My insurance is given to me by my employer so I don't know if I can join this protest or not but I will if I can. Presently I have no health care issues and don't need any medications so I could go a few months without coverage and if it could bring the virtual criminal of the insurance industry down it would be a wonderful thing. Many of them really belong in prison but out of business would suit me fine. People need to understand, health insurance companes commit crimes against humanity every day and pass it off as just part of doing business.
I have often discussed with various people the relativity of guilt when your employer denies needed coverage. Are the employees of health insurance companies, especially those directly involved in denying claims, as guilty as the CEOs. I say they are just as guilty, they justify their injustice to others with their need for income. It is no different from being a "good German."

No one should be under the illusion that we can make the private insurance industry capitulate. A public option will ultimately knock them out of the game altogether

So you admit that a public option will lead to single payer, Not competition, as so many on the left say they want

Now this is a dumb idea.

Cancelling your insurance is stupid unless you are broke anyway

"So you admit that a public option will lead to single payer, Not competition, as so many on the left say they want."

First, there would be nothing dishonorable about kicking them out of the picture, they have ripped us off for decades and should be thankful if that is all we do to them.
Second, there is a place for them just like there is in GErmany and France but some of the right wingers would have to shut up for a minute and find out how those systems work. It is a fact that the WHO rated France's health care system number one and the US...number 37. So, once you stop your nationalistic nonsense and learn something you will probably agree with me.

I admire his courage.

I don't have the guts to take a further risk that I could end up bankrupt from medical expenses. Hell, I know people who have ended up bankrupt from medical expenses...AND THEY HAD INSURANCE. At this point I still buy the health insurance for four people. For me dropping my insurance out of protest is just too big of a chance. I know some people make several fortunes in a lifetime but I don't know that I have it in me to try and make it all over again, if some catastrophic medical issue were to take it all away.

I don't hold much hope that our government will pass any healthcare reform that's worthwhile, but I hope they can get it done. Too me it's frightening that medical issues are responsible for half of all bankruptcies in this country, especially when this doesn't have to deter the American dream. This can be fixed. Does this country have the resolve to finally make it happen?

Iranians are out in the streets demanding democracy while American pretend we have democracy though our Congress really represents corporate interests well ahead of the interests of the citizens. Why are Iranians so much more courageous than Americans. Is there really a difference between pretending we have democracy under corporate rule and them pretending under religious rule?
This question may not occur to many Americans but it does to those outside of America who look in and shake their heads and wonder why we act like sheep.

It is a fact that the WHO rated France's health care system number one and the US...number 37.

But right wing pundits disagree, so he point is moot.

But right wing pundits disagree, so the fact is moot.

I find it hard to believe that someone could be so stupid as to cancel their insurance like this.

Well all of you who join the protest good luck.

I can't if I ever drop insurance I will never get it again. Not that my insurance does a whole heck of a lot of good for me. High Deductible with Health Savings is great if you get it when you are young and healthy or if you are rich but if you get it right after you are dx'd with MS it just pretty much means you'll have to spend 5450 a year and your HSA will never grow.

"I find it hard to believe that someone could be so stupid as to cancel their insurance like this."

You'd also probably be safe in your home watching TV if you were an Iranian.

I stand corrected. =)

TAO, first, I don't know if I can join the protest, but secondly, those who already have a necessary dependence upon medical insurance for virtually life sustaining treatments, drugs, ets. could hardly be expected to participate in such a protest.
In fact, it would actully make such a protest better if only those people with no medical problems participated. Let the insurance companies only have those who require expensive meds, treatments, surgeries, ets. to deal with and it won't be long before the insurance companies themselves will be demanding the public option so that they will have a place to dump their most expensive customers. Quite honestly, I think that is the Achilles heel of the public option and I think the insurance companies are probably going to let their Senators (wholly owned) to vote for it for that reason.

No way would I cancel my insurance I can only imagine getting sick and dying from lack of courage.

My care for just this month will run over $ (ready for it?) $40,000.00. Breath deeply cause that is correct!

Try this on for size; 1 MRI-1 CAT scan-various pre-surgical doctors visits with tests-major spinal surgery w/hardware-apx 1 week hospital stay-misc'l stuff!

That is enough to scare anyone!

KEITH204, now consider that in most modern countries that would cost you nothing. Oh, and BTW, those countries aren't bankrupt like the USA after 30 years of "greed is good."

America is fucked.

"America is fucked."

Watched the protests in Iran off and on throughout the day and I have to wonder how anyone can say that after seeing what those peoople are going through. America has some changes to make but it will still be here tomorrow, next week, next year. So many people around the world still want to come here yet so many Americans are so willing to throw in the towel instead of fighting for a better country.
Negativity will never fix what is wrong.

Yikes Keith

On the plus side I feel better about my costs now :)

Danni : I'd agree with you if it weren't for the fact that both parties are so deeply in the pockets of corporate interests, most notably the defense/arms and health insurance industries.

I feel like there's nothing that we as ordinary citizens can do to break the hold they have on our government.

Wow! Ya'll are actually too scared to without insurance? I understand if you have health issues. But then it really isn't insurance but aid. I haven't carried insurance in at least 15 years.
When I did have insurance, it was cheaper to go around the system than use anyone refered by the insurance company. I do not have to drop a policy, but I do need to tell my congressmen why it is that I do not carry insurance.

WHat is really needed is a clinic system to handle all of life's minor medical needs; cold/flu diagnosis, stitches, set a broken bone, regular checkups, etc.. Keep the population healthy in the first place.

I admire the point he's trying to make, but this guy is crazy. What if he can't get back on private insurance because something happens to him while he's uninsured?

you admire this guy?....he can afford healthcare....but in a fit of greed he'll stop paying until the government gives it to him....he thinks other people owe him, he can provide for himself, but he chooses to hold his hand out...to beg for it....he's a leech

I've seen the following question asked many times, but never really answered.

Why are there so many people who think that they are entitled to health care?

I'm sorry if this sounds cold, but it is a valid question. The pro arguments for government sponsored health care all seem to be based on the assumption that it is some sort of right that is guaranteed to us. It's not.

Why are there so many people who think that they are entitled to health care?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Our unalienable rights to life and the pursuit of happiness are pretty closely tied to our ability to take care of our health, which requires access to doctors and medical care.

you admire this guy?....he can afford healthcare....but in a fit of greed he'll stop paying until the government gives it to him....

He's not doing it out of greed. He's refusing to let his premiums prop up private health insurers who are dropping coverage of people when they get sick. If enough Americans did this, private insurers would have to change how they do business.

That's an invalid argument, rcade. There are some people who have perfect health and health care and are not happy. Besides where is this line drawn? Do I expect the government to provide whatever it is that I require to keep me happy?

Besides, the DoI is not the Constitution.

Our unalienable rights to life and the pursuit of happiness are pretty closely tied to our ability to take care of our health, which requires access to doctors and medical care.

You rights are such that people can't take your life, your freedom, or you ability to pursue happiness. It should not put an obligation on anyone else to do something FOR you.

Additionally, if healthcare isrationed, you don't have a right to it. You are a begger waiting for the powerful government to give you your hand out. Government programs usually turn into a form of oppression.

"Do I expect the government to provide whatever it is that I require to keep me happy?"

No one is demanding happiness, basic health care though should be a basic human right. We supply it to the worst criminal so why don't we care if law abiding citizens have access to it?
Some of the most evil dictatorships provide better health care to their citizens than we do.
CASe in point: Iran.
How can Americans be proud of a country that provides les health care for its citizens than Iran or Cuba?

"Government programs usually turn into a form of oppression."

Well, that is a completely meaningless talking point, utterly without thought.
Are Medicare patients oppressed???
Who knew???

Sick Americans call out...."oppress me"".

Why are there so many people who think that they are entitled to health care?

Because we are not a cruel society and as a first world country we can afford to give all our citizens health care.

Suppose you answer why you think it's okay one family's 8 year old little girl will be given the chance to live because her parents were able to afford health insurance to provide her with the medical care and chemotherapy she needed to cure her leukemia, yet another 8 year old girl with leukemia must die because her parents couldn't afford to the pay costly health insurance premiums.

Rather like playing God isn't it? You really want to be the one to choose which child gets the chance to live or die?

Why are there so many people who think that they are entitled to health care?

#25 | Posted by goatman

At this point nobody IS entitled to healthcare, not even the insured by many accounts. I've never seen any reasonable plan for insuring that everyone can get healthcare without fear of going broke from medical expenses, other than making healthcare an entitlement. I don't think that most people believe that the solution is going to be free and the solution is probably going to need to be some form of taxation. Almost everyone should pay something into it.

It's become pretty apparent that the current system isn't working. Why can't the U.S. insure that all of its citizens have reasonable access to healthcare when many other countries have already done so? Maybe those systems in other countries aren't perfect either, but I think several of them have us beat.

I love my medical unsurance company. They negotiate lower prices from doctors and hospitals. I hope Obama doesn't fuck up the system. I don't want to stand in line for health care with some low class government insured assholes.

"At this point nobody IS entitled to healthcare, not even the insured by many accounts."

Actually, they are. Show up at the ER and they will treat you. The problem is that this is the most inefficient way to distribute health care. Problem is that preventive care ends up being cheaper than dealing with preventalbe accute illnesses which could have been avoided by visits do a clinic or a doctor.
So, in the end, it appears we are entitled to health care but not until our disease is severe enough to require an ER visit and hopefully that won't be too late to also include our cure.

Suppose you answer why you think it's okay one family's 8 year old little girl will be given the chance to live because her parents were able to afford health insurance to provide her with the medical care and chemotherapy she needed to cure her leukemia, yet another 8 year old girl with leukemia must die because her parents couldn't afford to the pay costly health insurance premiums.

I'm sorry to be so blunt, CC, but the fact is in life we all get a shitty roll of the dice now and then. None of us are immune to misfortune.

Am I to expect the governmnent to compensate me for every misfortune that befalls me? Or just certain ones -- like health care in this case?

If we have universal health care, I think all homeowners should have universal house insurance, too. I can't pursue happiness if my house burns down.

This thread cracks me up. Don't get me wrong. I believe that we should help everybody here but there are some stupid jackasses here who don't understand the concept of insurance

Why can't the U.S. insure that all of its citizens have reasonable access to healthcare when many other countries have already done so?

Because the US is not based on as socialistic a model as those other countries.

"Low class government insured assholes..."

Just out of curiosity, it they weren't government insured, would they still be low-class?

I'm glad someone brought the word "class" into this debate. Pretty much, that's at the heart of the controversy.

Gets you into interesting territory. Millions of educated and hard-working people don't know why the person born on third base is considered a "higher" class. Hoe does that work?

Fat thom I hope you get dropped by your insurance and get horribly ill and have no way of paying for your medicine

Let's change what this country is based on goatcoward

If "class" is dependent upon mere possession of money, then an incredible incentive to steal is created. That explains a lot of recent American financial history.

Zed talking about "class" with rasta's posts wedged in between.

LOL

RASTA,

If I get dropped by my insurance company I will show up at the emergency room every time I get a hang nail and scream "Where's my healthcare??? Barry said It's my right!!!"

Because the US is not based on as socialistic a model as those other countries.

#38 | Posted by goatman

Even this country is socialist to a degree, and has been since its inception. I think it's time to change the model a bit. On this issue, other countries are better.

Let's change what this country is based on goatcoward

No thank you. I have full faith in what this country is based on. I think the engineering feat that the founding fathers pulled off is nothing short of sheer genius. History will never be able to heap enough praise on these brilliant men.

