Lets get this healthcare plan shoved through!

[Merrill Poker Player]

Medical care in the United States is derided as miserable compared to health care systems in the rest of the developed world. Economists, government officials, insurers, and academics beat the drum for a far larger government role in health care. Much of the public assumes that their arguments are sound because the calls for change are so ubiquitous and the topic so complex. Before we turn to government as the solution, however, we should consider some unheralded facts about America’s health care system.
1. Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers. Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the United Kingdom and 457 percent higher in Norway. The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher.
2. Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians. Breast cancer mortality in Canada is 9 percent higher than in the United States, prostate cancer is 184 percent higher, and colon cancer among men is about 10 percent higher.
3. Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries. Some 56 percent of Americans who could benefit from statin drugs, which reduce cholesterol and protect against heart disease, are taking them. By comparison, of those patients who could benefit from these drugs, only 36 percent of the Dutch, 29 percent of the Swiss, 26 percent of Germans, 23 percent of Britons, and 17 percent of Italians receive them.
4. Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians. Take the proportion of the appropriate-age population groups who have received recommended tests for breast, cervical, prostate, and colon cancer:


Nine out of ten middle-aged American women (89 percent) have had a mammogram, compared to fewer than three-fourths of Canadians (72 percent).
Nearly all American women (96 percent) have had a Pap smear, compared to fewer than 90 percent of Canadians.
More than half of American men (54 percent) have had a prostatespecific antigen (PSA) test, compared to fewer than one in six Canadians (16 percent).
Nearly one-third of Americans (30 percent) have had a colonoscopy, compared with fewer than one in twenty Canadians (5 percent).
5. Lower-income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians. Twice as many American seniors with below-median incomes self-report “excellent” health (11.7 percent) compared to Canadian seniors (5.8 percent). Conversely, white, young Canadian adults with below-median incomes are 20 percent more likely than lower-income Americans to describe their health as “fair or poor.”
6. Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the United Kingdom. Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long—sometimes more than a year—to see a specialist, have elective surgery such as hip replacements, or get radiation treatment for cancer. All told, 827,429 people are waiting for some type of procedure in Canada. In Britain, nearly 1.8 million people are waiting for a hospital admission or outpatient treatment.
7. People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, and British adults say their health system needs either “fundamental change” or “complete rebuilding.”
8. Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians. When asked about their own health care instead of the “health care system,” more than half of Americans (51.3 percent) are very satisfied with their health care services, compared with only 41.5 percent of Canadians; a lower proportion of Americans are dissatisfied (6.8 percent) than Canadians (8.5 percent).
9. Americans have better access to important new technologies such as medical imaging than do patients in Canada or Britain. An overwhelming majority of leading American physicians identify computerized tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the most important medical innovations for improving patient care during the previous decade—even as economists and policy makers unfamiliar with actual medical practice decry these techniques as wasteful. The United States has thirty-four CT scanners per million Americans, compared to twelve in Canada and eight in Britain. The United States has almost twenty-seven MRI machines per million people compared to about six per million in Canada and Britain.
10. Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations. The top five U.S. hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other developed country. Since the mid- 1970s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to U.S. residents more often than recipients from all other countries combined. In only five of the past thirty-four years did a scientist living in the United States not win or share in the prize. Most important recent medical innovations were developed in the United States.
Despite serious challenges, such as escalating costs and care for the uninsured, the U.S. health care system compares favorably to those in other developed countries.

[Merrill Poker Player]

All this sounds good to me!!!!!


Hint of sarcasam.

[fishenrg]

source?

[GIDEON]

source?
:yeahthat:

[Munsterlndr]

source?

Whats the matter, an e-mail from the internets isn't good enough for you? Skeptic! :lol:

You probably don't believe that the Kenyan Birth Certificate is real, either. :rolleyes:

[Ranger Ray]

Are you guys only good at googling Bush statistics? :lol:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/18/pardon-the-interruption/

[localyahoo]

Trust me. My fiance is from england and lives in canada. So she knows both very well. She is also a nurse. When the subject comes up at a family get together, she would scare the living crap out of you about the health care over there. People over in canada and england are dying while waiting for tests to even see what they have. There philosophy is if it ain't broke don't fix it, where we take preventative measures.

[S.NIEMI]

Trust me. My fiance is from england and lives in canada. So she knows both very well. She is also a nurse. When the subject comes up at a family get together, she would scare the living crap out of you about the health care over there. People over in canada and england are dying while waiting for tests to even see what they have. There philosophy is if it ain't broke don't fix it, where we take preventative measures.
Whatever! One can look no further than our good ol' military "socialist" health care. Nobody seems to mind that system. Lots of boogymen/women out there.
I just feel bad for the poor poor middle man (useless insurance guy). They might have to learn what money actually is.:evil:

[localyahoo]

Not to mention there will be job losses because hospitals and doctors will only get so much money. Plus research and advances will be way down because hospitals compete for your business. Hospitals over here are turning into hotel chains with all there private rooms and services they provide. Over in canada everyone is lumped into one big area and there isn't much privacy. There is good and bad for both systems but I would still take our system over theirs any day.

[Merrill Poker Player]

Are you guys only good at googling Bush statistics? :lol:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/18/pardon-the-interruption/

I suppose the Washington Times is not a sufficient source?

[Jackster1]

Not to mention there will be job losses because hospitals and doctors will only get so much money. Plus research and advances will be way down because hospitals compete for your business. Hospitals over here are turning into hotel chains with all there private rooms and services they provide. Over in canada everyone is lumped into one big area and there isn't much privacy. There is good and bad for both systems but I would still take our system over theirs any day.

Did you learn also from wherever you get your information that the insurance biz brings in 800 billion dollars? How many nurses aides do you think could be hired with that amount of cash?
On top of that, here's a note from another :"Tylenol for the four days (in the hospital) and that cost was $678.00 just for the OTC tylenol!"
Ya think we could save a bit by regulating that kind of crap going on?

