that they first begin to close their
office half-days and then retire early to pursue leisure activities---if they
are able to do that then they have over-charged for their services or have
worked/payed their staff unfairly or both---
page threeafter having said all that regarding health care and
rights versus goods and the way insurance and overcharging contributes to
healthcare costs, it still remains a right to pursue the best healthcare which i
can obtain and if that means i can convince others in my society to pay for it
through taxation or government largesse or government regulation or even through
joining a group that will help pay (insurance) then i guess that is one means of
accomplishing the best for me and my family
The Constitution does not provide for a FEDERAL healthcare program. The program
was admittedly designed to eventually become a "single payer" system
(gov't controlled healthcare). I do NOT want the gov't. involved in
controlling/determining my health care choices! MA's 70-page
healthcare compared to Obama's 2000 page plan filled with ALL KINDS of gov't
interference, control, fees, charges, etc., etc. cannot be compared the same
way for very long!! Come on, people!I'm just wondering
about all of those people who support the big gov't. "redistribution"
whether health or $$................how CHARITABLE are you? I'm NOT talking
taxes paid. That's NOT charity. I'm NOT for gov't. enforced charity to the
extent the gov't. has gone!