"If we have universal health care, I think all homeowners should have universal house insurance, too. I can't pursue happiness if my house burns down."

Other countries have successfully created universal health care while still requiring people to deal with their own issues on other matters.
Probably the most idiotic argument you have ever made Goat. Smacks of intellectual desperation. You can't justify allowing patients to go without health care but you don't want to make care a right.
A difficult position to justify.

Goat is greedy he could care less about those less fortunate than himself

Because the US is not based on as socialistic a model as those other countries.

So yer cool with the internal third worldification of the US because it's less "socialistic"?

S'rsly, Goat?

Man, the propaganda system you guys have had going on in yer country all these years has been startling effective even unto this day, eh?

At the end of the day all socialism is about is insuring that workers have a say in their own workplace.

That citizenry have a stake in the nations resources.

It's just a way of increasing democratisation in the workplace and stability/sustainability in a given society really but in the minds of too many Americans it's the equivilant of Stalin's Russia.

Nationalising vital things like healthcare and power grids and water suplies etc is just a way of ensuring that the social contract has meaning and that peoples lives have dignity.

How can any sane individual argue against their own best interests by supporting corporate greed and increased wealth inequality and human misery?

Get over yer fears.

Be Well.

Other countries

Other countries, other countries, other countries. "Other countries" is not a valid position. We are the United States. We are not "other countries".

Goat is greedy...

Actually I'm far from it.

Though I can't know for sure, of course, I'll wager that I give away a far greater percentage of my salary to those in need than you do. When I see the hate that festers in you, ratsa, and your admission that your charity is in the form of paying hookers, I dare say that it is you who is the greedy one, not I.

You can't justify allowing patients to go without health care

That is not the argument. The question is to justify a person's right to it. There is no legal or constitutional precedent that can be extrapolated to a person's right to health care.

How can any sane individual argue against their own best interests by supporting corporate greed and increased wealth inequality and human misery?

I can't speak for such an individual, deth. You'll have to address that question to one of them.

BTW, that was a very melodramatic coda. Good show.

There is no legal or constitutional precedent that can be extrapolated to a person's right to health care.

Life, Liberty and Happiness.

Guess why "Life" comes first, Goat.

Be Well.

Life, Liberty and Happiness.

That's from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. You may want to read those words in their full context.

If we are to use that argument, am I to expect the government to provide whatever I require for my happiness? Or do Canadians get to cherry-pick those items they feel are necessary to make an American happy?

"There is no legal or constitutional precedent that can be extrapolated to a person's right to health care."

The moral imperative is already there but also there was no legal or constitutional precedent that required a slave owner to free his slaves. If a constitutional precedent is required for you to do the moral thing then I suggest your morality is in need of some work.

Many nuevo Laredo women will be able to pay their bills because of me

...there was no legal or constitutional precedent that required a slave owner to free his slaves

You may want to check out the 13th ammendment to the Constitution and get back with us on that one, Danni.

If we are to use that argument, am I to expect the government to provide whatever I require for my happiness?

Ummm, no that would be a "Reductio ad absurdum" argument but thanx fer playing.

Be Well.

Goatman is a debater, he argues to win an argument not to make a point. In reality, I wonder what he really believes because I don't thin he expresses it in his argument because he views them as competition and just doesn't quite get it that many (or most) of us express views that we believe in though some of us may not be great debaters. The ability to debate should not indicate the value of the argument. It isn'e a game.

13th ammendment

So yer suggesting a Constitutional Ammendment to enshrine universal health care coverage into the Constitution?

Hmmm, might work!

While yer admiration fer the Founding Fathers is well, admirable, you seem to fergit the fact that they themselves saw the neccessity of an America society which will evolve into a better place.

A More Perfect Union.

No time to rest on yer laurels, Goat.

Sommats broken.

Time to fix it and make it better fer subsequent generations.

K?

Be Well.

Ummm, no that would be a "Reductio ad absurdum"

As is using the life, liberty thing as an argument for guaranteed health care.

No, thank you for playing

"Well, that is a completely meaningless talking point, utterly without thought.
Are Medicare patients oppressed???
Who knew???"

Sick Americans call out...."oppress me"".

Without thought, huh. Sounds like you've never had to wait in line for hours at the social security office deal with an adoption only to be told to come back due to legal technicalities.

I guess you've never run a day care and had the STATE tell you how to run every little meaningless detail just so you can care for people's kids who are getting government assistance.

You've probably never tried to hire a nanny to help with the kids because your wife has an incurable disease and had to deal with all the tax withholding and unemployment tax nightmares, and then had the state lose all of your filings, then charge you late fees and threaten to garnish your wages all because THEY made a mistake and won't admit it. In the end, I just couldn't afford help BECAUSE of the government programs.

Obama talked all about making healthcare cost "less" by making it available to all, and now congress is talking about all sorts of taxes. Many not-so-rich people end up paying 50% or more of their money in taxes when you add up all the little taxes they pay.

I'm not saying the there is really anything all that positive about the current healthcare system, and I actually really like lots of things about the German system.

My only point is that government programs are oppressive because they expect us live and do the way they want us to, or they won't give us anything. They are full of excessive and meaningless run-around. On top of that, we have little recourse to challenge them when they screw up.

In trying to be brief, I haven't defended any points very well here. My intent is to show that my point is not meaningless and without thought. It's amazing to me how so many people don't see how government "help" comes at high cost.

"...there was no legal or constitutional precedent that required a slave owner to free his slaves"

Obviously, I was talking about the situation before the Emancipation Proclamatio or the 13th amendment. Once again you focus on details instead of real discussions. You try to "win" arguments while we discuss issues most of us really care about. Sorry, but I tire of being your entertainment. WAtch TV. If you want to discuss the issues then come here, if you just want to make irreleveant commentaries about details of posts you just make yourself look like a pathetic guy bored out of his mind on an oil rig. Sound familiar.

I think the government should treat its citizens like family. Parents usually want to educate and take care of the health needs of their children. Doing these things makes their family stronger as a whole--better educated and healthier than their more indifferent neighbors. A country that has the best educated and healthiest citizens would seem to have a better chance in worldwide competition.

If our country provided free education for as long as you could pass the courses, I think we could get back some of those jobs from India. I think if we treated all of our sick people with the same care, that it would make us stronger as a nation. It works in other countries--it can work here.

Our priorities are skewed. We should take care of our sick before we start building an empire. We lose far more lives to lack of preventive medical care, than terrorists.

Danni, you are right in your #60. I do agree it would be nice if we could provide a chicken in every pot and health care in every pocket. But the fact is, we are not guaranteed these things.

If we had a prosperous, uncorrupt government with a couple of trillion to spare, I'd say go for it. It'd probably be the first thing I'd be willing to provide the people. Until then people have to pay for what they get.

Obviously, I was talking about the situation before the Emancipation Proclamatio or the 13th amendment.

I realize that Danni, but I was making a point that a Constituional ammendment would settle the issue. I did not mean to insult your intelligence as I admit my point may have been a bit too subtle.

WAtch TV.

No thank you.

Until then people have to pay for what they get.

#67 | Posted by goatman

Once Obama raises your taxes people will be able to get more. If you won't do the right thing the government will make you.

"In trying to be brief, I haven't defended any points very well here. My intent is to show that my point is not meaningless and without thought. It's amazing to me how so many people don't see how government "help" comes at high cost."

You have made your case perfectly well. There is no argument that you have had to fight against buracracy to gain the necessary services that your wife required. I just ask you to consider that Obama wasn't presient then and that Republicans have purposely strived to make all government services harder to get and have put in place arbitrary obstacles just to prevent you from getting any service tha might cost a few dollars. Basicly, they determined compassion was too expensive. I believe the Obama adminstration will reverse "some" of that, not all, it will be slow but it will have more compassion than the Bush administration had.

"If you won't do the right thing the government will make you."

That's a nightmare scenario if I've ever heard one.

If you want to discuss the issues then come here, if you just want to make irreleveant commentaries about details of posts you just make yourself look like a pathetic guy bored out of his mind on an oil rig. Sound familiar

Indeed it does. It is simply a variation on a theme that basically states, "I can't come up with a valid counterpoint, so I am bowing out."

I still want to know what it is that guarantees Americans the right to health care. It's not an unreasonable question and to question my sincerity on wanting it answered or accuse me of ulterior motives in asking it (boredom on an oil rig) is the ultimate cop-out Danni.

Goat is a bitter old man. Any happiness he gains is undeserved. He only cares about his money. It's all about his tax dollars.

Spud: How can any sane individual argue against their own best interests by supporting corporate greed and increased wealth inequality and human misery?

Goat: I can't speak for such an individual, deth. You'll have to address that question to one of them.

So yer admitting yer insane?

Wow, didn't think it would be that easy.

BTW, that was a very melodramatic coda. Good show.

Yeah, funny how life and death issues tend to bring out the empathy in Spud.

Too bad you can't say the same.

Basically you have no argument here, Goat.

None at all.

American exceptionalism?

S'rsly?

Why not trot out Manifest Destiny while yer making a fool out of yerself?

Be Well.

Once Obama raises your taxes people will be able to get more

Yes, but I'm not concerned with a few greedy politicians and lobbyists getting more.

I still want to know what it is that guarantees Americans the right to health care.

Posted by goatman

Why do we need one?? Why can't we just say it is morally the right thing to do? There is no constitutional right to a minimum wage but we realize people should receive a baseline of compensation.

If you won't do the right thing the government will make you.

It's a good thing I do the right thing then. I have my "government free life" card guaranteed then.

That's a nightmare scenario if I've ever heard one.

#72 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-06-20 11:50 PM | Reply | Flag

It's been around for thousands of years. It is called the law. This is nothing new. All governments decide what the right thing to do is, and their people do it or face the consequences. You seem to think you were living under different conditions.

That's a nightmare scenario if I've ever heard one.

#72 | Posted by Danforth

No it isn't. People like Goat and others would prey on the weak and powerless if not for the government. all they care about is getting theirs. The government helps to protect us from evil politicians they would choose to elect.

He only cares about his money.

???

It's a good thing I do the right thing then. I have my "government free life" card guaranteed then.

#78 | Posted by goatman

You oppose doing the morally right thing. Obama will ensure your tax dollars goes towards doing the right thing.

No it isn't. People like Goat and others would prey on the weak and powerless if not for the government. all they care about is getting theirs. The government helps to protect us from evil politicians they would choose to elect.

#80 | Posted by rastaninja at 2009-06-20 11:55 PM

Tell me ,dummy. What sort of jobs do the weak and the powerless do?

Tell me ,dummy. What sort of jobs do the weak and the powerless do?

#83 | Posted by Washboard

Work at walmart, fast food, dishwasher. Low wage Jobs that do not provide adequate insurance or any at all. Goat chooses to deny these people decent preventive medical care.

So yer admitting yer insane?

???

No, I recall having made such an admission.

Basically you have no argument here, Goat.

Actually that would be you, deth. You only attempt at an answer to my question was to take three words from the Declaration of Independence out of context.

Can you or can you not tell me what device guarantees health care for all American citizens.

If you answer is continued cutesy-speak as a mask or diversion tactic, don't waste your keystrokes replying

Goats moral compass has been destroyed. Was it bad upbringing or did he become bitter at the loss of his wife?

Washboard

Do you think the weak and powerless don't have any money? Do you think you have to have a job to have money? What is the point of your question?

Now this is a dumb idea.
#3 | Posted by Pirate at 2009-06-20 08:09 PM

This is a brilliant idea for anyone not endangering their immediate health.

