send those billions to iraq.. thanks herr bush you nazi

haven't they heard of personal accountability?

When the Republicans voted in changes for new bankruptcy bill they made sure the new bankruptcy laws no longer allowed people to declare bankruptcy in order to discharge catastrophic illness medical debts. Tens of thousands of ill people then lost their homes and every thing they owned. The Repubicans lost me permanently.

Bush, McCain and the rest of them all get free medical government health care so they could care less. The Republican party is the greediest, most corrupt, most uncaring, and selfish political party there is.

And the selfish Republicans did this change about not being able to discharge medical care costs to the bankruptcy law at a time when more and more people had lost their health insurance at work or because their jobs were outsourced due to the Republicans' corporate agenda for free trade. And Republicans wonder why so many Americans hate their guts. The Republican party has had a huge drop in the number of people registering as Republicans. Gee, I wonder why?

from the article

...As costs rise, insurers are shifting a greater share to patients, says Neal Meropol of Philadelphia's Fox-Chase Cancer Center. Many plans now require patients to pay for 20% of their health care a heavy burden in the case of drugs such as Erbitux [chemo drug], which costs $10,000 a month....

But wait, isn't McCain going to give a $5,000 tax credit per YEAR to cover people who need adequate health insurance? I'm sure his measly $5000 a YEAR tax credit will help people with $10,000 a MONTH high medical care costs.

Shows how so out of touch with reality McCain really is. Most people that ill probably aren't even making anywhere near enough money to even be able to claim a $5000 a year tax credit.

Are you suggesting that the government should pay for everyone's $120,000/year cancer treatment?

Don't worry cancer patients, Barry will give everyone free health care, free houses, and free money. On recommendation from his economics advisors Rev Wright and William Ayers, Flops will just raise taxes on RICH WHITE PEOPLE!

"free houses"

That's McCain's line, or did you miss the last debate?

Obama is toeing McCain's line now, realizing that McCain's proposal is good for Main Street.

Are you suggesting that the government should pay for everyone's $120,000/year cancer treatment?

#5 | Posted by JOE at 2008-10-13 06:20

$120,000 is equal to the cost of about 10 minutes of what we pay to fight Bush's war in Iraq.

Not everyone gets cancer. If you got it, I would be willing to pay for your treatment with my tax dollars rather than see you die because you couldn't get the medicine you needed. Then when the time ever came when someone in my family needed medical help, your tax dollars could return the favor.

Also, when you use group bargaining power to buy medication (such as the VA does) a lot of these costs can be brought down. Bush would not allow his phony Medicare Part D prescription drug scam he pushed through a couple years ago to even bargain for lower drug prices nor to import drugs cheaper from Canada (even though they were made from US pharmaceutical companies) because big pharma didn't want to lose any profit at all so Bush went along with them.

No American citizen should be allowed to die because they could not get the prescription drugs they needed to see them through an illness. We are not -- at least not yet -- a banana republic.

"$120,000 is equal to the cost of about 10 minutes of what we pay to fight Bush's war in Iraq."

I don't agree with spending money in Iraq. Why should that matter? The issue isn't Iraq, it's whether spending $120,000 a year on everyone with cancer is something the government should be doing. I've seen people die horrible deaths from cancer regardless of how much treatment they had.

Hey Chris how goes your situation with the fires?

Hoping all is well!

One thing I find amazing is the amount of money we spend to keep gramps alive an extra three weeks and we won't let him have heroin for the pain.

I don't agree with spending money in Iraq. Why should that matter? The issue isn't Iraq, it's whether spending $120,000 a year on everyone with cancer is something the government should be doing. I've seen people die horrible deaths from cancer regardless of how much treatment they had.
~Joe

The issue is where do we want our tax money spent.

Iraq was nothing more than socialized spending for capitalist ambition. Freeing oil for market something honest conservatives have admitted to.

The US is one of the only major industrial power without a socialized medical system, if we can fund war for profit we can afford medical care for all.

I've seen people die horrible deaths from cancer regardless of how much treatment they had.

No one is getting out alive.

You can think all you want that gov health care will cover all these costs, you are crazy. If you think the war in Iraq was expensive that is just chicken feed compared to the cost of giving everyone the coverage you ar talking about. To do that the deficit will be twice what it is now.