As I said, the root of this mess is HealthCo has gotten too danged greedy and are shooting themselves in the foot (with good insurance I bet!)! If they didn't want to play such a get-rich-quick scheme we wouldn't be having this discussion... but then those setting prices and policy in HealthCo right now know full well that they'll be long gone with their pockets bulging once the government system gets going!

[djweiser]

Anyone out there that thinks public healthcare is "the right answer" needs to take a good hard look at the miltary's system. I am speaking from many years experience when I tell you that it is "NOT" the right thing to do.

No incentive for the people to work hard and you get a poor product.

Hey isnt that what broke communism? No incentive for "The People" to work hard.

[Ranger Ray]

I suppose the Washington Times is not a sufficient source?
On the contrary, silence speaks volumes.

[TC-fisherman]

On the contrary, silence speaks volumes.

is it necessary to point out the article was listed under the opinion section in the Washington Times and what the editorial board of the W Times is like?

and did you think someone from the Hoover Institute would say anything else?

I mean how stupid is this

5. Lower-income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians. Twice as many American seniors with below-median incomes self-report “excellent” health (11.7 percent) compared to Canadian seniors (5.8 percent). Conversely, white, young Canadian adults with below-median incomes are 20 percent more likely than lower-income Americans to describe their health as “fair or poor.”

"self report" wow there's a accurate gauge of health.



kinda like this report
More than three-quarters of obese Americans say they have healthy eating habits, according to a survey of more than 11,000 people.

About 40 percent of obese people also said they do “vigorous” exercise at least three times a week, the telephone survey found.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14140990/

of course if you look at where the claim that " Lower-income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians." originally came from

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/datanhis/jcush_analyticalreport.pdf (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/jcush_analyticalreport.pdf) page 13+14

A higher proportion of those in the lower income groups reported poorer health in the U.S. than in Canada but there were no significant differences in the middle and high income groups between the two countries. For example, 31% of low income Americans reported that their health was fair or poor compared with 23% of low income Canadians.

you can see that the claim is complete BS

But since it was posted on the internet and in the Washington Times opinion section it must be true.

[pescadero]

But since it was posted on the internet and in the Washington Times opinion section it must be true.

I think more accurate would be "But since it agrees with my preconceived beliefs it must be true."

--
lp

[Fishfoote]

I'm sure the same group that has done so well with social security, medicare and medicaid which serves only specific segments of the population will do an equally great job managing a system to serve a far larger part of the population. At least with this legislation they are looking far enough ahead to include "end of life" planning - thus they can move that age bracket around like they have social security to stretch resources for a few decade before the inevitable collapse.

[Merrill Poker Player]

What programs does the federal government run efficiently?
We want them to decide or dictate our healthcare?


I might email the white house what I should wear tomorrrow.

Government control over everyones lives is not the answer.

[cedarlkDJ]

I might email the white house what I should wear tomorrrow.

I don't know if I would do that!


"I'm sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we're Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration."
— Hillary Clinton

Call For Informants: If You Oppose Obamacare, Even in ‘Casual Conversation,’ the White House Wants to Know About It

Posted by Jeff Emanuel (Profile)

Tuesday, August 4th at 1:45PM EDT
9 Comments

If you see anybody publicly opposing President Obama’s plan to implement a government-centric overhaul of the health care system, the White House wants you to report that person (or persons) ASAP.

From the White House website:

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

Emphasis added. Of course, as we’ve seen in the health care debate to date, the term “disinformation” is used by the Obama White House as a catchall to describe any opposition to the President’s push for single-payer, government-run health care — meaning the White House wants to be informed of any forwarded emails or blog posts or any “casual conversations” that could be taken as opposition to their health care overhaul plan.

The White House has, as yet, offered no explanation of what it is they plan to do with the tips on policy opposition they hope to receive from citizen informers.

[Ranger Ray]

is it necessary to point out the article was listed under the opinion section in the Washington Times and what the editorial board of the W Times is like?

and did you think someone from the Hoover Institute would say anything else?

I mean how stupid is this



"self report" wow there's a accurate gauge of health.



kinda like this report


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14140990/

of course if you look at where the claim that " Lower-income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians." originally came from

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/datanhis/jcush_analyticalreport.pdf (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/jcush_analyticalreport.pdf) page 13+14



you can see that the claim is complete BS

But since it was posted on the internet and in the Washington Times opinion section it must be true.

I think more accurate would be "But since it agrees with my preconceived beliefs it must be true.".
Let me see. Your arguments are based on the same BS you are claiming makes the article faulty. Thats funny. Pescy and TC have spoken "So let it be said, so let it be true." I see no sources you posted that prove the original articles claims to be wrong. Most surveys are based off "self reports" I know, I know, it didn't have MSNBC Survey authentication, and since it also "didn't agree with your preconceived beliefs it must not be true." Silly humans.

[S.NIEMI]

Ahh!.....The good ole' pot calling the kettle black senerio.:lol:

[TC-fisherman]

I see no sources you posted that prove the original articles claims to be wrong.

Lets see the original article claims "" Lower-income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians." . According to the published version of this article where the author cited references he referenced a paper by two college professors. What did these two college professors base their study on? The study I posted that said "A higher proportion of those in the lower income groups reported poorer health in the U.S. than in Canada".

So to sum it up he made a claim that is 180 degrees different from the original study that provides the data for his citation.

Can you follow that? Is it too difficult to understand?

[MuskyDan]

Are the American people stupid enough to believe that healthcare in any form is about the best interest of the people and not about just lining some fat cats pocket??

Until the insurance companies come out of the equation I am totally against any form or universalized system!!

[pescadero]

I'm sure the same group that has done so well with social security, medicare and medicaid which serves only specific segments of the population will do an equally great job managing a system to serve a far larger part of the population.