The news would never mention this movement because if it were to catch on.. Can you imagine the panic at the insurance agencies? :]] Every television outlet would claim that's a "dangerous trend" in unison.

If employers can relinquish from being charged health insurance I would recommend having that dropped ASAP en mass. That's money one of the 15,000 insurance agencies won't be getting any more of if Single Payer gets implemented. No executive bonuses or paychecks. Boo-hoo!

We DESERVE Universal Health Care. Anything less is useless.

Just a few unions getting this on the news.. different cities join in.. President Obama must acquiesce. Be Presidential and use that power. Just watch your back - Russians are paid in puppy blood.

"Every television outlet would claim that's a "dangerous trend" in unison."

Or, simply continue a silence.

Why not trot out Manifest Destiny while yer making a fool out of yerself?

Honestly, deth, you need to grow up and post as an adult would. "so you admit yer insane" and "yer making a fool of yourself" are not valid arguments.

I'm sure in your eyes that cutesy-speak and calling names enforces your argument but it doesn't. It actually does what you accuse me of -- you makes a fool of yourself and without any need of interpretaion or translation from me.

You oppose doing the morally right thing.

I give literally thousands of dollars to family members more needy to me and ask for nothing in return. Your version of charity is to give a sawbuck to a hooker in exchange for sex.

Pardon me if I put much stock in your interpretation of morality, ratsa.

People like Goat and others would prey on the weak and powerless

???

Ratsa, you have admitted in the past you prey on the weak and powerless. WTF?

Well dummy. I don't work in any of those vocations or for any of those companies but, if I did I'd take offense to your implication that I am weak and powerless because I do. Some people have enough pride and integrity to work whatever they have to in order to survive while keeping an eye to the future and taking the steps necessary to obtain their ambitions rather than asking for a government handout. Further, some people are of simple means and don't require false perceived/false pride status or pretentiousness that some delude themselves to think add up to success. I admire such persons.

We're always going to need the butcher, the fast food worker, the diswasher etc.

You're an insulting litte dummy on so many levels. You're a teenager, right?

All governments decide what the right thing to do is,

SO stoning people to death is the right thing to do because Iranian law says so?

Thanks for the input bOoB. Go back to sleep.

Goat chooses to deny these people decent preventive medical care.

???

I don't recall telling anyone they couldn't have health care.

I'm weary of correcting you, ratsa. Feel free to assign whatever positions to me you want. I'll allow them to go unchallenged. I'm pretty sure most people who read them don't believe you anyway.

And my hope that you one day rid yourself of your festering hatred is most sincere still. Good luck to you, ratsa.

OK..I'll play. If the sole determining factor in who gets decent health care (if any at all) is based on the patient's ability to pay, what would the incentive be to remain a citizen of a country too swayed by profit to guarantee every citizen affordable access to a doctor? The American worker has long been known to be the most productive workforce on the planet when properly remunerated for their labors. It's not outside the realm of possibility that one day the big money fat cats will helplessly watch as their labor force learns the lyrics to Oh! Canada--as the Canadian's manufacturing base is not being merrily dismantled and shipped offshore like its some kind of race. And at least they've got proper health care, no matter what your opinion of it is, eh?

The smelly invisible gorilla in the room is wearing eau de avarice, and each and every one of you know it.

We're always going to need the butcher, the fast food worker, the diswasher etc.

You're an insulting litte dummy on so many levels. You're a teenager, right?

#93 | Posted by Washboard

I am looking out for those people washidiot. They deserve healthcare. You are a greedy asshole that doesn't agree with me. I am 34 and consider myself lucky. I am in the union and therefore get the best coverage on the planet.

Ratsa, you have admitted in the past you prey on the weak and powerless. WTF?

#92 | Posted by goatman

No I help those who need it the most.

Washboard

You have absolutely no idea wtf you are talking about. All the pride in the world won't help you if you get cancer and don't have the insurance to cover treatments.

You talk about SOME people. We are trying to see that ALL people are insured. Most bankruptcies come from medical costs. A person shouldn't lose their home because they get sick. Americans should take care of each other.

Where did I say they shouldn't get health care, dummy?

And you're looking out for them? Do you volunteer at a clinic? A resthome?

Do you look out for them in reality or just here da blog, dummy?

It's not outside the realm of possibility that one day the big money fat cats will helplessly watch as their labor force learns the lyrics to Oh! Canada

~Dutch

True North Strong and Free!

We stand on guard fer Thee!

/Plus the weed is REALLY good here and the cops don't seem to care too much about it.

Be Well.

No I help those who need it the most.

Right. According to many of your posts in the past, you help hookers by letting them fuck you. You have told us how good you are to them and how they can eat and their kids have shoes because of your 'charity'.

You are indeed the charitable one, ratsa.

But here is a fact for you: Reciprocation is not charity.

Honestly, deth, you need to grow up and post as an adult would. "so you admit yer insane" and "yer making a fool of yourself" are not valid arguments.

Of course "so you admit yer insane" wasn't an argument, Goat.

It was a joke based on the fact that you essentially called yerself insane.

If you don't understand it ask a fifth grader to explain it to you.

You don't even hafta find a half bright one.

"Yer making a fool of yourself" was not so much an argument as a valid observation.

I'm sure in your eyes that cutesy-speak and calling names enforces your argument but it doesn't. It actually does what you accuse me of -- you makes a fool of yourself and without any need of interpretaion or translation from me.

Hey, at least Spud has an argument.

You got nothing.

Diddly divided by squat.

You have an untenable position backed up by "It's not in the Constitution".

Basically yer just butting heads fer the sheer joy of it as usual.

But the position you've taken is one that is morally indenfensible.

K?

Be Well.

Can you or can you not tell me what device guarantees health care for all American citizens.

Empathy.

Societal cohesion.

Ability to compete globally in an industrial sense.

Simple human decency.

/That last you should really try some time.
//Spud highly reccomends.

The argument is not that there already exists a device that guarantees health care to all US citizens.

The argument is that there should be such a device.

You, as usual, make a false argument and then trumpet yer own victory.

If Spud wasn't already used to yer egotistical ways Spud would be appalled.

But as it is?

Meh, just Goat bein' Goat.

Sadly enuff.

Be Well.

Rasta --

I never quite know when you are semi-joking sometimes. But I saved this quote from you because I found it a very thoughtful and unselfish attitude. Put your usual digs at Republicans aside for one minute and tell me -- did you honestly mean what you said in this following post a couple weeks ago:

The Friday Nooner

I am healthy and don't mind an increase in my taxes to see those less fortunate than me get healthcare. If it means I go out a little less or don't get the coolest TV or computer system so be it. even if I know some people will take advantage of the system I don't care because I know most will honest hardworking people that need the help. that's the difference between a dem and a republican. Dems believe in sharing their good fortunes while republicans try to hoard it all for themselves.

Posted by rastaninja at 2009-06-05 08:49 PM | Reply

You got nothing.

???

Actually I did. I have a question. It was:

What is it that guarantees Americans the right to health care? That's what "I got".

So far all I got from you is three words from the DoI (not even the Constitution!) taken out of context, cutesy-speak, accusations of being insane and a fool and now your longest post yet in reply to my questions which basically is all of the above redux.

If you can't answer the question just say so. I get a headache translating your gibberish into English and then get disappointed (albeit not surprised) that it is still deth-garbage with no substance or relation to the original topic.

Now if you are through with the childish name calling and innuendos and have an answer to my question, I would like to read it. If you still feel obliged to continue your vain attempts at insulting me, feel free, but it only underscores what I have just written.

What is it that guarantees Americans the right to health care? That's what "I got".

See post 104.

You got nothing.

Be Well.

"But the position you've taken is one that is morally indenfensible."

Are you guys arguing about abortion? If healthcare is morally defensible, via "moral imperative", "life, liberty, and happiness", certainly opposing the KILLING lifes potential would be morally defensible.

I agree with the current abortion laws as written it is a compromise, with respect to the womens right to choose to a point. But if we are going to impose "morals" on people, then one could argue morally that abortion be made illegal, with just the same defensibility.

Simple human decency.

/That last you should really try some time.

*yawn*

More attempts and insulting me. Who here is surprised. Honestly, deth. Grow up.

You, as usual, make a false argument and then trumpet yer own victory.

???

Where did I trumpet my victory? Again, grow up, dude. Your sctick that falsely assigns acts to me is well worn and should've been buried long ago.

If Spud wasn't already used to yer egotistical ways

*yawn*

yet more attempted insults

Grow up. I hope third time's a charm with that request.

But as it is?

Meh, just Goat bein' Goat.

And again! LOL Just deth bein' deth -- ad hominem when nothing else is available.

Cali of course I meant it. I believe in sharing the wealth. I have been blessed to be able to do well for myself. I want everyone to know what it means not having to worry about their next meal or knowing if they get sick it isn't going to bankrupt them. Sadly many here figure that other people aren't their responsibility. I don't need the constitution to tell me my fellow man is my responsibility, I just know they are. Wanting everyone to have access to the best doctors in the country just seems like it is the morally responsible thing to want. I wish Goat would realize that he makes a great living and if he lived on 5,000 less a year he would still be great while others would be able to also live well.

Empathy.

Societal cohesion.

Ability to compete globally in an industrial sense.

Simple human decency.

These are admirable qualities indeed, but are not any form of a guarantee of health care to the nation.

Good article and not very long --

I wish Goat would realize that he makes a great living and if he lived on 5,000 less a year he would still be great while others would be able to also live well.

Actually, I live on about $10,000 a year less than what I bring home.

Whoops, George Will just corrected me - it's 1,300 insurers by his count.

You're an insulting litte dummy

~WishyWashboard

Spud's First Rule of Blogworld is in Full Effect!

Spud: "But the position you've taken is one that is morally indefensible."

Dreamy: Are you guys arguing about abortion?

Not currently but we can if you like.

If healthcare is morally defensible, via "moral imperative", "life, liberty, and happiness", certainly opposing the KILLING lifes potential would be morally defensible.

I agree with the current abortion laws as written it is a compromise, with respect to the womens right to choose to a point. But if we are going to impose "morals" on people, then one could argue morally that abortion be made illegal, with just the same defensibility

Shall we make masturbation illegal then, Dreamy?

All them spermatoza that end up in a wad of Kleenex after FuckWit Thom whacks off to his Barbara Bush calendar weer all potential life, doncha know.

Abortion like birth control is morally defensible on several levels.

First, overpoppulation is a bigger crime (eco-cide) than the so-called "baby killing" that anti abortionists whine over.

Second, adopting a forced birth position essentially endangers the life of the mother while making her property.

Neither of which are morally defensible positions.

From a practical point of view adopting laws prohibiting abortion would be about as successful as the old prohibition law against alcohol and the current laws used in the "War on Drugs".

Yer argument FAILs.

Nice to know you agree with the current laws though.

Be Well.

Rasta

When I read what you had written those couple of weeks ago, it seemed so unusual from your usual attitude of "tough guy" that it made me kind of take notice of what you wrote. I'm glad you honestly feel that compassion.

Actually, I live on about $10,000 a year less than what I bring home.

#113 | Posted by goatman

So if the govt made you live on 5k less you wouldn't be affected at all.

Right now health care is a privilege, not a right. Yet the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause of the 8th Amendment has been found by our Supreme Court to apply to incarcerated prisoners when it comes to them having a right to health care. Yet every lawabiding citizen is not guaranteed that same "right"? Anyone else see something wrong with this picture?

* Spud puts up his hand *

Good point, CChris.

Be Well.

Tater --

That point was mentioned in the article I linked in my post #112 -- worth the read.