Look at what goes on in Canada and Great Britan. The limit your coverage and if you are above a certain age, you are allowed to die. That is how it will have to be here, that is how they contain costs.

The Republican party is the greediest, most corrupt, most uncaring, and selfish political party there is.

And the democratic party isnt? You are fooling yourself if you think otherwise. The democratic party has kept blacks enslaved for decades and continues to do so. Promising everybody a dollar unearned isnt going to help either.

The feds should be responsible for paying for catastrophic health care for every American. The cost of the program should be paid for by a payroll tax ala FICA.

" The democratic party has kept blacks enslaved for decades and continues to do so. "

Somebody needs to buy you a history book.

Especially after Ken Mehlman admitted Republicans were the party of racism in front of the NAACP.

CC, It would be one thing if the people who were getting the gov medicine were paying in so that as you say they can "return the favor" but we have a situation where 35% of the people do not pay income taxes. So they are getting the coverage for free. So you are paying for your coverage and theirs.

Again, to provide this kind of coverage would raise the defecit to incredible levels. It just shows how irresponsible Obama and the Dems are to promise something like this.

"we have a situation where 35% of the people do not pay income taxes."

Income taxes are not the only taxes. When ALL taxes are considered, all five quintiles pay about 17%-21% of their income in taxes.

Yes, but are all taxes considered when we talk about paying for health care? Will we use sales tax or gasoline tax to pay for health care?

A tax is a tax is a tax.

If the federal gasoline tax is used or the federal income tax is used, what's the difference? Pretending a third of the folks don't pay taxes, because they might not pay INCOME taxes, is disingenuous.

You can think all you want that gov health care will cover all these costs, you are crazy. If you think the war in Iraq was expensive that is just chicken feed compared to the cost of giving everyone the coverage you ar talking about. To do that the deficit will be twice what it is now.

Look at what goes on in Canada and Great Britan. The limit your coverage and if you are above a certain age, you are allowed to die. That is how it will have to be here, that is how they contain costs.

#15 | Posted by sawdust at 2008-10-13 07:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sawdust I'm Canadian and I call Bullshit on your claim.
Cancer meds are provided free of cost through the provincial cancer agency no matter how old you are.

If you get the insurance, you should have some skin in the game. If we established a tax like FICA were everyone paid and paid the same amount for the same coverage, you might get me interested. But even then the coverage would need to be limited. All governments who provide coverage, limit the coverage.

This thing has to pay for itself. We need no more deficit spending.

" We need no more deficit spending."

Where have you been the last 8 years?

"We need no more deficit spending."

So where were you in the late 70's?

You know; When the national debt, normalized to our ability as a nation to pay it off, was at a minimum?

I have been against if for the past 8 years... You will find no post from me saying that a deficit is a good thing.

"You will find no post from me saying that a deficit is a good thing. "

Just your vote?

"I have been against if for the past 8 years."

Wow.

That long?

So Scotty, In Canada you can get any cancer treatment you want? How about the $120,000 a year chemo mentioned in this article?

I will give you that I am wrong on the age thing.

But to think that if we have government medicine we are going to get any treatment we want and it will be free, is just silly.

Would you at least agree that in Canada there are certain treatments that are not available or in short demand?

Hey, the question was the last 8 years... But deficits are a bad thing.

"You know; When the national debt, normalized to our ability as a nation to pay it off, was at a minimum?

zfacts.com"

Sorry Zat, but zee facts are not allowed here.

How about you guys, do you believe deficits are a good thing? Do you believe that Obama can do all that he is saying he will do without increasing the deficit?

Didn't I hear something today about Obama saying that they may have to do some deficit spending to get us out of this mess?

Wanna bet?

"When the avalanche has begun, it is difficult for the pebbles to vote."
-Ambassador Kosh

"Do you believe that Obama can do all that he is saying he will do without increasing the deficit?"

I don't believe Obama will have two nickels to rub together. The Bush administration acting like skimming casino thugs have taken care of that.

"haven't they heard of personal accountability?"

Umm...I think sucking it up and dying is about as accountable as it gets.

The Bush administration acting like skimming casino thugs have taken care of that.

In true accord with Grover Norquist.

"The limit your coverage and if you are above a certain age, you are allowed to die. That is how it will have to be here, that is how they contain costs."