According to a national CAHPS survey 2007:

Using 0 to 10, where 0 is the worst possible and 10 is the best possible, how would you rate your health plan?

Percentage surveyed who rated 9 or 10 -

Medicare (managed care) - 60%
Medicare (fee for service) - 56%
Medicaid - 51%
Private insurance - 40%


Percentage who say they "always" get access to needed care (appointments with specialists or other necessary tests and treatment):

Medicare (fee for service) - 70%
Medicare (managed care) - 63%
Private Insurance - 51%

From a Kaiser study of seniors in 2001:

Do you consider Medicare and Private insurance such as HMO/PPOs to be well run?

Medicare well run - 62%
Private insurance well run - 28%

--
lp

[pescadero]

Let me see. Your arguments are based on the same BS you are claiming makes the article faulty. Thats funny. Pescy and TC have spoken "So let it be said, so let it be true." I see no sources you posted that prove the original articles claims to be wrong.

Did you miss the part where the original articles OWN SOURCES disagreed with the one of the articles main points?

Hilarious.

--
lp

[Ozzman]

Got an e-mail from a friend yesterday, showing an awful lot of detail reading the new "Health Care Reform Bill H.R. 3200 that only covers to half way of the over 1,000 pages in the proposed bill.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-3200 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-3200)

Good suggestion that people should read the bill against the points below. If indeed the points are true (have not been able to validate the source), explain why anyone would support this? Till then, I am busy reading, you should be too!

Last but not least, why is it that the US Legislators (per Nancy Pelosi) have denied due process of the three days to review a bill on the senate floor? Take a look yourselves at how many "Bills" have been pushed through without a proper review since January 2009.

Page 22 of the HC Bill: Mandates that the Govt will audit books of all employers that self insure!!

Page 30 Sec 123 of HC bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get.

Page 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill: YOUR HEALTH CARE IS RATIONED!!!


Page 42 of HC Bill:The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC Benefits for you. You have no choice!

Page 50 Section 152 in HC bill: HC will be provided to ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise

Page 58 HC Bill: Govt will have real-time access to individuals finances & a National ID Healthcard will be issued!

Page 59 HC Bill lines 21-24: Govt will have direct access to your bank accounts for elective funds transfer.

Page 65 Sec 164: is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in Unions & community organizations: (ACORN).

Page 84 Sec 203 HC bill: Govt mandates ALL benefit packages for private HC plans in the Exchange.

Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications for of Benefit Levels for Plans = The Govt will ration your Healthcare!

Page 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill: Govt mandates linguistic appropriate services. Example - Translation: illegal aliens.

Page 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18: The Govt will use groups i.e., ACORN & Americorps to sign up individuals for Govt HC plan.

Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans. AARP members - your Health care WILL be rationed.

Page 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill: Medicaid Eligible Individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. No choice.

Page 124 lines 24-25 HC: No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No "judicial review" against Govt Monopoly.

Page 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill: Doctors/ American Medical Association - The Govt will tell YOU what you can make! (salary)

Page 145 Line 15-17: An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into public option plan. NO CHOICE!

Page 126 Lines 22-25: Employers MUST pay for HC for part time employees AND their families.

Page 149 Lines 16-24: ANY Employer with payroll 401k & above who does not provide public option pays 8% tax on all payroll.

Page 150 Lines 9-13: Business's with payroll btw 251k & 401k who doesn't provide public option pays 2-6% tax on all payroll.

Page 167 Lines 18-23: ANY individual who doesn't have acceptable HC according to Govt will be taxed 2.5% of income.

Page 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill: Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay)

Page 195 HC Bill: Officers & employees of HC Admin (GOVT) will have access to ALL Americans finances /personal records.

Page 203 Line 14-15 HC: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax" Yes, it says that!

Page 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill: Govt will reduce physician services for Medicaid Seniors, low income and poor are affected.

Page 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill: Doctors, doesn't matter what specialty you have, you'll all be paid the same!

Page 253 Line 10-18: Govt sets value of Doctor's time, proffession, judgment etc. Literally value of humans.

Page 265 Sec 1131: Govt mandates & controls productivity for private HC industries.

Page 268 Sec 1141: Federal Govt regulates rental & purchase of power driven wheelchairs.

Page 272 SEC. 1145: TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS - Cancer patients - welcome to rationing!

Page 280 Sec 1151: The Govt will penalize hospitals for whatever Govt deems preventable re-admissions.

Page 298 Lines 9-11: Doctors, treat a patient during initial admission that results in a re-admission -Govt will penalize you.

Page 317 L 13-20: PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. Govt tells Doctors what/how much they can own!

Page 317-318 lines 21-25, 1-3: PROHIBITION on expansion- Govt is mandating hospitals cannot expand.

Page 321 2-13: Hospitals have opportunity to apply for exception BUT community input is required. Can u say ACORN?!!

Page 335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339: Govt mandates establishment of outcome based measures. HC the way they want. Rationing.

Page 341 Lines 3-9: Govt has authority to disqualify Medicare Advance Plans, HMOs, etc. Forcing people into Govt plan.

Page 354 Sec 1177: Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of Special needs people! Unbelievable!

Page 379 Sec 1191: Govt creates more bureaucracy - Tele-health Advisory Comittee. Can you say HC by phone?

Page 425 Lines 4-12: Govt mandates Advance Care Planning Consult. Think Senior Citizens end of life patients.

Page 425 Lines 17-19: Govt will instruct & consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney. Mandatory!

Page 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3: Govt provides approved list of end of life resources, guiding you in death. (assisted suicide)

Page 427 Lines 15-24: Govt mandates program for orders for end of life. The Govt has a say in how your life ends.

Page 429 Lines 1-9: An "advanced care planning consultant" will be used frequently as patients health deteriorates.

Page 429 Lines 10-12: "advanced care consultation" may include an ORDER for end of life plans. AN ORDER from GOVT!