So if the govt made you live on 5k less you wouldn't be affected at all.

No, but my benefactors would be.

These are admirable qualities indeed, but are not any form of a guarantee of health care to the nation.

Let's try this again.

The argument is not that there already exists a device that guarantees health care to all US citizens.

The argument is that there should be such a device.

You, as usual, make a false argument and then trumpet yer own victory.

FSM Bless the guy wot invented C&P.

More attempts and insulting me. Who here is surprised. Honestly, deth. Grow up.

Woot!

Extra hypocrisy points fer crying over being insulted while implying that Spud is childish.

Ju crack Spud up, Goatman.

Be Well.

I am an example of one individual that the "system" has worked for-so far. If the system craps out, there may be little option other than the "final" one for so many. Living in nonstop pain or worse agony is just not doable. Currently without cosiderable powerful narcotics, life would be a total mess with out any concern but trying to get through this minute. I would not be able to have the available mental conciseness to even think about the next minute until forced to when it happens. Go buy food? With continuous pain at my level, you can not spare the time to think about it. The actual effort of doing the shopping is far to painful. Just trying not to move and knowing that even that won't help much, is all you can do. Soundlike a kind of life anyone would care to continue living with? Without that government help, countless people wouldn't and don't. $50.00 woth of good heroin (?) should relieve one of the need to think about this. Have a nice day/night, thanks to our governments help I will too.

Anyone else see something wrong with this picture?

Yes. It is a false analogy. We outside of the penal system are not prisoners so that clause does not apply to us. Also, not being provided something some believe we have an inherent right to is not a punishment.

Ju crack Spud up, Goatman.

That's great. But let's get serious: What device is it that guarantees Americans the right to health care?

Extra hypocrisy points fer crying over being insulted while implying that Spud is childish.

???

You think name calling is adult like behavior? Wow. In that case, please accept my apologies for calling you childish. Where I live name calling is considered such

Goat if they create a new law would you be ok with universal healthcare? Seems like that is your only apprehension to granting it. Laws get made all the time. Time for a new one.

That point was mentioned in the article I linked in my post #112 -- worth the read

~CChris.

Agreed.

Good article.

Worth the bandwidth.

FTA: The Founding Fathers declared that we are "endowed with unalienable rights, among them are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." (1) There is no question that in order to have life we must have health. Yet there has been only limited constitutional language specific to this right.

That by the way is the answer to the question Spud asked Goat waaaaay up this thread that Goat declined to respond to.

Life, Liberty and Happiness.

Guess why "Life" comes first, Goat.

Except to point out that that was from the Declaration of Independence and not the Constitution itself.

Somehow asserting that the statement adopted back then by the 13 states wasn't a legal statement.

Which is odd because the DoI provides the legal rationale declaring the "right of revolution".

But more than just being a legal document the DoI was a statement embodying not just "letter of the law" but also "spirit of the law".

A wholly remarkable document, even by today's standards.

Be Well.

That's great. But let's get serious: What device is it that guarantees Americans the right to health care?

K one more time...

The argument is not that there already exists a device that guarantees health care to all US citizens.

The argument is that there should be such a device.

You, as usual, make a false argument and then trumpet yer own victory.

Be Well.

Btw, Spud accepts yer apology fer name calling and apologises in turn fer joking about the unfitness of yer mental state.

Be Well.

If "class" is dependent upon mere possession of money, then an incredible incentive to steal is created.

#42 | Posted by Zed at 2009-06-20 11:02 PM

I used the above post because of the reference to "an incentive to steal."

I don't want to put you in an awkward position of answering this post because this hypothetical involves the commission of a crime so if you don't want to answer it, just skip over this post, Goatman, and ignore it. No problem, I'll understand you maybe not wanting to answer it.

But here goes --

Before when we were all talking of whether it was "right or wrong" in using a form of "torture" on a person to obtain info that would save either the life a beloved famiy member (or even hundreds of American lives) you said you felt in that case torture was justified. You said you would do anything necessary to save your son's life. I happened to have agreed with you. As you did, I felt the end justified the means.

Now -- drop the torture scenario and go to this scenario.

You are now in a situation where you are new on the job and you do not have any health insurance. You do not have relatives to borrow money from and you are not eligible for a loan. You were just told by a physician your son needed an operation which if he did not have within 3 weeks it would cost him his life. You were not eligible for Medicaid as you made a little "too much money" to qualify and besides time was of the essence.

You were told by the hospital and the physician the operation would cost $150,000 and you would have to pay them a minumum of 1/2 in cash up front and could make payments for the balance. That meant you needed $75,000 in cash within 3 weeks time or no operation would be performed on your son.

Would you consider robbing a convenience store to get the money to pay for your son's operation to save his life? We'll say you were always a law abiding guy and you honestly had full intentions of paying back the store you robbed -- and would accept any consequences -- but, as for now, you HAD to come up with $75,000 or no operation for your son. It was a "live or die" situation. Those are your only options. What would you -- the uninsured father -- do?

Goat --

As I said in my #130 -- just skip the post if the scenario is too awkward a situation to discuss.

If you would rather not answer it, perhaps someone else on here would take it on and say what they would do.

OK -- deth still can't answer the question.

I'm not asking 'should' as your answer keeps implying I am. Nor am I even defending a point in an argument which you also keep implying. I am asking "What is the device that guarantees (not should guarantee) Americans the right health care.

Thanks for playin'! Sorry, but spam precludes even a consolation prize

CC -- you are making the same assumption deth is. YOu think I am defending the point that people shouldn't have guaranteed health care. I'm not. I just want to know on what basis does the concept of government provided health care stand on? What device guarantees it?

You, as usual, make a false argument and then trumpet yer own victory.

Just out of curiousity: Why did you repeat this lie, deth? Also, even if you feel it's true, how do you deduce a perceived victory from a question I ask? Victories are usually the result of a debate in these types of forums. The asking of a question is not an attempt to 'win' anything.

You do indeed go to extremes, deth. Lies on your part are not necessary.

I just want to know on what basis does the concept of government provided health care stand on? What device guarantees it?

#133 | Posted by goatman

All we have to do is change the law and boom we have device that supports this.

What device do we have that supports minimum wage yet we have it.

I just want to know on what basis does the concept of government provided health care stand on? What device guarantees it?

KK, Goat still won't acknowledge the fact that his basic premise is faulty and his argument is false.

We KNOW that there is NO DEVICE that guarantees universal health care coverage.

Hence the current problem involving people dying or going bankrupt unneccessarily due to corporate greed and gocernmental inaction due to corruption/lobbying.

Now, if you'd like to join in the real debate...

Should America have Universal Health Care coverage?

Spud sez yes.

Wot do you say, Goat?

Be Well.

Goat if they create a new law would you be ok with universal healthcare?

If the law was well written, fair to all, and properly enforced, yes.

Why all the hate for insurance companies?

Insurance companies don't make doctors charge as much as $50,000 for a single surgery.

Insurance companies don't make hospitals charge $300 just to walk in the door of the emergency room or $100 each for 1/4" titanium screws that cost roughly $1 each. How about $16 every time the nurse brings you 2 tylenols.

The problem is not insurance companies but the cost of the procedures and services that both doctors and hospitals provide.

Ask yourself this question. Why are both laser eye surgery and breast augmentation so cheap? Because neither are covered by insurance because they are elective surgeries.

KK, Goat still won't acknowledge the fact that his basic premise is faulty and his argument is false.

I'll stop reading right there. I'm not sure what argument you are talking about. I'm looking for an answer to a question, which after several posts you fail to provide. I'm not looking for an argument though you seem desperate to get into one.

Sorry. Just looking for an answer to a question.

CC -- you are making the same assumption deth is. YOu think I am defending the point that people shouldn't have guaranteed health care. I'm not. I just want to know on what basis does the concept of government provided health care stand on? What device guarantees it?

#133 | Posted by goatman at 2009-06-21 01:43 AM

No, I wasn't getting into politics. I just wanted to get across to you -- by using a very personal (to you) example -- of how guaranteed health care plays such an important place in the lives of so many people. Much more than, say, your example of comparison saying it's similar to wanting the government to guarantee your homeowners' insurance.

And, as more and more people become left without health insurance what lengths would they go to in order to make sure their family members were able to get health care -- and pay for it.

I shouldn't have used such an extreme example in your hypothetical case (as it involved commission of a crime and I'm sorry about that) but I was trying to bring strong feelings into the subject -- the lengths a man might feel necessary to go to in order to get needed medical care for his family.

How about the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Without health care "life" can be cut right out of the equasion before someone is out of their teens if they are without needed medical care.

Children under age 10 not being allowed to work 16 hours a day wasn't "guaranteed" by our Constitution, nor were a lot of things given to us today. (Read the article later on tonight if you get bored and get a chance to check it out -- the one linked in my #112.)

Surely you do not expect nothing to change since the Constitution was first written? Look at how far medicine has come. What was the life expectency when the Constitution was written -- 40 years old? Knowledge of medicine was in its infancy.

And as for your fear of "socialism" -- sorry, but what do you think was done by Bush and the politicians for Wall Street and the bankers with our tax money on the stimulus bill. If that wasn't the government bailing out private entities who needed "government help" (aka socialism) than I don't know what was. I think hard working U.S. citizens deserve a little help too.

We will never agree on this issue because until it hits home with you (and I hope it never does) I don't think you are capable of really relating to the devastation illness can do to one's family when there is no money to pay for it. Just going through the illness is bad enough -- as you are more than well aware -- but when a devasting illness also wipes out everything a family owns financially -- their home, their savings, everything they've got -- on top of it, well a man can only take so much.

There is no guaranteed "right" to health care for every American citizen, but there should be one. Well, I've said pretty much all I have to say on the matter. Guess you and I will just have to agree to disagree on how this matter should be handled.

Sorry. Just looking for an answer to a question.

Posted by goatman at 2009-06-21 02:10 AM | Reply

He gave you an answer. The very next line you pretend not to have read.

I'm not sure what argument you are talking about.

You seem to think that people are arguing that there is a specific "device" that makes universal health care mandatory in the US.

While people have pointed to the DoI and basic common sense and humanity as justification for the existence of UHC nobody is claiming that any such device exists.

The argument is "should UHC become a reality in the US?" not "Is there a device maknig such a move mandatory?"

Hence "false argument".

I'm not looking for an argument though you seem desperate to get into one.

Dear sweet FSM in Hebbin that has got to be the most hilarious thing ever posted on the Retort.

EVAR!!!!

Head butting Goatman not looking for an argument?

Bwa haha haha haha haha haha haha haha!

Realise you "stoppped reading" a while back but when did you stop thinking?

Too rich is that.

Killah material!

* wipes tears of laughter from many many eyes *

Ta fer THAT!

Be Well.

"Goat if they create a new law would you be ok with universal healthcare?"

If the law was well written, fair to all, and properly enforced, yes.

#137 | Posted by goatman at 2009-06-21 02:06 AM

Just saw your reply now after I had posted my #140.

Hey, there is hope after all!

If the law was well written, fair to all, and properly enforced, yes.

Like pulling crocodile teeth but it finally came out!

Woo Hoo!

Brief shiny moment of concensus time.

* Spud does his patented Happy Dance (tm) *

/Actually stole that one from Snoopy.

Be Well.

I don't want to stand in line for health care with some low class government insured assholes.

#34 | Posted by fwthom

I think fwthom is just trying to get a rise out of people. I don't think anybody outside of maybe Limbaugh who feels this way. I know spending time at the doctors waiting sucks but it isn't anything that would want me not to have universal healthcare. I would think people would give up an hour waiting if it meant more people could have access to healthcare.

