Is there any real difference between putting off care because you cannot afford it. Or having to wait for healthcare because the only way the gov can control costs is to ration health care (as in Canada).

There will always be rationing of health care unless we collectively lose millions of metric tons of weight, quit smoking, and quit using drugs and alcohol. That is unlikely so the best kind of rationing is by cost. Those without money are not worth saving. Another good reason to become rich.

Newsflash. ALMOST EVERYTHING is expesive.

People are having trouble putting food on the table for their kids. Where is the Obama food plan? That is more important than healthcare.

People can't afford their homes. The Obama aid for troubled homeowners was freaking joke. He gave 3 times as much to AIG as he did for all of America's troubled homeowners. Where is a better Obama plan?

People can't afford to put gas in their tanks, afford a college education (especially with states cutting education funding), afford clothes. Where is the Obama plan?

"People can't afford their homes"

Obama's fault.... my ass

"The Obama aid for troubled homeowners was freaking joke"

you're a joke.... get a life and lay the blame where it belongs...

The ultimate D.R, chutzpah is blaming OBAMA for folks lacking funds to obtain surgeries needed to save their lives. Obama fails to address the dilemma definitively. Only single payer health care will do that. But Obama make a start. He tries to do SOMETHING to alleviate the Bush mess, which gave everything to physicians and HMOs, nothing to American taxpayers. herm

"Or having to wait for healthcare because the only way the gov can control costs is to ration health care (as in Canada)."

A lot of people bag on the Canadian system, but I can't see good reason for it in this situation. A canadian at work has said repeatedly that the system here is superior for getting the routine things but is inferior for getting the non-routine stuff. I'm not sure how accurate that assessment is given I'm neither a Canadian or that familiar with the system, but from what I do know it makes sense.

My worry with govt healthcare is that we'll end up like Canada-the system will be good when it's needed (reactive in nature) but will suck when we don't (preventative in nature).

Obama fails to address the dilemma definitively. Only single payer health care will do that.

this thread is about people who won't make copays for basic services....not surgeries or more significant things. How does a single payer health plan solve that? this is the result of our economy.....not their health plan. even with a single payer plan we would still have people making these choices.

He tries to do SOMETHING to alleviate the Bush mess,

yeah, he is throwing gas on a fire.........but that is something!!!!

WOW! Ain't America Great!!!

Who will pay for that Single Payer System? Yeah, you guessed it! Same SHIT different DAY! We'll see this until they either pass that TURKEY or not! Then, if it fails AGAIN, they'll start it all over again in, what, another ten years or so.

I'm STILL waiting for my house and CAR payment to come in (Oh hell, my BAD, I forgot, I don't live in Florida)! What's UP? Caint get thet Ca-de-lac I saw yestidy unless the boss kicks in too!

AW come on, please!

People who feign poverty, however, get full coverage. Crips and bloods rejoice.
Every elected federal tapeworm gets full coverage until death, Obama and McCain included.
The vaunted middle-class, so important in every campaign, ebbs lower, lower, lower....

"Is there any real difference between putting off care because you cannot afford it. Or having to wait for healthcare because the only way the gov can control costs is to ration health care (as in Canada)."

Yes there is a difference, it's called the truth. I have talked to lots of Canadians who tell me that all these claims about "waits" are mostly bull shit designed to frighten Americans away from getting a decent health care system. Ask them if they would trade their health care system for ours and they laugh in your face.

Thanks, as usual, for pointing out the obvious, Danni. Canada with one-payer health care ranks near the top in any world appraisal of health systems. The make-HMOs-and-doctors-rich USA is near the bottom. In Canada you might have to wait to get your boobs enhanced. You do not wait for an appendectomy. herm

Where in the Constituion can we find anything that states or even implies that the federal government can be involved in something like nationalized healthcare?

You think people seeking liberty and fleeing tyranny would want a federal government providing healthcare services?

If you repubs hate government services so bad let's get rid of them all. No fire no police. No SS no medicaid no medicare. Let's see how nice this country is.