Page 429 Lines 13-25: The govt will specify which Doctors can write an end of life order.

Page 430 Lines 11-15: The Govt will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of life!

Page 469: Community Based Home Medical Services = Non profit organizations. Hello, ACORN Medical Services here!!?

Page 472 Lines 14-17: PAYMENT TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORIGINATION. 1 monthly payment 2 a community-based organization. Like ACORN?

Page 489 Sec 1308: The Govt will cover Marriage & Family therapy. Which means they will insert Govt into your marriage.

Page 494-498: Govt will cover Mental Health Services including defining, creating, rationing those services.

Ozzman :confused:

[eyecatcher]

I think they should take this health care plan and shove it were the sun don't shine.

Any plan that congress exempts it self the president and all federal employees from is bound to be a disaster for the average tax payer. They have made a mess of every thing they touch. This government could give VD a bad name. I'm not just referring to the socialist/democrats the Lilly livered never take a stand RINO's are equally as bad. what the hell is their rush to get this crap enacted???? Its over a thousand pages and they say they dont have the time to read it because they need to act fast. John Conyers a card carrying communist is complaining about the rush and not having the time to read and have his attorneys find out what the whole thing really commits the tax payers to buying. I feel this is all about control. The socialist want to control as much of our society as they can. This president could care less about the well being of this countries citizenry he only wants to turn us into a society controlled by the elite, with two sets of rules one for him and his pals and one for the rest of the country. If you say anything about him your being unpatriotic or a racist. the biggest bigoted races seem to be his friends and minister. I truly believe that the Obama's hate this country and have a burning desire to remake us into a model of socialism. they have a group of america hating bigots for close personal friends. He has appointed far left wackos to be "zars". I think anyone who wants us to remain a free society should call and wright or email your congressperson and senator tell them you don't want this health care plan or any plan that excludes them and all other federal employees.
The only plan except able to the citizens should be good enough for our elected employees as well as all our other employees. Yes they work for us, we the tax payers foot the bill for their wages, expenses, health care and retirement. Tell them you dont want their damn cap and tax scam. Attend a few town hall meetings if you can find any our senators have the guts to attend that are open to the general public and not just hand picked groups. stand up and voice your opinion. I sure as hell will.

[bigdaveh]

ozzman, great post. your post is why i am against this health care plan.illegals taken care of.

[Munsterlndr]

Got an e-mail from a friend yesterday,



Believing that any chain letters circulated by e-mail are the truth was your first mistake. :lol:

As posted on a previous thread, I actually took the time to verify some of the claims made in this e-mail and of the 5 that I randomly picked to verify, all of them were BS. Given those results, it's a pretty good bet that the rest of the list is bunk, as well. Circulating this sort of partisan crap dumbs down the political discourse in this country and does everyone a disservice.

[Ranger Ray]

Lets see the original article claims "" Lower-income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians." . According to the published version of this article where the author cited references he referenced a paper by two college professors. What did these two college professors base their study on? The study I posted that said "A higher proportion of those in the lower income groups reported poorer health in the U.S. than in Canada".

So to sum it up he made a claim that is 180 degrees different from the original study that provides the data for his citation.

Can you follow that? Is it too difficult to understand?
Yes its very easy to follow. The two professors analysis of the study mentioned (JCUSH) did not find it to support the hypothesis it came to. Their analysis is the 180 degree finding to the original study. Its why the published version you speak of, used the O'Neil and O'Neil study as reference. Whats your point?
Did you miss the part where the original articles OWN SOURCES disagreed with the one of the articles main points?

Hilarious.?
Not at all. If you are refuting a source and used their own statistics to do it, its only honest research to include it in your references. DOH!

[TC-fisherman]

Are you serious?

The two professors analysis of the study mentioned (JCUSH) did not find it to support the hypothesis it came to.

It wasn't a study. It was a survey. Data is either there or it isn't. There is no interpretation. Either people report they are in good health or they don't.

do you even know what a hypothesis is?

I guess you can't follow or understand if you think a survey has a hypothesis.


My point right now is this is why any policy debate is all but useless. Someone can post something on the internet that has no basis in fact and people will cling to as gospel because it matches their beliefs. When people are so blind they refuse or are incapable of even understanding something as simple as a survey what is the point of trying to discuss anything else.

[Ozzman]

Well Munsterlander, if you carefully read my blog, I CLEARLY stated;

Good suggestion that people should read the bill against the points below. If indeed the points are true (have not been able to validate the source), explain why anyone would support this? Till then, I am busy reading, you should be too!

the bill to draw their own conclusions. But since you apparently have completed (much appreciated ;)) the reasearch on "all 51" the points listed, pretty sure everyone is waiting to see your evidence (which 5 line items did you review) the claims were bogus, or the points were false as I did provide the link to download the entire bill!

I again ask if anyone had looked at this change in legislative procedure. Is this "No review before a vote" a permanent change, mandated by law or just at the conveinience of the current administration? How many bills have received this "No Review before a vote" treatment in previous years?

After all, the stimulus package had to be done NOW, the bank bailout had to be done NOW. Is this a pattern and should this continue to be allowed? Or should everyone take our poltiicians word that whatever they put together is what is best for everyone?:dizzy:

If the bill can not swim on its own merits, then it really doesnt matter who wrote it, or introduced it.

In the end, I at least got Munsterlander to review "some" of the bill, which parts we are unsure yet. So in egging some on by anger over a perceived slight to their party, and some others angry at the crap potentially being forced down their throats, how many of you are going to read the bill and make an informed decision and response? How is this not proper discourse?

After all, it is only 47 million uninsured people we are talking about out of 300 million in the US right? Oh thats right, thats the politically motivated number.

The Census Bureau says that there are only 35.92 million uninsured Americans and that this number includes 9.1 million people who earn more than $75,000 a year and simply choose not to purchase insurance.