He gave you an answer. The very next line you pretend not to have read.

Alex must've missed the part where I said, "I'll stop right there" after deth went into the argument thing. So I obviously did not read it

Like pulling crocodile teeth but it finally came out!

???

I answered your question the first time you asked it. Please, cut the dramatics.

...when did you stop thinking?

*yawn*

There is no one on this blog who relies on insults as a retort as you, deth. Can't you do better than that?

NEver mind. You answer that with almost every post.

Hey you yahoos!! Thought I'd stop in and say hi. So, hi.

Sick to death of being trolled ad nauseum by 101st and Wisgod etc who make a mountain out of any non-molehill and cross lines no decent person would. Just isn't fun anymore. But, y'all are alright. Hope everything's going alright.

Oh, and I got a HUGE kick out of reading 101st's whine about how Zarathustra 'attacked him' when 101st hadn't said anything to him.

Talk about a hypocrite!! That's hilarious coming from that asshole who started in my first day here LOL

AU don't quit. This place is good for the soul. I love going into battle on this blog.

RASTA

Na, it's a waste of time. When the assholes started on the family stuff I said 'enough is enough' - the final straw. I wouldn't hang around assholes like them in real life. I'm pretty laid back and just don't need that BS in my life. Like Rosanna Rossannadanna used to say "if it isn't one thing it's another" with the assholes. LOL

Dethspud

Does having universal health care mean that those with better insurance policies (say ones people may now have with their employer) have to give up their insurance policies and everyone just go with the universal health care? Or can there be both kinds -- a universal health plan and privatized health plans?

I know people who had a good health insurance plan under their employer wouldn't want to give it up in order to go with a lesser quality universal insurance plan. I wouldn't either.

Some good employer health plans cover dental, vision, and other extras that might not be covered under a universal health plan. So how does that work? Can there be both kinds of health insurance (universal and private) at the same time?

Alex must've missed the part where I said, "I'll stop right there" after deth went into the argument thing.

Nah. Alex just thinks you're full of shit and looking for an argument.

You know, like always.

Nah. Alex just thinks you're full of shit..

I'm crushed.

...and looking for an argument.

Certainly isn't the first time you've been wrong and given your track record my bet is that it is far from the last -- you know, like always

...and looking for an argument.

It's kind of funny how I made a statement, ("I didn't read the rest of his post") and you pick up on it and say I did, then accuse me of starting an argument. LOL

Funny, albeit delusional, stuff, Alex.

It's kind of funny how I made a statement, ("I didn't read the rest of his post")

What's funny is that you think anyone would believe that. What, after hounding deth and getting your answer you just so happened to miss it?

Unlikely.

What's funny is that you think anyone would believe that

I don't care if anyone believes it or not. IT's the truth. What's funny though is you once again arrogantly pretending to know my mind. You crack me up when you play that role alex.

Unlikely

As I said, I wouldn't be the last time you were wrong. Didn't know the next time would come so soon, though.

We supply it to the worst criminal so why don't we care if law abiding citizens have access to it?

Because it is given to the "worst criminal" to cover liability issues. In essence you are admitting a nanny state mentality. The criminals are in the care of the state, therefore the state is responsible for their health while they are in that care. The rest of us aren't... but you would rather we be treated as if we are.

Some of the most evil dictatorships provide better health care to their citizens than we do.

That is a big "DUH!!!!". Of course a dictator would do that. Having the populous dependent on the government for its health care keeps them... well... dependent. The same as keeping them dependent on the government for their livelihood (nationalized businesses), and their news (nationalized media). Who is going to risk trying to overthrow a dictator that controls your very means of making a living and protecting your health?

All the more reason to be against it here. Thanks for making my point for me by pointing out the dictator connection, Danni.

another asinine post provided by the dumbest man in GA. One can only hope you lose your job, get ill and your savings are wiped out. Then lets see if you continue to make stupid comments.

One can only hope you lose your job, get ill and your savings are wiped out. Then lets see if you continue to make stupid comments.

Bwahahahaha

That was a "you will rue the day" post if I ever saw one.

But hey... if you can't refute the message, kill the messenger, right?

But hey... if you can't refute the message, kill the messenger, right?

It's not so much that, it's more that poor ratsa harbors an irrational and pathologcial hatred that literally rules his life. He is consumed by it and cannot control it erupting to the surface with every statement.

And this poor, pitiful, little man cannot figure out why someone would not want ot meet him for drinks somewhere.

A sadder shell of a human I've never encountered.

what message is that? You don't want your taxes to go up? My advice to you is to get a better job so you can afford it.

But hey... if you can't refute the message, kill the messenger, right?

Wot's the message, Moo?

The social contract isn't worth shit?

America is a failed state?

People shouldn't care about other people?

Get yours and fuck the other guy?

The rest of the civilised world looks at the US stance on healthcare and understands why yer prison population is the biggest in the world.

You just don't get that do ya?

* deep sigh *

Such a silly propagandised lot you are.

Be Well.

/East coast waking up?
//K now Spud really should get some sleep.

WHO is leftist run organization with an agenda. You saw the word WORLD and HEALTH and just assumed it had something to do with either?

Rationing is the answer you are promoting.

Big government can't take any better care of you with system than they did the Medicare and you just increased the scale of the problem.

If people on the right would shut up and pay attention they could start asking pertinent questions like, "Why do so many people come to the US for their emergency medical procedures if their country's plan is so great?"

You better find a group of doctors that didn't pay their way through college and expect to actually MAKE money for their efforts. Otherwise you infringe on THEIR rights. No one rides for free.

the retards clamering on for universal healthcare the loudest are the ones who bitch the loudest once we have it. To be fair, we need to provide healthcare for people who presently unable to get it so I guess you would have to say that I am at least a partial advocate

but not for the same reasons that most of the idiots here are

carry on...

Get yours and fuck the other guy?

typical retard response. If I "get mine" then I am also saying "fuck the other guy".

A "good German". So now our health system is being compared to the Holocaust.

Gotta give the libbies credit. They got their boy, and they expect results, fast. No wonder Obama isn't slowing down--there's a "movement" on for thousands of his supporters to cancel their coverage, and send Obama the tab if anything goes wrong.

Actually, this is a great idea . . . . I think I'll cancel my catastrophic policy. Why should the insurance company make money off my not having an accident or major illness! It's like Auschwitz!

From the article:

I have often discussed with various people the relativity of guilt when your employer denies needed coverage. Are the employees of health insurance companies, especially those directly involved in denying claims, as guilty as the CEOs. I say they are just as guilty, they justify their injustice to others with their need for income. It is no different from being a "good German."

From the fringe:

A "good German". So now our health system is being compared to the Holocaust.
#169 | Posted by rightisright

That reading-comprehension stuff isn't working out too well for you, is it RiR? The author isn't talking about the Holocaust; the author's using a phrase widely recognized as referring to people who will do exactly as they are told, no questions asked, uncaring of the consequences. That the phrase happens to be linked in the historical context to events that included the Holocaust does not, in itself, constitute a reference/comparison to the Holocaust.

Clearly, this Obama business has gotten you terribly overwrought. But, hey, things are looking up: Only 1309 days, 4 hours, 55 minutes and 47 seconds until he's sworn in for another four years.

It should not put an obligation on anyone else to do something FOR you.

Public health care wouldn't be something done FOR us, it would be something done BY us collectively. Just as we began to ensure the welfare of our senior citizens with Social Security, we could ensure a minimum standard of health care for all Americans through universal health care.

The current system is not working. Millions are uninsured, premiums are through the roof, and private insurers are finding ways to drop everyone they can when they get sick.

It's no way to run a railroad.

I read fine. And had it been a righty-tighty using the word, you would have been poking fun at the hyperbole.

But not if it's from leftie, though. A guy is canceling his health insurance so that the rest of us can cover him if he goes to the hospital, then writes a silly piece celebrating himself?--and you'll trip over yourself to do the same.

Obama doesn't have me overwrought. He did about eight months ago, I'll admit. But I've changed, and I'm now making more money than I would have imagined possible. Up 28.6% on the year, and my client list has almost doubled.

Yes, Obama has been very good to me. Once he gets cap-and-trade passed, you should see what our plans are to do then. We'll make a fortune.

"But I've changed, and I'm now making more money than I would have imagined possible."

Typical I-snort-me-snort-mine-snort-
snort GOPiggy attitude. Thank goodness not everyone is bogged down in your worm's eye world of limited, self-serving priorities.

"I read fine. And had it been a righty-tighty using the word..."

No, you don't read-comprehend "fine." It was a righty-tightie using the word: you and the word was "Holocaust." The author, on the other hand, used a phrase and it was "good German."

Now, go out and inhale some of those big bucks you use to justify your existence and measure your "success."

"But, hey, things are looking up: Only 1309 days, 4 hours, 55 minutes and 47 seconds until he's sworn in for another four years."

Gosh, Doc...I certainly HOPE you can stand it if that doesn't come about. Things they are achangin'.

"America's self-declared progressives see the U.S. future in Europe's welfare model. Across the Atlantic, meanwhile, voters en masse are dumping the political movement that gave them the nanny state. Hmmm.

Of late, the winning political formula in Europe is simple: Promise to ease heavy tax and regulatory burdens and shake up stagnant economies. The welfare system is seen as broken. France's Nicolas Sarkozy and Italy's Silvio Berlusconi took this path to power. In the largest economy, Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel looks poised to defeat a divided left in September's elections.

Across the Continent, the left is in disarray. France's Socialist Party, which last won a Presidential election in the 1980s, refuses to move to the center -- and further sinks in the polls. Italy's leftist parties compromised themselves in a brief two-year stint in office, before Mr. Berlusconi swept them out in April of last year. The center-left ruling parties in Britain and Spain, which inherited economies revitalized by courageous politicians who implemented free-market ideas, are also in trouble."

Typical I-snort-me-snort-mine-snort-
snort GOPiggy attitude. Thank goodness not everyone is bogged down in your worm's eye world of limited, self-serving priorities.

#173 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis
* * * *

LMAO. Nah. It's people like this libtard author who is being socially aware, right? Canceling his insurance, so that if anything happens, you and I will be paying for it?

You're hysterical. At least I know what my limitations are. Nobody listens to me. For that matter, nobody listens to you. May as well enjoy life, and make more money than you otherwise would, so that Obama's big tax hikes can go to people like this dumbass.

At least I know what my limitations are.
#176 | Posted by rightisright | Flag: Doesn't Have a Clue

"You better find a group of doctors who didn't pay their way through college.."

Most medical doctors I've ever met, and there have been a number, got through school using government loans.

Alternatively, they married a hard-working nurse or some other naive woman who paid their bills until being dumped for a hotter model when the cash began to roll in.

I've never met a medical doctor who worked his way through school the way I've genuinely seen some aspiring to other professions do.

Since were talking rights, and what's owed people, chew on this: no one owes anyone a fortune. Life is full of surprises and hard knocks. Suck up and deal with it.

"Typical I-snort-me-snort-mine-snort-
snort GOPiggy attitude. Thank goodness not everyone is bogged down in your worm's eye world of limited, self-serving priorities."

Fucking free-loaders won't even pay their bills. They want trillion dollar wars and trillion dollar tax cuts at the same time. Nothing but a bunch of welfare queens in suits.

Yes, Obama has been very good to me. Once he gets cap-and-trade passed, you should see what our plans are to do then. We'll make a fortune.

So you're not one of the Republicans who thinks that Democratic presidents are bad for business?

I admire your mission but wonder if you've considered the fact that, although you might be healthy, what about some other calamity, like an accident? Or what if you contract something that your health cannot fight?