Isn't stopping people from using the emergency rooms for their primary care. Mostly paid for by county taxes and increast charges on people that actuly pay for hospital care.

Ask (Canadians) if they would trade their health care system for ours and they laugh in your face.#11 | Posted by danni at 2009-06-23 08:42 AM | Reply |

Ask any non-Kool Aid drinking American and they'll laugh in your face if you offer them the Canadian system.

You have a CHOICE now; you can socialized medicine all over the world. Free market medicine is ONLY available HERE!

When they polled people in the UK what they'd spend their money on if they won the lottery, buying PRIVATE health insurance was near the top of the list.

#13 | Posted by kirk at

Oh no, it's not in the constitution? No what do we do?

Tell me where in the constitution I can find the part about public schools, septic sewer systems, water treatment plants, the interstate system, and social security just to name a few, , , or 5.

Are we really going to let them get away with not passiing this? 73% wins in a democracy. We need to put something together, kinda like the Faux News teabagging sessions, except the real deal and let them know that we will not be voting in the 2010 election if this doesn't get passed.

#16 | Posted by kirk at

I LOVE it when someone brings up some invisible and nameless Canadian and swears that their medical system is completely screwed.

I'm sure that there are Canadians who don't like what they have, no one is surprised. How many people live in Canada? Ever tried to get 5 people to agree on something really important, like what to get on a pizza?

If you repubs hate government services so bad let's get rid of them all. No fire no police. No SS no medicaid no medicare. Let's see how nice this country is. #14 | Posted by jackisback at 2009-06-23 09:06 AM | Reply

Ask a European running a business how many more people they would employ of their tax rates were LESS THAN 80%...once you include all the "unneccesary" stuff civil governments do, it costs A LOT!

Besides, WHO do you think implements things better, individuals or civil government?
Private industry or civi government?

It's not just that many Republicans are tightwad cheapskates (many are), private charities do better than public welfare in caring for people. There is the potential for sooo much abuse of power when the civil government does stuff that was never there business in the first place.

Civil government is SUPPOSED TO provide police and fire services; individuals, families, businesses and charities are supposed to provide jobs, care for the poor, healthcare, etc.

There is no sense in assuring that they remain in the majority if they have no intention to use it for anything.

Public option by 2010 or we stay home.

It's not just that many Republicans are tightwad cheapskates (many are), private charities do better than public welfare in caring for people. There is the potential for sooo much abuse of power when the civil government does stuff that was never there business in the first place

Posted by kirk

I disagree. I think abuse would be rampant in the private sector. I spoke to a girl yesterday and she told me the board members of her church wanted to reduce it's charitable work in order to increase the staff's salaries. I don't know how common that is but that sounds fucked up if you ask me. SS and medicare were created for a reason. If we got rid of them I guarantee many many people would fall through the cracks.

"You think people seeking liberty and fleeing tyranny would want a federal government providing healthcare services?"

Yup. There's surely no liberty without it. herm

"Tell me where in the constitution I can find the part about public schools, septic sewer systems, water treatment plants, the interstate system, and social security just to name a few.."

Public schools...not in the constitution

Sewer/water systems...not in the constitution

Highways...not in the constitution

Social security...not in the constituion

I'll give you the sewer, water and highway as appropriate things for the government to administrate ALTHOUGH you'd have to admit that private contractors do it far cheaper, safer and with less abuse.

Education is done far more effectively by individuals and private schools than by public schools. It is certainly up for debate, AND individual choice. Socialized healthcare takes away that choice.

Social security is exactly why we should NOT have socialized healthcare! Politicians won't fund it, they'll keep ripping it off! Ask Al Gore--LOCKBOX!

"You think people seeking liberty and fleeing tyranny would want a federal government providing healthcare services?"Yup. There's surely no liberty without it. herm#22 | Posted by herm at 2009-06-23 09:36 AM | Reply

So in 200+ years, we've never had either liberty nor federal government provided healthcare.

Got it.

Unless you care to define "liberty" for all of us.