“This is not just about the 47 million Americans who have no health insurance,” Obama said in a prepared statement at the start of his Wednesday night press conference. “Reform is about every American who has ever feared that they may lose their coverage if they become too sick, or lose their job, or change their job.”

But Obama’s claim of 47 million uninsured is not supported by the Census Bureau report (http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p60-235.pdf), “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007,” which was published in August 2008 and is the government’s most up-to-date official report on the number of uninsured in the United States.

This Census report says that within the borders of the United States as of 2007 there were 45.65 people without health insurance. But this number, according to the Census Bureau, included 9.73 million foreigners, leaving only 35.92 Americans who were uninsured.

The Census Bureau also said that the number of uninsured people was declining.
“Both the percentage and number of people without health insurance decreased in 2007,” said the Census Bureau report.

Among the uninsured in the United States, the Census Bureau said, there were also 9.1 million people making more than $75,000 per year who did not choose to purchase health insurance.

So in the end, there are only 26.82 million legal citizens who are uninsured not by choice or less than 10% of the general public (current population 301 million), and that number of uninsured is declining as noted above. So how is this really such a do or die measure that has to happen RIGHT NOW? There couldnt be ANY truth to any of the points I listed previously right, after all, no politicians have any agendas in mind, do they?

There is one other solution to this whole mess. Lets stop sending all our money over seas to countries and people who just dont give a damn about the US. They get enough of our money from what we buy anyway! Use that money to fund the health care for those uninsured, then redistribute the money to both balance the budget, then send it overseas where it is MOST needed! No new taxes, problem solved!:D



Ozzman :)

[Munsterlndr]

So next time instead of posting a load of crap under the guise of "getting people to read the bill", why don't you just read the bill yourself and give us your personal analysis instead of recycling a bunch of e-mailed tripe.

As for the 5 points that I fact-checked and debunked, I posted them in a previous thread and don't have either the time or the inclination to go to the bother of finding that post. If you want to find it, have at it. ;)

[Ranger Ray]

Are you serious?



It wasn't a study. It was a survey. Data is either there or it isn't. There is no interpretation. Either people report they are in good health or they don't..
You don't even know what the heck your posting. Your JCUSH link you posted to prove the 180 degree argument, to prove the original post was wrong, was a JCUSH report based off the survey. It is in this reports context I am responding. If you don't even understand the context of your own argument and links, how do you expect me

Just for the hell of it:

The Joint Canada/United States Survey of Health (JCUSH) was a research study conducted jointly by the National Center for Health Statistics and Statistics Canada.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis/jcush.htm

:dizzy::dizzy:

do you even know what a hypothesis is? .
See above.

I guess you can't follow or understand if you think a survey has a hypothesis. .
See above.


My point right now is this is why any policy debate is all but useless. Someone can post something on the internet that has no basis in fact and people will cling to as gospel because it matches their beliefs. When people are so blind they refuse or are incapable of even understanding something as simple as a survey what is the point of trying to discuss anything else.
I agree.

[AceMcbanon]

Not much to add to the current argument, but here is my experience from today. I needed two common shots and a physical to attend a emt-b class which i am paying over 1000 for. A office visit is around 70$ dollars for the uninsured. I figured i would spend between 100-200 dollars.

Went to the doctors at 4, was heading to checkout by 4:30, my total bill was 445$ And the best thing is the uninsured have to pay in full and can not be billed. I gawked but paid the bill and now have to work more then full time while taking the class, which i will because it's what i have to do to attend.

What bothers me the most is i work 40+ plus hours a week and do not make much over minimum wage. Yet people who barely work at all get covered, those with kids who can not afford it, and of course those who can afford private insurance. I work hard and do not qualify for any government programs and at the same time can not afford private insurance. I have a feeling that there are many like me who work hard but never had the opportunity to have those jobs that offer insurance. I would be all for paying for insurance that if affordable is offered.

Yes I could move to a big city, work my way up the ranks and find a job that offers some type of insurance, but I love my life and where i live, and is trading happiness for health insurance the best idea?

The scariest thing in my life is i'm one broken leg away from being dirt broke and paying debts for a decade. Why can't we have a better system to take care of our citizens.

[Jackster1]

Why can't we have a better system to take care of our citizens.Because that would be a slap in the face to the robber barons in the med and insurance industries. They pay a hell of a lot of money to buy rules made just to favor them.
The next time a Doctor makes you wait more than 1/2 hour AFTER your scheduled appt time to see him, bill him for your time and see how far that gets you! :dizzy:

[eyecatcher]

Because that would be a slap in the face to the robber barons in the med and insurance industries. They pay a hell of a lot of money to buy rules made just to favor them.
The next time a Doctor makes you wait more than 1/2 hour AFTER your scheduled appt time to see him, bill him for your time and see how far that gets you! :dizzy:

I have done just that. A doctor made me wait for an hour then another 45 minutes in the exam room. I walk out to the desk and loudly told the girl that was leaving the doctor came out and tried to insure me he would be right with me. I explained that my time was valuable and I had no more to waste waiting for anyone who didn't understand the concept of a fixed appointment. I would find a doctor who was really a professional and not an immature spoiled fool and that my bill would be mailed to them in a few days. I mailed them a bill for my lost of time and the time it took me to find a new doctor and they paid it. I have never heard from them again however I have told many people to stay away from that fool.

[MuskyDan]

I have done just that. A doctor made me wait for an hour then another 45 minutes in the exam room. I walk out to the desk and loudly told the girl that was leaving the doctor came out and tried to insure me he would be right with me. I explained that my time was valuable and I had no more to waste waiting for anyone who didn't understand the concept of a fixed appointment. I would find a doctor who was really a professional and not an immature spoiled fool and that my bill would be mailed to them in a few days. I mailed them a bill for my lost of time and the time it took me to find a new doctor and they paid it. I have never heard from them again however I have told many people to stay away from that fool.