Like taxes, it won't work, if you are an employee. One has to sign up each year which becomes an annual contract and payroll deduction. If you have assets it won't work either.

So you're not one of the Republicans who thinks that Democratic presidents are bad for business?

#180 | Posted by rcade
* * * *

Depends on the president. This one is, and will be, very bad for business. And when cap-and-trade passes, the greatest investment in the history of the world will be to sell short American utilities and manufacturers, and go long Mexican and Chinese ones. A virtually risk-free trade.

Obama will be a disaster for business. But great for mine.

What took you so long? I canceled our Health Insurance 15 years ago. My husband is a Chiropractor. I am a 51 yr old RN and Biology teacher, IQ of 138; have worked in health care since I was 17 years old. I KNOW the insurance field because that's where I started at age 17. At its core, Health Insurance is a SOCIALIST entity (each person should contribute according to their ability and receive according to their need...)
Third party payers have been successfully sued on Racketeering charges - because Dr's are dreadfully dumb at finance and have agreed with the business entourage because they are too arrogant to understand where they have been and are leading them. I take care of myself - successfully weathered breast disease (3 Dr's told me it was probably cancer - after rife treatments, nutritional and other remedies the fluid came back turbid brown and inflammatory - but no cancer). I was told I had to have emergency neck surgery for a ruptured disc of 18 mm - the specialist several states away said he had never seen a tear that large. Miserable, suicidal pain - but i studied on how to take care of it and and 98%fine now. i have a fibroid the size of a grapefruit - but am managing it with hormone therapy.
I have been saying for years that if every one stopped their health insurance MD's would make as much as a well paid plumber - they just would not lose as much money in their stupid investments (MD's don't realize they cant intimidate markets).
Every one would still go to their clinic or hospital job; everyone would still get healthcare services.... only the medical racketeers would not be charging sinful amounts for simple procedures (procedures that are made to sound exoctic just because they have a latin name). Healthcare workers are no more intelligent or skilled than the rest of society - thay just put up a holier-than-thou fascade. Stop your health insurance and free the medical market.

And a Shout Out for Lorah.

You can see the same phenomenon in our universities where the availability of student loans allows the tuition to rise while retaining most students who have matriculated while inducing others with the promise of a bright future.

Frugal is In. Keep tightening the belt.

Lorah if you have a massive heart attack or something similar you will be fucked. You will be paying until the day you die. Maybe you will get lucky maybe not. "Health Insurance is a SOCIALIST entity" Like socialist is such a bad word.

#184 | Posted by LoraH

* golf clap *

Nice postage.

Be Well.

Ok... from reading the majority of the posts, it is obvious that most of you have no clue about insurance or the American medical system.

I am not a DR, but I have worked for numerous insurance companies in the past. Let's clear up some of the mistaken concepts here:

1) Insurance is not socialist. Insurance, whether for your house, your car, or your butt, is a matter of actuarial factors. The brains take the number of people that will get an illness in any given year and divide that by the number of people paying for coverage. Works the same for fires, accidents in your car, or anything else.

2) A good number of health insurance companies are NOT FOR PROFIT. They do not make huge money off the backs of the poor.

3) The 2 biggest cost increases in medical coverage are new procedures that are expensive and the number of scum-sucking lawyers that sue anything that breaths as long as they have a buck.

4) Years ago, when I worked for a health insurance company, they were trying to adjust the cost of the new portable MRI machines that were driving around Jacksonville, FL. At the time, they had 2 that were mobile and these caused a large number of doctors to order MRI's instead of CAT scans.

5) At the time there were 2 MRI machines on semi's in JAX, there were only 2 in the entire country of Canada. Average wait for an MRI in JAX was an hour or so, average in Canada was 18 months. Hope that tumor on your brain isn't serious. Doesn't matter, they probably wouldn't treat it if it were... not cost effective to save your life.

6) Heard on the radio the other day (cannot verify the story) that a man in Canada was sent to the US for cancer treatment, because there is no facility in the entire country of Canada to deal with it.

7) If we go to a Canadian style system, there will be almost NO improvements. Care will be severely restricted.

8) When I lived in Maine, I was warned that you never make DR appointments late in the year. When the hospitals in Canada ran out of money they closed the doors and told all the patients to come back in 3 or 4 months. Guess your bad kidneys can wait till after the new year to be treated, right?

There is more... but those who know the truth already oppose gov't ran health care. Those who think that gov't is the solution to everything won't care how bad it gets, cause everyone having the same shitty care is more important than some having good care and some having great care.

"7) If we go to a Canadian style system, there will be almost NO improvements. Care will be severely restricted."

I appreciate your view. Now, with your knowledge, and the fact we're predicting medical inflation to equal core inflation, let us in on your solution: the largest amount of people America has ever known is about to invade the health care system. We're in for a total bust if we do nothing. What's your suggestion?

Seriously...if you're trying to find a way to give baby boomers "whim care", you're fighting a losing proposition.

Those who think that gov't is the solution to everything won't care how bad it gets, cause everyone having the same shitty care is more important than some having good care and some having great care.

The problem is that only some have great care.

Some go bankrupt paying fer sed care.

Some allegedly have sed care and can't avail themselves of it due to corporate profit maximising loopholes.

Some have no care and die as a result.

Including children.

And that's just wrong no matter how you slice it.

Admittedly, the European/Canadian model is evolving (some would say devolving) towards a two tiered system with the advent of the new P3s (ie Public Private Partnerships).

Meaning that those who can afford great health care get it while the rest are left with care rationing and long lines.

This is a real hot button topic up here in Canada and, indeed, in many countries w/ socialised medicine including the UK and France.

Bottom line fer Spud is any country which doesn't see fit to provide reasonable access to health care for the vast majority of it's citizenry isn't much of a country despite any and all rah rah patriotism which overlooks the basic facts of the matter.

K?

Be Well.

"Those who think that gov't is the solution"

One is either part of the solution or part of the precipitate; Unless you're bOoB or tAdOwE in which case you are trapped in a battle of wits among unarmed opponents.

Tater,

You never answered my #153, although I know it was late at night when I wrote it. If you get a chance to read it later, maybe you can answer my question -- or anyone else who might know it.

I appreciate your view. Now, with your knowledge, and the fact we're predicting medical inflation to equal core inflation, let us in on your solution: the largest amount of people America has ever known is about to invade the health care system. We're in for a total bust if we do nothing. What's your suggestion?

Seriously...if you're trying to find a way to give baby boomers "whim care", you're fighting a losing proposition.

I am sure that my suggestions wouldn't be acceptable to a lot of people, but as you asked, I will make a few quick suggestions. Severely restrict lawsuits. Make it quicker and easier to get new medicines and procedures to the market by allowing people to take a known risk. Reduce the amount of paperwork required to process a claim for the gov't. Make being caught defrauding the gov't a more severe punishment.

I knew a Doc in OK that ran a small clinic. He told me that every year for flu season, 10's of thousands of people would come through his office. For each he would have LOVED to say 'go home, drink fluids, and come back if your not better in 2 or 3 days'. He told me that if he did, that 1 in 10,000 would have something more serious. And a small fraction of them would die... so instead, he ran a test on each one that cost the patient a few bucks, and the health care system hundreds of bucks... and the results took 2 or 3 days to come back. When I asked him why, he said "if I don't, and 1 person dies, they will take my house and my business... so I run the worthless tests". Now, if they only ran the test when something was really wrong, the cost might still be high (for that 1 test) but the number would be lower so the results might be back MUCH quicker.

My mom was diabetic. If they found a cure today, it would take 10 to 20 years to get that treatment to people who are dying. Why? Tests, more test, and then gov't paperwork. When my mom was dying an inch at a time, she would have been willing to take a risk if it might have saved her life and prevented her pain. I have a sister-n-law that has MS. She would take anything that gave her a 50/50 chance of curing her or killing her. In a heart beat. I read in a magazine about a possible cure... might be on the market in 10 years or so. She will die while they test and retest and piss away tax payer money.

Having worked for insurance companies, I know the shear amount of paperwork that is required, both from the doctors office and from the insurance company. They have entire staffs devoted to filling out the various forms, in paper and electronic versions, to try and get minimum reimbursements. All gov't live on paperwork. This is a HUGE overhead.

Finally, not everything needs to be treated at an emergency room. This is done mostly because it is considered "FREE" by those that are poor. This has to be addressed. Perhaps by clinics that are open later.

Think about they way your car insurance works. Your insurance doesn't cover new tires, or an oil change, etc. These "normal" expenses are out of pocket. No one says that we should have free auto insurance. [no sane person, anyways].

But why do we need insurance to cover a routine exam? Because they have to run so many wasted tests, and fill out so many goofy forms, the system is too expensive. And the cost to an OBGYN for insurance to deliver a baby almost force women to give birth at home. In some places, its more than 150K a year. Just for insurance. WHY? Cause people like Edwards made MILLIONS getting idiots on a jury to award settlements for any perceived faults.

Does having universal health care mean that those with better insurance policies (say ones people may now have with their employer) have to give up their insurance policies and everyone just go with the universal health care? Or can there be both kinds -- a universal health plan and privatized health plans?

I know people who had a good health insurance plan under their employer wouldn't want to give it up in order to go with a lesser quality universal insurance plan. I wouldn't either.

Some good employer health plans cover dental, vision, and other extras that might not be covered under a universal health plan. So how does that work? Can there be both kinds of health insurance (universal and private) at the same time?

~CChris.

All Canadian pay for their healthcare if their employer doesn't cover it as part of the perks of the gig.

The payment is reasonable and treatment is never denied.

Better jobs include as you say Dental (full or partial) and Vision care as part of their employment package as well as dictating amounts of timer one can have off in orer to access sed ehalth professionals.

Spud is unreasonably healthy tater.

Never had an operation.
Never broken a bone.
Never really been sick ever aside from the occasional flu or cold.

Ergo, Spud's never really had to avail himself of these services beyond the routine annual physical.

In the case of the better plan by yer employer question it's the same plan but the employee just picks up the tab, that's all.

Hope that answer suffices.

Sorry Spud missed that Q last night.

Deth was silly and sleepy fer the most part yesterday but had a wonderful day in blogworld nonetheless.

/Winter is fer sleep.
//Summer is fer FUN!

Be Well.

/Again, with the advent of P3s into the Canadian Health Care model this above noted system is due to change and most folks suggest not for the better.

1Lib,

Thanks again for your thoughtful response. I've served on health committees for over two decades, so I'm aware of the problems. Your first paragraph could have been written by me.

In addition to your great ideas, I'm all for free preventive care, as a start. We've seen study after study proving prevention is much cheaper than cure, and our plan has seen costs flatten somewhat due to sponsoring annual wellness exams. This also cuts down the ER visits.

I also believe (and I know this is anathema to insurance folks) single-payer is the way to go. Not because I believe government is the solution, but rather, if you follow the macro numbers, we'll go bust trying to give today's level of care when the boomers retire and more are using and less are footing the bill. We're headed for rationing, one way or the other (the economics of scale will demand it), and if government is going to pay for Medicare, or anything like it, we need to slow the runaway costs before they consume us.

"employer" picks up the tab, that should be.

also Timer = Time and ehalth = health

Spud = crappy typist.

Be Well.

We've seen study after study proving prevention is much cheaper than cure

True that.

As the old saw sez...

"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"

Be Well.

#194 | Posted by dethspud at 2009-06-21 11:27 PM

Thanks, Tater!

"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"

In our health plan, we've calculated it closer to two pounds, three ounces.