Education is done far more effectively by individuals and private schools than by public schools.

Posted by kirk

True but they cost money. Children have a right to an education. Public School is free. how do we pay pvt schools for all children? If the govt pays for them then we might as well have public schools.

#23 | Posted by kirk at

You're so smart that you didn't realize the point of all of that. Hey, what about the GI Bill, what article is that? You do support the troops, right numb nuts?

It's not in the constitution, it can't be worth a fuck. Besides, I heard a guy complaining about it this one time. . . .

Kirk wants a barebones Govt because he is able to provide for himself and his family. Sadly he fails to realize there are those less fortunate than himself who may need things like SS and medicare.

I'll give you the sewer, water and highway as appropriate things for the government to administrate ALTHOUGH you'd have to admit that private contractors do it far cheaper, safer and with less abuse.

#23 | Posted by kirk at

Not sure about where you live, but private contractors do it here. The only thing you can bitch about here is where the money comes from.

On the day that you are willing and financially able to build a road from your house to all of the places you want to go all you have to do is call one of those private contractors who the government calls when they want a road built, have the land purchased, get it inspected, pull the permits and go nuts.

Kirk CLAIMS TO wants a barebones Govt because he ON THE INTERNET AND HE HEARD ONE OF HIS HEROS ON AM RADIO TALKING THAT WAY THE OHTER DAY. Sadly he IS PROBABLY 15 AND STILL LIVES AT HOME WITH HIS PARENTS.

#27 | Posted by jackass at

Fixed that for you.

I can't understand how people think the guys on the radio are actually going to give them good info. Guys like Boortz and Rush want taxes lowered on the rich because they are rich. They don't care if you get employment from it. They want to even the tax base by having you pay more while they pay less. They are all a bunch of frauds.

Why aren't you building roads, Kirk? Why are you living like a freeloader, Kirk?

Newsflash, and this is for all of you "self made" I take care of myself tards who tend to be the biggest welfare queens of them all. Unless you fly to work completely naked, and when I say fly I mean like a bird, not in a jet, you are sucking on the government teet and you need to stop being such a hypocrit.

Even if you can fly like a bird and you have somehow convinced everyone you work with that being naked at work is ok your employer is more than likely getting it from the government somewhere. Maybe it's in the form of a lower light bill, no taxes for 10 years, whatever. Face it, there's something, in ALL cases, it's a lot of things.

When they polled people in the UK what they'd spend their money on if they won the lottery, buying PRIVATE health insurance was near the top of the list.

#16 | Posted by kirk

The UK is spiraling the drain. Not a good example of how to do things. I think Animal Farm and 1984 were written specifically about the future of the UK.

Poll the people on The Continent, and you'll get a quite different response.

When they polled people in the UK what they'd spend their money on if they won the lottery, buying PRIVATE health insurance was near the top of the list.
#16 | Posted by kirk

Curious whether you can supply a link for that.

Yup. There's surely no liberty without it. herm

#22 | Posted by herm at 2009-06-23 09:36 AM | Reply | Flag: Last 200 years were without freedom flag.

Your a tool HERM. Move to Europe - then you can quit your bitching.

Right..What people don't get is that if you give everyone free health care they will UTILIZE it more....Thereby draining the sysytem..unfortunatley you have to have people pay into it to decrease the utilization..

Exactly why the current plan is a gov. backed health insurance plan where there would be co-pays deductables etc.

Not that anyone on the right wants to discuss a way to help fill the cracks in the current system. Nope now that I said something I fully expect to be called a baby killing socialist or possibly a moron.

What people don't get is that if you give everyone free health care they will UTILIZE it more....Thereby draining the sysytem..unfortunatley you have to have people pay into it to decrease the utilization..

#35 | Posted by bruindoc

What you don't get is there ain't no such thing as "free health care." Somebody always has to pay. (In fact, there ain't no such thing as a free anything: everything has a cost.)

Even in the heavily socialized health care systems on the other side of the Big Pond, there are co-pays and (much) higher taxes.