Coolest post I have ever read I think. On a unrelated subject, I had a phone scam person leave me their number, I called them back and told them if they paid me 50 for my time I wouldn't call and bother them but if they didn't pay me I would call them all day everyday until I got bored. They didn't pay but the conversations were definately worth my time.

[TC-fisherman]

You don't even know what the heck your posting. Your JCUSH link you posted to prove the 180 degree argument, to prove the original post was wrong, was a JCUSH report based off the survey. It is in this reports context I am responding. If you don't even understand the context of your own argument and links, how do you expect me

what was is on the title page of this link? http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/jcush_analyticalreport.pdf
Joint Canada/United States Survey of Health, 2002-03

What is in this report "The objective of this report is to provide a first look at the results from the JCUSH survey."

please tell me what was subjective about anything in the survey.

Tell me anything in the survey that would support the claim " Lower-income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians."

go to page 13 read "Low income Americans were more likely to be in fair or poor health and to have severe mobility limitation than low income Canadians." Tell me how that is a hypothesis. Please go ahead. Its a pretty simple question.


Don't bother. Keep believing the mass emails and opinion articles. Live in a fantasy bubble. Don't think for yourself.

Some guy who is a member of a think tank writes an opinion article and cherry picks a slice of data to make a broad conclusion. No big deal, common. What is horrendous is now that opinion piece is taken as gospel and even when faced with the original data (not an opinion) that is the complete and total opposite of what was in this "opinion" piece someone wont accept it.

Once again reason why the health care debate amongst the public is basically useless.

[MuskyDan]

what was is on the title page of this link? http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/jcush_analyticalreport.pdf
Joint Canada/United States Survey of Health, 2002-03

What is in this report "The objective of this report is to provide a first look at the results from the JCUSH survey."

please tell me what was subjective about anything in the survey.

Tell me anything in the survey that would support the claim " Lower-income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians."

go to page 13 read "Low income Americans were more likely to be in fair or poor health and to have severe mobility limitation than low income Canadians." Tell me how that is a hypothesis. Please go ahead. Its a pretty simple question.


Don't bother. Keep believing the mass emails and opinion articles. Live in a fantasy bubble. Don't think for yourself.

Some guy who is a member of a think tank writes an opinion article and cherry picks a slice of data to make a broad conclusion. No big deal, common. What is horrendous is now that opinion piece is taken as gospel and even when faced with the original data (not an opinion) that is the complete and total opposite of what was in this "opinion" piece someone wont accept it.

Once again reason why the health care debate amongst the public is basically useless.


The problem with thinking for yourself is that if you don't pick a side people view you as an uneducated toad. I think for myself and the conclusion I have drawn is that the politicians are maggots feeding on pile of dog crap, and the dog crap is the insurance companies. The two are joined in a marriage that is crippling this country. And this push for everyone to be covered with health (INSURANCE) is the biggest scam in the history of mankind. Politicians are living the lifestyles of kings and have absolutely zero fear for their livelyhood and insurance companies rape the American people every minute of everyday and govt. thinks that we should put our trust in them?

I am an un-insured toad.

[Greenbush future]

If they (politicians) want to fix this health care problem, they should repeal the sweetheart deal they voted themselves and start over at the beginning and include themselves in any plan that they feel is good enough for the general public. They should be forced to accept whatever they choose to vote for us.

[Ranger Ray]

what was is on the title page of this link? http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/jcush_analyticalreport.pdf
Joint Canada/United States Survey of Health, 2002-03

What is in this report "The objective of this report is to provide a first look at the results from the JCUSH survey."

please tell me what was subjective about anything in the survey.

Tell me anything in the survey that would support the claim " Lower-income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians."

go to page 13 read "Low income Americans were more likely to be in fair or poor health and to have severe mobility limitation than low income Canadians." Tell me how that is a hypothesis. Please go ahead. Its a pretty simple question.


Don't bother. Keep believing the mass emails and opinion articles. Live in a fantasy bubble. Don't think for yourself.

Some guy who is a member of a think tank writes an opinion article and cherry picks a slice of data to make a broad conclusion. No big deal, common. What is horrendous is now that opinion piece is taken as gospel and even when faced with the original data (not an opinion) that is the complete and total opposite of what was in this "opinion" piece someone wont accept it.

Once again reason why the health care debate among the public is basically useless.
One more time, for the gipper.
You have a survey questionnaire: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/imdb-bmdi/instrument/5020_Q1_V1-eng.pdf

You have a report based on that questionnaire: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/jcush_analyticalreport.pdf

The questionnaire survey does not directly give you

A higher proportion of those in the lower income groups reported poorer health in the U.S. than in Canada

Somewhere someone had to determine whats rich and whats poor, etc... Oh wait, the health survey report does. It uses processing methods. What are those? :lol: Look at the reference page and it will give you a good idea. Well how can the Health survey (not questionnaire survey) be a survey based on TC's own definition of survey ? How can TC even be using a self report for his argument when he says they are no good? How can TC use a study (so says the CDC), when TC says a survey can't be a study? Are we dizzy yet? Sorry! Back to the point. How did the report determine "A higher proportion of those in the lower income groups reported poorer health in the U.S. than in Canada?" It used estimation, analytical techniques, and came to hypothesis, theory or what ever you want to call it. Wait! Isn't that the same thing O'Neil and O'Neil did, that supposedly makes their study internet BS? Anyone read O'Neil and O'Neil? You know the study that is internet BS based off the JCUSH questionnaire? I highly doubt it because the hack BS internet study the partisan hack used for the basis of his report is not available to the public without paying. You can however go to the scientific research site and sign up as research scientist and access the BS report. When you do please inform them that TC has determined their study to be internet BS and should not be available for all the Dr's. and scientist to use in their research. I mean c'mon, are all you scientists that stupid?