What can I say? Inflation....

The problem is that only some have great care.

True. And only some anywhere have great care. A large number of them, including Canadians, come to the US for that care. When they destroy the American health care system, where will all the Canadians go?

Some go bankrupt paying fer sed care.

Yes, some do. They choose to spend all the money they have extending their life as long as they can, instead of passing that wealth along to their children. But, its their money, guess they can spend it how they want. They could instead choose to die.

Some allegedly have sed care and can't avail themselves of it due to corporate profit maximising loopholes.

True, humans are greedy. Give a doctor or a hospital or an insurance company a way to get an extra buck, they will do that. However, the gov't stealing and spending a 1000 bucks to save that one is not the right idea. And increasing the amount that the gov't wastes is not going to improve the system.

Some have no care and die as a result.

Not really. Any person in this country, legal or otherwise, can walk into an emergency room and be treated for life-threatening situations. Furthermore, pharmacies give away LOTS of products.

Including children.

This has to be exceptionally rare. Still, one person dying needlessly is a tragedy, but do you spend a trillion bucks on the HOPE that the gov't can do something better and more efficient? And 1 trillion bucks for 10 years?

And that's just wrong no matter how you slice it.

Yes. Now, is a gov't ran system going to kill more with bad service and gov't red tape than currently slip through the cracks? That is the trillion dollar question.

Admittedly, the European/Canadian model is evolving (some would say devolving) towards a two tiered system with the advent of the new P3s (ie Public Private Partnerships).

I had heard that one of the big problems in Canada was people taking an ambulance to the emergency room so they didn't have to take off work and take a cab to the doctor. [this from a Canadian guy that was working in the US. I don't know if it was true... just asking]

Meaning that those who can afford great health care get it while the rest are left with care rationing and long lines.

If you are having worse problems in Canada than we have in the states with getting people cared for, and you have a much smaller (and less obese) population, then how do you expect the US gov't to do better? I am sure the same sludge that goes to congress here cannot be superior to the people that are in gov't there.

This is a real hot button topic up here in Canada and, indeed, in many countries w/ socialised medicine including the UK and France.

Read somewhere that the system in the UK had such problems that people were pulling their own teeth as the wait for a dentist was huge. Read an article that a doctor was going to start seeing new patients and that there were something like 1000 people in line 8 hrs before the office opened. [only thing that causes such lines in the US is the release of the next Apple Iphone.]

Bottom line fer Spud is any country which doesn't see fit to provide reasonable access to health care for the vast majority of it's citizenry isn't much of a country despite any and all rah rah patriotism which overlooks the basic facts of the matter.

But what is reasonable? Must everyone get every procedure that is medically known? Is a 2 or 3 tiered system worse than a system where everyone is given the same treatment (except those in power), and that treatment is horrible?

I also believe (and I know this is anathema to insurance folks) single-payer is the way to go. Not because I believe government is the solution, but rather, if you follow the macro numbers, we'll go bust trying to give today's level of care when the boomers retire and more are using and less are footing the bill. We're headed for rationing, one way or the other (the economics of scale will demand it), and if government is going to pay for Medicare, or anything like it, we need to slow the runaway costs before they consume us.

What you and everyone else who pushes for a single-payer (gov't) system misses is the GLARINGLY OBVIOUS fact that the gov't has NEVER, EVER been more efficient.

So, if rationing is going to happen, is it better for EVERYONE to have crappy but equal (except those in power) service, or to allow people who can afford to pay for better service to continue to receive it. Are we capitalist or communist?

For example... we already have crappy systems that are federally funded... the the welfare system, the medicare system and the whole social-security funded systems. Also add in the VA hospitals.

Would you want to trust your life to a VA doctor or a doctor from your local hospital? Who is going to be more compassionate in dealing with your problem, an insurance company that may loose you as a client or a DMV / IRS agent that has been promoted and transferred to a gov't oversight board?

If you remove some of the obstacles that gov't and lawyers have added, cost will come down. If you allow people to choose the level of care they can afford, then there will always be great care, good care, poor care, and the might-keep-you-alive but not much else care.

Right now, the top tier and 2nd tiers help foot the bill for the poor and working poor. Why trash the top 2 tiers of service just because it isn't possible for everyone to have that level of care?

Instead, why not try and free up the resources and the money that is available and give everyone the best care we can for the money we have to spend?

How is adding hundred of thousands of new paper-shufflers and an unknown number of new gov't agencies with overlapping and conflicting responsibilities going to do anything but result in more dead people?

"the GLARINGLY OBVIOUS fact that the gov't has NEVER, EVER been more efficient."

Yes it has. SS & Medicare are renown for low administrative costs, mostly due to economies of scale.

"So, if rationing is going to happen, is it better for EVERYONE to have crappy but equal (except those in power) service, or to allow people who can afford to pay for better service to continue to receive it."

Both will happen.

"Would you want to trust your life to a VA doctor or a doctor from your local hospital? Who is going to be more compassionate in dealing with your problem, an insurance company that may loose you as a client or a DMV / IRS agent that has been promoted and transferred to a gov't oversight board?"

Currently I have a pencil-pusher from an insurance company. How is having someone actually accountable to me worse?

"If you remove some of the obstacles that gov't and lawyers have added, cost will come down."

Agreed, but what overall % does that add? iirc, it's in the single digits.

"Instead, why not try and free up the resources and the money that is available and give everyone the best care we can for the money we have to spend?"

What would that mean, practically?

"How is adding hundred of thousands of new paper-shufflers and an unknown number of new gov't agencies with overlapping and conflicting responsibilities going to do anything but result in more dead people?"

It would only work if it replaced millions of old paper-shufflers. Seriously, the overarching goals are a) reducing the percentage of GDP expended for health care, b) covering more people, and c) improving the overall level of health. If a new plan can't do all three, it should be scrapped.

Yes it has. SS & Medicare are renown for low administrative costs, mostly due to economies of scale.

Nope. The cost of compliance from the business community is HUGE. Blue Cross / Blue Shield of MI started processing medicare claims and determined that about 30% of the fraud that they caught was previously being paid by the feds. Easy to reduce the gov't side of compliance if you allow that much fraud and waste. Every few months or years, the gov't has new rules and new requirements (UB92, UB94?, UB04, HIPPA, etc. etc.).

Currently I have a pencil-pusher from an insurance company. How is having someone actually accountable to me worse?

Accountable? I can change insurance companies if I don't like BCBS. Can you change IRS agencies? Can you get a different EPA organization?

Agreed, but what overall % does that add? iirc, it's in the single digits.

I don't know... but I would rather see money spent on trying to figure that out BEFORE they waste a trillion bucks and destroy our system. [based on my conversation with a doctor in OK... 250 bucks a test (bacterial / throat culture test, plus lab cost, processing, paperwork, etc.) times the number of people in the US that will have the flu this year... I would say that is a good start. How many other things can we save money on? Say 100K per year for malpractice insurance per OBGYN in the US... If you figure out the amount of money wasted in compliance with gov't mandates, paperwork, excessive malpractice coverage, legal fees, etc. etc.]

It would only work if it replaced millions of old paper-shufflers.

True, but not going to happen. For a 100,000 new paper-pushers at the fed level, then you have to have 100's of thousands more to GENERATE the paper... and computer systems to process them, and more and more and more... gov't systems NEVER decrease the amount of paperwork. [I have worked for 2 welfare systems, the DC's Tax & Revenue service, 3 military sub-contracting companies, and the US Air Force. Each and every one of them spent almost as much time generating paperwork as they did in doing their jobs]

Seriously, the overarching goals are a) reducing the percentage of GDP expended for health care,

Rationing, such as closing hospitals, getting rid of MRI machines and other such expensive technologies, and paying doctors less. This paying less to doctors will in turn attract people that are not the top of their class into medicine. Those will find other careers that pay better.

b) covering more people,

Populations grow. We can't and shouldn't try and prevent it. [however, adding millions of undereducated and poorly employed people to the system will not make it better in any fashion]

and c) improving the overall level of health. If a new plan can't do all three, it should be scrapped.

Agreed. The plan of nationalized care, by your own admission, will not prevent rationing. So, a system that doesn't solve the problem, significantly harms the existing system, adds trillions of dollars to the national budget and will arguably increase the number of people who die is not a good solution. It should be scrapped.

It should be scrapped and a new system should be found. This may require a lot of hard work and more will power than congress or the president has [as it would require, at a minimum, significant changes to the profitability of the legal profession]. It would also require changes by the public. Citizens will have to be more responsible for their own behavior and the consequences. Drinking, drug use, sexual behavior, exercise and eating better would all be controlled by cost. Just as the cost of your auto insurance goes up if you drive drunk, have lots of accidents and get tickets. Let the markets help in pushing people to act better, instead of scraping a bad system and replacing it with a worse system.

"Nope. The cost of compliance from the business community is HUGE. Blue Cross / Blue Shield of MI started processing medicare claims and determined that about 30% of the fraud that they caught was previously being paid by the feds."

Fraud and administrative costs are two different things.

"Accountable? I can change insurance companies if I don't like BCBS. Can you change IRS agencies? Can you get a different EPA organization?"

I can get a different Senator or Congressperson. And again, there will always be private insurers, covering what the market needs.

"I don't know... but I would rather see money spent on trying to figure that out BEFORE they waste a trillion bucks"

So by your own admission, you don't know if your tirade about too much testing is costing closer to 3% or 30%?!?

"For a 100,000 new paper-pushers at the fed level, then you have to have 100's of thousands more to GENERATE the paper... and computer systems to process them, and more and more and more... gov't systems NEVER decrease the amount of paperwork."

Then it shouldn't be considered, not unless there's an entire overhaul. Unless you're talking nominal paperwork, and not per capita paperwork. Of course the workload will increase on the gov't level. It should more than decrease that amount on the private level, or we're not realizing the efficiencies we must have to survive.

"Rationing, such as closing hospitals, getting rid of MRI machines and other such expensive technologies, and paying doctors less. This paying less to doctors will in turn attract people that are not the top of their class into medicine. Those will find other careers that pay better."

They may have to, as we may no longer be able to afford the best and the brightest. As someone who's familiar with this sector, you certainly see the megatrends of the baby boomer retirement, and what it will do to the health care delivery system in the US. Rationing is coming, whether we like it or not. We simply can't afford the current level of health care throughout the boomer retirement years. Too many will be using, and too few paying for it. Couple that with what medical inflation will really be (as demand spikes but supply doesn't), and we're in for a disaster.

"[however, adding millions of undereducated and poorly employed people to the system will not make it better in any fashion]"

Yes, it will. By providing free preventive care, it will increase the overall health of the general population, cut down on expensive ER visits, give doctors an inroad to discuss healthier habits, and nip incredibly expensive procedures in the bud, all of which should affect the bottom line.

"The plan of nationalized care, by your own admission, will not prevent rationing."

We're in for rationing, one way or another.

"So, a system that doesn't solve the problem..."

I disagree: it covers more, for less.

"...significantly harms the existing system..."

Again, disagree. Improves the system by moving more from cure to prevention.

"...adds trillions of dollars to the national budget..."

While, ideally, subtracting trillions from the costs of businesses. Again, if this is going to cost MORE per capita, it's not worth it.

"...and will arguably increase the number of people who die..."

No proof for that.

"Citizens will have to be more responsible for their own behavior and the consequences. Drinking, drug use, sexual behavior, exercise and eating better would all be controlled by cost. Just as the cost of your auto insurance goes up if you drive drunk, have lots of accidents and get tickets. Let the markets help in pushing people to act better, instead of scraping a bad system and replacing it with a worse system."