I assume you've never had to deal with insurance in the US then? Same exact story, except we pay more than twice as much.

OK, I have been corrected a couple times...

My point is that people were acting as if it were some sort of crime that people were being denied cancer meds that cost $10,000 a month. Then some said that when we have goverment coverage through Obama this will not happen.

The point I was trying to make was that gov medical has it's limitations as well.

I have not heard from Scotty in Canada, but my guess is that the coverage there is not unlimited. That not all cancer treatments are avaiable and that certain treatments can take a long time to get.

To think that government medical coverage will be unlimited and not run up the deficit is just naive.

Is anyone interested in paying for this with an across the board tax like FICA (Only with no limits)?

Or do we just have a lot of people who want it for free? Who want someone else to pay for it?

This is why I believe everyone should have some skin in the game. Then when people will support something like that, we can talk.

"I assume you've never had to deal with insurance in the US then?"

I have.

My $500K airplane was destroyed in it's hangar by a thunderstorm.

Beechcraft came up from San Antonio: "It's totaled.".

AIG came up with a bogus $165K "repair" figure and said "sue me."

Scum.

Sad thing is my late father-in-law was once the chairman of the board when these scum were honest.

Good thing he's dead, he'd be really pissed off.

"The point I was trying to make was that gov medical has it's limitations as well."

You're right, it does. But it'll have to: all projections assume medical inflation will mirror societal inflation. But we all know what happens when demand outstrips supply...the certain result of the retiring baby boomers. As it is, we're pricing ourselves out of the market. We'll soon be forced to look at what brings down costs per capita, and that's socialized medicine. When the UK can cover all its citizenry for 8% of its GDP, and we spend 15% yet still have 45-50 million uninsured, something's gotta give. Will we be forced to limit care? Definitely. But like the UK, I'm sure the market will step in to offer supplemental insurance.

SAWDUST

Medicare (you know - government insurance) is the cheapest medical care in the U.S. and has the lowest overhead ("administrative fees") of any insurance in the U.S.

AND you can go to any doctor any time, any place in the U.S. without prior approval.

I just went through this whole cancer thing with my sister. It was a horrible experience trying to deal with them.

Insurance companies are great - unless you get sick.

So Scotty, In Canada you can get any cancer treatment you want? How about the $120,000 a year chemo mentioned in this article?

I will give you that I am wrong on the age thing.

But to think that if we have government medicine we are going to get any treatment we want and it will be free, is just silly.

Would you at least agree that in Canada there are certain treatments that are not available or in short demand?

#30 | Posted by sawdust at 2008-10-13 08:02 PM | Reply | Flag
Sawdust I don't agree.All the treatments mentioned in the article are available in Canada.Why don't you look up stuff to see if it is true before spouting off in authority.

Why Sawdust,In the U.S is every one that even has insurance going to get there treatment approved or is the insurance company going to deny it as a pre existing condition?

OK, so is it cheaper because the coverage is limited?

Look, I am coming to a point where I could accpet medicine by the gov... But for people to think, like I saw in this thread that it will pay for unlimited coverage, is just silly.

I believe that is somewhat what Obama is promising when he says that the people will get the same coverage that congress gets. To be honest I am not sure what kind of coverage that is, but my guess is that it is pretty good coverage. After-all these guys do not pay for it.

If we are going to deliver this kind coverage it should not raise the deficit.

And again, if it were covered by an across the board tax, I could go with it.

I still have not heard anyone say they are for that. Sounds like a lot of people want something for nothing. That is why they are for it, not because it is better or cheaper.

Put some skin in the game and then I will listen a little closer.

DANFORTH

When you check out of the hospital in England you have to stop by the Cashier Window.

Not to pay:

It's so they can ensure you have enough money to get transportation home.

What a fucked up article and stupid pandering crap.

Millions of patients skip care due to cost and that has nothing to do with cancer.

Crap, if your going to talk about care at least get to the heart of the issue. If not, your nothing but a concer to society.

Well I had to skip IV Steroids for a year and go with lower cost but longer term and more damaging oral Prednisone. Had to save up the 1500 for treatment thanks to High Deductable insurance. Now I have already used it this year and if I need it again I'm screwed.