The only factual piece of your screed is that yes, there will be more people availing themselves of the health care system. But that's kinda the point, isn't it?

That is, most people will use the system more for health maintenance rather than health crisis. And that's kinda the point, too (or at least, that is the desired outcome). Which is cheaper?

Seldom mentioned when we discuss health care are the indirect benefits of a National Health Care system could be much lower rates on auto insurance, the end of the need for workman's compensation insurance, the lessening of the burden of supplying insurance to employees for employers, fewer bankruptcies. Some say, we can't afford not to create a system and the more I think about it that isn't an exaggeration.

People can't afford to put gas in their tanks, afford a college education (especially with states cutting education funding), afford clothes. Where is the Obama plan?

#3 | Posted by utastaff

I heard Obama was supposed to pay everybody's mortgage and put gas in their tanks for free.

Seldom mentioned when we discuss health care are the indirect benefits of a National Health Care system could be much lower rates on auto insurance, the end of the need for workman's compensation insurance, the lessening of the burden of supplying insurance to employees for employers, fewer bankruptcies. Some say, we can't afford not to create a system and the more I think about it that isn't an exaggeration.

the reason it is seldom mentioned is because it belongs with one of boob's conspiracy theories.

It isn't going to happen.

That is, most people will use the system more for health maintenance rather than health crisis. And that's kinda the point, too (or at least, that is the desired outcome). Which is cheaper?

I don't know. But I hope the maintenance is cheaper.

In any case, are you arguing that this will wind up representing a smaller % of our GDP?

2 Canadian relatives:
1 has SEVERE rhuematory arthritis. They went to give him a new hip. Screwed up, he ended up with staph infection in the tissue surrounding. They removed the hip, said sorry. Gave him a 6" lift for his left shoe and sent him on his way. Given his career as an electrician, he was able to create a walker out of conduit so he gets around slowly, but does get around. Government essentially put him out to pasture.

2. Miraculously has stayed alive despite the fact that the stint they installed in him (after an 18 month wait for surgery) clogged. He has waited 2 years for a replacement. Still hasn't got it.

Both are in their mid 70's

Bottom line, the government decides what you get and when you get it.

Sound good fellas?

Yes it does because some care is better than no care

Hey Boo

My father-in-law had to have heart surgery. During post op recovery he was only to be moved a certain way. Well nurse screwed up moved him wrong stitches ripped out and in the operation to replace them he stroked out and died.

Did I forget to mention that was in the US?

Shit happens under any system.

Tao,

And I assume you recovered something in a settlement?

Is a recovery possible in canada?

Who is getting no care jackass?

Who is getting no care jackass?

#46 | Posted by eberly

Lots of people forgo medicines because they can't afford it. My Aunt didn't take her hypertension meds because they were too expensive without insurance.

My Aunt didn't take her hypertension meds because they were too expensive without insurance.

Who cares? She's probably a democrat like you and all democrats deserve to live a suffering life then die a slow painful death. Also property of all democrats should have to be forfeited to the state so that republicans can sit around the house all day and eat bon bons.

Goat I feel the same way about republicans. I actually want them all sent to Gitmo so they can be tortured relentlessly until they admit Dem policies are better.

Goat I feel the same way about republicans

No shit? Knock me over with a feather

Eb,

Nope no settlement even though my MIL had one of her own nurses (she ran a home health care company) in the room at the time who told the nurse she was doing the transfer wrong. The Nurse and the Doctor both swore that everything was done right and blamed it on his diabites. My MIL talked with a lawyer and he said with a nurse and DR vs. a CNA you are fucked. So No No big settlement. Nor was there a settlement when the MRI tech fucked up my IV line and I wound up with an infection that kept me out of work for 2 weeks.

Heck they didn't even pay for the antibiotic to clear up the infection, let alone the dr. apointment or 2 weeks lost labor.

Now you know why I just love our health care system. I pay out the ass for insurance that covers almost nothing then I stil get shitty care and I am suposed to be afraid of govcare?