That could certainly be part of it. And it's a good idea. Let's put everything on the table.

if he visits the emergency room, he should speak a foreign language and tell them he's an illegal - no questions, no problem. they're afraid of discrimination suits.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

#26 | Posted by rcade

That is so. But it is not up to the Government to provide LLPH, nor should they be reaching their paws into my wallet and take out what they deem "necessary" to provide you with LLPH.

The idea is that the Government will not stand in the way of your personal LLPH, not provide it.

You want the above? Go get it yourself. Don't be taking my money so you can have yours provided by the Big G.

KEITH204, now consider that in most modern countries that would cost you nothing.

#17 | Posted by danni

Bullshit!!

You need to investigate where the money comes from.

You are so enamored by socialist care systems that you have not bothered to educate yourself at all.
Free?

Bullshit redux!

Here is a link for you to learn just a bit about how the French system works.

In France during a Heat Wave 15,000 people died trying to access their health care system. We may have rationing in our system, but not even close to that level.

In France during a Heat Wave 15,000 people died trying to access their health care system. We may have rationing in our system, but not even close to that level.

#208 | Posted by 90c2cab

This could never happen in America.

No, no no.

Right...

I suppose if the power fails on Phoenix this summer, all them 10s of thousands of air conditioners no longer function, and the elderly who make up a great portion of the population there start dropping and dying by the thousands from heat exhaustion, it won[t be the health care system to blame.

Perhaps you should do just a wee web search and discover the actual reasons why so man died in France during that hot summer instead of blowing excrement out your orifice. First clue: it had nothing to do with access to their health care syste,

ZOT worte: Perhaps you should do just a wee web search and discover the actual reasons why so man died in France during that hot summer instead of blowing excrement out your orifice. First clue: it had nothing to do with access to their health care syste,

--------------------------

Their system failed, that is why 15,000 people died.

Their system failed, that is why 15,000 people died.

#211 | Posted by 90c2cab

What system would that be?

Refer to #209 by Doc_Sarvis.

"Their system failed, that is why 15,000 people died."

The French air conditioning system? They don't have one, as such. You ever been in France in summer? I was in Paris one July -- and this is when I lived in Arizona -- and while I was pretty such I wasn't going to die it wasn't a done deal, either. There was no -- repeat, no -- relief from the scorching heat. An elderly person wouldn't have stood a chance. Same thing happens in the US on a different scale every time the heat index soars. You do know that, don't you?

The French air conditioning system? They don't have one, as such. You ever been in France in summer? I was in Paris one July -- and this is when I lived in Arizona -- and while I was pretty such I wasn't going to die it wasn't a done deal, either. There was no -- repeat, no -- relief from the scorching heat. An elderly person wouldn't have stood a chance. Same thing happens in the US on a different scale every time the heat index soars. You do know that, don't you?

------------------------------
------

So let me get this straight they had a heat wave, and all these Seniors started to feel ill, so they just sat there and died.

#214 | Posted by 90c2cab

Nobody can do all your homework for you. You made some ill-informed comments and were corrected. Do some research and come back when you feel better prepared.

"So let me get this straight they had a heat wave, and all these Seniors started to feel ill, so they just sat there and died."

You mean, like in the US of A?

DOC SARVIS wrote:
Nobody can do all your homework for you. You made some ill-informed comments and were corrected. Do some research and come back when you feel better prepared.

--------------------------
It's clearly obvious your trying to SPIN it.

15,000 people died because it got hot out, and your SPIN was they lacked airconditioning. What realy happened is when they felt ill, they tried to get help and the system failed, not enough doctors, not enough nurses, not enough emergency medical teams.

#217 | Posted by 90c2cab

I stated facts, which you haven't been able to refute. You've stated your opinion, which you haven't been able to support. Got some facts? And then, please, explain how/why the French should/could have been prepared for a record heat wave.

Why are Iranians so much more courageous than Americans.-Danni

Why does Danni think the rest of the world is so much better than America? The fact is, Danni, that America has already gone through an incredibly courageous era where we fought a very courageous war to win our sovereignty. Just because Iran is still in the Middle Ages and doing a little protesting does not mean it is more courageous than us. You just want people to think that America is no better than places like Iran.

"America has already gone through an incredibly courageous era where we fought a very courageous war to win our sovereignty."

Yeah, but the Crown probably considered us just a bunch of terrorists too.

I wonder the locals thought about our continuation of this "incredibly courageous era" where we fought this "very courageous war" to win US sovereignty...

"Just because Iran is still in the Middle Ages..."

Did they have Chevy low riders in the Middle Ages (in Iran)?

My doctor doesn't take any new patients now.

Several doctors in my area have reached saturation point and will take no more.

Quite a few will take you, but are not interested if you have Gov't insurance (medi)

So, if they pass National Healthcare, where are all these people going to go to receive their instant-paid care?

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness at the cost of another's Life, Liberty, and their pursuit of Happiness.

Doc_Sarvis wrote:
I stated facts, which you haven't been able to refute. You've stated your opinion, which you haven't been able to support. Got some facts? And then, please, explain how/why the French should/could have been prepared for a record heat wave.
------------------------------
--
Chirac said the crisis had shed light "on the solitude of many of our aged or handicapped citizens'' and promised to propose measures this autumn to better care for them, although he did not say what the measures would be.

Why is Chirac giving an apology is it for lack of Air-conditioning? I doubt it.

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness at the cost of another's Life, Liberty, and their pursuit of Happiness.

How so?

If I die at the age of 30, all the money I had taken from my paycheck for social security and medicare is lost.

That money would have made me happier by being in my own pocket. Instead, my money is used to pay for someone else's happiness.

So, I'm less happy and they are more happy.

You do not have a right to be happy, only to pursue it.

Besides, you can't take it with you.

If I die at the age of 30, all the money I had taken from my paycheck for social security and medicare is lost.

Hell, if you die at 70 half of it could be lost. I took the last annual statement from the SS and extrapolated my contributions to age 67. If I die at 78 (average for US) I will get back about half of what I put into SS over the span of my working life.

If I had put that money in a shoe box under the bed, I would've been better off! If I had been able to invest it on my own, I'd be even better.

Thanks Uncle Sam

If I die at the age of 30, all the money I had taken from my paycheck for social security and medicare is lost.

If I die tomorrow I lose all the money I spent paying for roads, fire protection, police, armed forces, faa, fdic, sec, fda so I don't want to pay for those either.

There is a cost to living in a society. That cost is spread about the population though taxes.

BTW, you are paying for someone without health insurance that goes to an ER for a cold already through increased health insruance premiums and increased hospital costs.

Either way money comes out of your pocket.

Didn't your momma ever tell you that money does not buy happiness?

Thanks Uncle Sam

#228 | Posted by goatman

Social Security is insurance, not an investment plan.

Social Security is insurance, not an investment plan.

Call it what you want, I still will likely get back only 50% of what I put in.

As an insurance plan, it has to be one of he shittiest ones on record! These kind of 'premiums' for what?

Didn't your momma ever tell you that money does not buy happiness?

Yes. And my father told me to spend my money wisely.

Why is Chirac giving an apology is it for lack of Air-conditioning? I doubt it.
#223 | Posted by 90c2cab

If you read the article you've exerpted (but not linked) you'd know that's not what he's talking about. But if you read the article I referenced (and linked), you'd know that air conditioning -- specifically, a lack of air conditioning -- was a major contributing factor in the deaths of the elderly.

You're do know that playing at willful ignorance doesn't help you get your poing across, don't you?

DOC SARVIS wrote:
If you read the article you've exerpted (but not linked) you'd know that's not what he's talking about. But if you read the article I referenced (and linked), you'd know that air conditioning -- specifically, a lack of air conditioning -- was a major contributing factor in the deaths of the elderly.
------------------------------
-----
You do no that fuzzy math does not make your point.

In fact Chirac gave a speach, and no where in his speach did he mention lack of aircondtioning, he specificly said the Government of France failed you.

Nobody owns a phone? There is no 911, no matter how you try to spin it, France is either a backward place (which I doubt) or their Government run society is a joke.

my father told me to spend my money wisely.

#232 | Posted by goatman

My father told me not to blow it on booze and women.

I still will likely get back only 50% of what I put in.

As an insurance plan, it has to be one of he shittiest ones on record! These kind of 'premiums' for what?

#231 | Posted by goatman at 2009-06-22 01:15 PM

1. Live longer.

2. For what? Old age and disability. What insurance is good? Auto insurance? I pay $700 per year and never ever use it.

Oh I know, life insurance is good right? I pay the premiums, in order to collect I have to die.

What fun is there in that!

Hurricane insurance is the best scam there is: you pay it and pay it and then, once you need to file a claim, they drop you.

#238 | Posted by kanrei

Or say the damage was not due to a hurricane, but rather flooding, but not a hurricane.

Oh I know, life insurance is good right? I pay the premiums, in order to collect I have to die.

What fun is there in that!

agreed, it isn't fun but I would trade all my SS dollars and put it all into life and disability insurance and I guarantee I would come out way ahead regardless of when I died....either 65 or 95.

Flood then says it was only a flood due to the hurricane and they don't cover it either.

My father told me, "Son, when your commanding officers says, 'Shoot that man's eye out!' the appropriate response is, 'Yes sir! Which eye, sir?' and if he's good he'll let you pick."

They would be better off to just die and decrease the surplus population.

Didn't your momma ever tell you that money does not buy happiness?

#229 | Posted by 726

Not according to the ex-governor of NY.

Don't worry. With universal single payer health care, expensive life-extending procedures will be curtailed, so that there will be fewer beneficiaries collecting social security. UHC is a twofer with unexplored potential benefits in restoring viability to the Social Security system.

It'd be interesting to determine what the U.S. life expectancy is for those in increments upward from age 65 compared to countries that now have UHC.

I don't care what people say, soylent green is here to stay. From Wikipedia. Soylent Green is a 1973 dystopian science fiction movie depicting a future in which overpopulation leads to depleted resources, which in turn leads to widespread unemployment and poverty. Real fruit, vegetables, and meat are rare, commodities are expensive, and much of the population survives on processed food rations, including "soylent green" wafers. Well, "insiders" know "the rest of the story."

johnson understood soylent green? Who knew?

Danni is a "good German" for not joining this protest and propping up the corrupt private health insurance industry.

MMS Protocol could render the prohibitive costs of health to perhaps being manageable, but why teach people how to fish?

14,000 residents canceled flood insurance.

-former residents of New Orleans right after they lost their home to Katrina

where does it say anything about 14,000 residents cancelling flood insurance?

seems it didn't matter anyway as the insurance companies decided not to pay.

why should they?

where does it say anything about 14,000 residents cancelling flood insurance?

#250 | Posted by eberly

that requires reading and math skills!

a little further down the page... find this link

it makes perfect sense if you post the correct link in the first place dumbass.

But a surprisingly high number of new policyholders -- 14 percent -- failed to renew as of the end of April, and that's worrisome. They stand to lose coverage at the height of hurricane season.

they are dumbfucks.

they are dumbfucks.

#254 | Posted by eberly

maybe maybe you are the dumbfuck but regardless it is the same thing... canceling your insurance is a risk. People are doing a lot of risky things lately.

canceling your insurance is a risk

Its also as selfish as it is incredible fucking stupid.

If this this goofy, wannabe activist piece of shit gets himself hurt during the course of this little stunt he's pulling, there's no way his kids and/or other family members are going to let him die and go without care.

So they'll end up putting their life's savings at risk if something happens.

Grow up, you stupid liberal fuck.