Sawdust you want some skin in the game? I pay 142.96 a week for health care for myself and my family. I'm lucky my employer offers great insurance. If something really catastrophic happened I would be on the hook for another up to another 5k which would still bring my total to 239.12 a week. Still not bad. If I could get the same quality care and same choices I would gladly pay that in taxes for government health care.

i am thankful to be healthy. so thankful.

Yo Nanc, I cancelled my last apointment. I was afraid I might be cancerous. I would rather not know.

rex - i finally went through all of mine - healthy as the day i was born - my biggest fear after the broken ankle this summer was bone thinning, osteoporosis and the like as it is big with the women in my family - had a bone density scan - NO SIGN OF IT!

i've smoked for almost 40 years and the ortho surgeon wanted to argue with me that i couldn't possibly have smoked that long as my lungs were as clear as a non-smoker - then i told him i only smoke in moderation and almost never more than a half pack per day. he said i should quit and in my mind i was thinking i was better off than him - he being squatty, redfaced, overweight, sedentary older male - yeah, i'll quite smoking when YOU quit eating!

the old heart is in tip-top shape and i'm fortunate to have been born as a thin person in a family of lardasses! i also have low b/p - normal for me about 100/55-65. when i'm pist it may go up to 120/70.

go get checked before it's too late, rex. i was scared too. now i'm relieved.

Nanc, my father died of cancer, my grandfather and grandmother died of cancer.....I will die of cancer some day, I know that.....

I've been checked, if I am dying or not, I would rather not know yet..I am still 'young' (41)..Better to burnout then to fade away...

I've lived on the edge my whole life, I am lucky to lived as long as I have.

Better to burnout then to fade away...

Said the crackin.

3/4's of America skip care due to cost but let's not talk about that elephant in the fridge putting foot prints in the butter.

TAO, I pay a similar amount. I do not have the weekly numbers, but it amounts to around $600 a month. My deductable is $4,000. I had shoulder surgery this January. So I understand what all this can cost.

I am with you, If the gov could provide even similar coverage for the same amount (or less) I would be all for it.

I just do not believe it will happen. Cripe this is the gov that has given us this whole financial mess we are in.

Part of why I do not believe it will be cheaper (at least for me) is that there are a lot of people out there who want gov medicine, because they feel that they will get something for free. They are all for it, because they believe someone else will have to pay for it.

I have asked the people who were arguing with me twice whether they would be willing to pay their part in this by financing it with a straight tax on everyone and both times, they would not answer. To me that says that their real motive is that they are hoping to get something for free.

After all a straight tax does tax the rich more 8% of $50K is less than 8% of $1M.

i've smoked for almost 40 years and the ortho surgeon wanted to argue with me that i couldn't possibly have smoked that long as my lungs were as clear as a non-smoker - then i told him i only smoke in moderation and almost never more than a half pack per day. he said i should quit and in my mind i was thinking i was better off than him - he being squatty, redfaced, overweight, sedentary older male - yeah, i'll quite smoking when YOU quit eating!

You should up that to 2 or 3 packs a day. Maybe even 4. If half a pack makes you feel this good imagine waht 4 packs a day will do for you.

I smoked for many years too but finally quit. The benefits have been much greater than I ever imagined. I can actually smell things that I couldn't before. I feel 1000% more healthy, have far more energy and hopefully will never smoke another cigarette. The savings have been great too.

Hey, a lot of us are worried about out-living our money. This is one solution. It helps the gov as well. As the one study showed, when you look at life time costs, the smokers actually cost less.

So I say it is a win win, you enjoy the rest of your life and kick off early. You help the gov and you do not outlive your money.

Free cigarettes should come with your first SS check.

If you want free smokes go talk to the people at ACORN.

ACORNAYERS....The McCain campaign in its entirety.

I smoked for many years too but finally quit.

#63 | Posted by danni

I quit about 18 months ago, after smoking for 30 years. It took a long time to really feel better but I have noticed the difference. I can breathe a lot better, and I sleep better.

I still really miss the nicotine buzz. There are times when I could start again in a second, but I haven't. The craving subsides week by week.

god bless the three pillars of the amurkan ekonomee - continual rearmament, perpetual debt and planned obsolescence all resting on a solid base of fear, greed and the illusion that we are separate. and by the way - health care is not a market commodity - The great Tommy Douglas knew that decades ago - whats wrong with you people?

Gee....ya THINK?!