I think you picked the wrong reference report to try to prove as political hack BS. It is why I picked the Washington article, because it had good references. Anyone can just post the easy "its all BS." I mean it is the easy and lazy way out, but proves nothing. However, 5 points to you for even engaging in debate, your brethren would chose the easy way out. Also 5 points for not posting anything on Bush.

[TC-fisherman]

The questionnaire survey does not directly give you

Quote:
A higher proportion of those in the lower income groups reported poorer health in the U.S. than in Canada

Somewhere someone had to determine whats rich and whats poor, etc...


page 14 chart 7

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/jcush_analyticalreport.pdf

how does that determine whats rich or poor?



Lets see asking a group of people in two countries what their health status is.

Reporting the results of that question.

Is that an example of:

a) estimation
b) analytical techiques
C) reaching a hypothesis
D) none of the above
E) I don't know what the words mean


like i said this is why policy debate is useless

[Ranger Ray]

Lets see asking a group of people in two countries what their health status is.

Reporting the results of that question.

Is that an example of:

a) estimation
b) analytical techiques
C) reaching a hypothesis
D) none of the above
E) I don't know what the words mean


like i said this is why policy debate is useless
Could be all of the above. Whats your point? Other than you have no argument. Whats next, your dad is bigger than mine?

[TC-fisherman]

Q. What is your favorite color?
A. Blue

reporting the results of that question is not estimation, analysis, or reaching a hypothesis.


While in both countries, those in the poorest income quintile reported poorer health, more low income Americans did so compared with low income Canadians (31% vs. 23%). The same pattern prevailed regarding the distribution of severe mobility limitation, obesity

either one group reported being in better health or they didn't. No subjective analysis, no estimation, no hypothesis. Its very simple. at least for those that can think

[Ranger Ray]

We interrupt this regularly scheduled post.

rX0vOYwHj30&feature=related

[TrailFndr]

I have done just that. A doctor made me wait for an hour then another 45 minutes in the exam room. I walk out to the desk and loudly told the girl that was leaving the doctor came out and tried to insure me he would be right with me. I explained that my time was valuable and I had no more to waste waiting for anyone who didn't understand the concept of a fixed appointment. I would find a doctor who was really a professional and not an immature spoiled fool and that my bill would be mailed to them in a few days. I mailed them a bill for my lost of time and the time it took me to find a new doctor and they paid it. I have never heard from them again however I have told many people to stay away from that fool.

Several years ago, I did the same thing. I billed for the time, at Overtime rates as I had to turn down OT in order to get the appointment. They had me wait over 2 hours. It took me about 6 months of rebilling each month, but they finally paid it when I sent a copy of the lawsuit papers I was getting ready to file..

[Ranger Ray]

Q. What is your favorite color?
A. Blue

reporting the results of that question is not estimation, analysis, or reaching a hypothesis.

Oh! How could I miss something that simple. So the statement in question was a direct answer to a question? Silly me. I am having difficult finding the question. I am sure you can point me to the question that resulted in no estimation, analysis, or hypothesis and resulted in the direct answer of: "A higher proportion of those in the lower income groups reported poorer health in the U.S. than in Canada." Or you could just admit that to make that statement, someone had to enter analysis and estimation.

[TC-fisherman]

Tabulating the results of a survey is just that. Its not estimation, analysis, or hypothesis. Addition is not analysis

I need to heed your signature line.

Someone posts an opinion piece that claims "Lower-income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians."

well the source they used was based on a survey

the results of that survey "While in both countries, those in the poorest income quintile reported poorer health, more low income Americans did so compared with low income Canadians (31% vs. 23%). The same pattern prevailed regarding the distribution of severe mobility limitation, obesity"


Over and done with? heck no! just keep repeating its all because of different estimation, analysis, or hypothesis.

In a fantasy land that screams for the long form birth certificate, where Palin is an outstanding choice to run the country, where health care debate is a bunch of morons yelling at representatives it all makes sense. Idiocracy here we come.

[pescadero]

Someone posts an opinion piece that claims "Lower-income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians."

well the source they used was based on a survey

the results of that survey "While in both countries, those in the poorest income quintile reported poorer health, more low income Americans did so compared with low income Canadians (31% vs. 23%). The same pattern prevailed regarding the distribution of severe mobility limitation, obesity"


Over and done with? heck no! just keep repeating its all because of different estimation, analysis, or hypothesis.



It could be a different analysis.

You're equating the one papers "Lower-income Americans" with the surveys "poorest income quintile"

It may be defining "Lower-income Americans" as the lowest quintile, the lowest two quintiles, the bottom third, the bottom half...

--
lp

[Ranger Ray]

It could be a different analysis.


lp
Ding ding ding. 5 points for getting over the "preconceived notion" BS.

I see implied idiocy but still no proof. Your detractors and implied idiocy have been most humorous in this discussion. Tactics mostly used by those that have no argument.

Lets think about this again, just to humor me, the idiot

The original reference for the statement claiming opposite of JCUSH analysis report was the O'Neil and O'Neil report.

We know both reports (JCUSH, O'Neil and O'Neil) are archived and widely used by the science community itself for reference.

If there was no analysis or methodology that could be questioned and the answer was as clear as "blue", the science community would not let the incorrect report stand.

Here endith the lesson.

Signed: The Idiot

[TC-fisherman]

It could be a different analysis.

You're equating the one papers "Lower-income Americans" with the surveys "poorest income quintile"

It may be defining "Lower-income Americans" as the lowest quintile, the lowest two quintiles, the bottom third, the bottom half...

--
lp

If lower income Americans equals those in the top 40 percent of income than I am wrong and it also means the english language has changed.

The survey has the lowest 3 income quintiles with Canadians reporting better health. The largest gap is in the bottom quintile.

[TC-fisherman]

Lets see the author of the opionion piece claims " Lower income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians."

what data does he use to justify this

"Twice as many American seniors with below-median incomes self-report “excellent” health compared to Canadian seniors (11.7 percent versus 5.8 percent). Conversely, white Canadian young adults with below-median incomes are 20 percent more likely than lower income Americans to describe their health as “fair or poor' "

Is that a selective use of statistics? Is it a narrow sampling? Does it include all lower income Americans? As this is being used to validate the private health care system in the US are below median income seniors in the US covered by government run health care such as medicare?

Once again I will post the original data http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/jcush_analyticalreport.pdf

look at page 14.

Is there anyway shape or form anyone can come to the conclusion that "" Lower income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians."

Its a simple question. Anyone?

[pescadero]

Lets see the author of the opionion piece claims " Lower income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians."

what data does he use to justify this

"Twice as many American seniors with below-median incomes self-report “excellent” health compared to Canadian seniors (11.7 percent versus 5.8 percent). Conversely, white Canadian young adults with below-median incomes are 20 percent more likely than lower income Americans to describe their health as “fair or poor' "

Is that a selective use of statistics?

Yes - but ALL use of statistics is selective use of statistics - either in sampling methodology, questions asked, definition of parameters, etc.

Now this is an egregious, and semi fraudulent cherry picking - but the fact that it's a selective use isn't the problem. The problem is the criteria used to define the selection.

--
lp

[fsutroutbum]

I think the statement on page 13 sums it up pretty well TC and you are right. I would venture to say that the reason low income Americans are in worse shape is because many do not have a physician. From the 10 years I spent working in health care in northern Michigan I found that most of the low income folks came directly to the hospital for care as they had no doctor or availability of a clinic. Often they waited to the point where what may have been a minor issue had become more critical because of they did not have access to the system at an earlier stage. Dang, I agreed with TC I must be mellowing!

[JGF@Gratiot]

Do you guys ever feel like we bring the inflation on ourselves?? In the hospital I work in we have old wings in which there are still 4 bed rooms, which now only get used as a semi private (2 beds for privacy reasons), and a new wing which has private rooms as big as some peoples main floors on their house with flat screen tv's and the works. People come to the hospital, as it is now big business, and piss and moan about this and that, and privacy this and that, and want to sue for any little thing that goes wrong for and ungodly amount of money, therefore the hospitals and dr's need to raise costs to cover both of these things, and upscale the hospital to be better than the competition, which also raises insurance and continues to snoball. Our healthcare is superior to many other countries, especially some of the before mentioned IE canada, but we could scale back on some of the chrome that goes with it. Come to the hospital and get fixed, deal with what comes along with it instead of expecting some 5 star hotel stay and costs might not have got driven up so high. As for universal healthcare, pretty sure it exists to an extent. People come and use the system all the time and the hospital eats the bill. As for the plan itself, why would you want something that goes strictly by guidelines and age bracketing. Basically you could be 75 years old, healthy as a horse, and have a low heart rate, only needing a pacemaker which is pretty much a 2 day stay, and with this proposed plan, you would be S.O.L. pretty much telling you we are only going to make you comfortable because you don't fit an age criteria, when you could otherwise return to better than before function. We would be better served coming up with a plan for minors and some sort of national prescription plan for people that could help people afford their pills so they are compliant, don't get so far down the crapper that they need to come to the hospital or ruin their health beyond repair. It all goes together, but I see a lot more people who wouldn't need to be here if they could just get a break on some meds, leading to thousands of extra dollars of hospital bills. Heaven forbid we practice any prevention in America instead of just treatment, but nobody wants to pay for that!

[HUBBHUNTER]

You touched on some good points here JGF. Tort reform being a very important issued that needs to be dealt with but doesn't seem to get discussed as it should. Is that because most of our politicians are ex lawyers, who knows. I work in at the back end of healthcare and agree with JGF that people expect the best care on earth which seems to include flat screen tv's. When they don’t get everything they expect and don’t come out of the hospital better than when they went in there looking for any tom dick and harry attorney to make them rich. As of right now the hospital covers costs that cant be recouped by the patient, and or insurance. Under the new proposed obamacare the cost goes on to the people who are already paying more than they should. If anyone out there thinks that a healthcare overhaul and possible gov't insurance will be cost neutral, as we sheeple are told, is a F$&#*$* idiot and should probley be having the end of life discussions that were just removed from the health bill that Obama said were not in the bill. It's also funny that the guy leading the healthcare charge will only take credit for good ideas and has pushed this on the backs of congress to write up so he wont look bad. He can talk the talk, but only when told what to say. He cant back anything up becuase up to this point it's always been someone else fault.

[JGF@Gratiot]

There is also a good percetage of people who are just ignorant who don't have healthcare but could still get by just fine but don't take care of themselves in the 1st place. I don't even want to guess how many people I take care of that don't have health insurance, yet smoke 2 packs a day, which totals at todays cigarette price over 400 a month. You can buy your own damn insurance for that almost! Most generic meds can be bought at Walmart for like 4$/month. There is this type of generic for every cardiac drug at Wally's I think except Plavix, which goes generic in a year and a half. Like I said before, the hospital doesn't turn people away, we take care of some people who seem to never leave and the hospital just eats the bill. Other things should be touched on also like why the state forks out all this money to do any procedure to prisoners who are there for life, and why lawmakers and there family get health care for life no matter how long they are in office, I am pretty sure as minimal as 2 years, if not that I know for sure 4 year minimum. At the end of the day I am still waiting to see the govt run something efficiently, and for a country who practices social healthcare where the citizens actually like it!

[Munsterlndr]

So I'm assuming that everyone who is so passionately opposed to nationalized health care is psyched about Blue Cross getting to increase their rates by 22% in Michigan? Free market and all that? ;):lol:

http://www.detnews.com/article/20090813/METRO/908130465/Mich.-regulators-OK-Blue-Cross-rate-hike

[steelsetter]

So I'm assuming that everyone who is so passionately opposed to nationalized health care is psyched about Blue Cross getting to increase their rates by 22% in Michigan? Free market and all that? ;):lol:

http://www.detnews.com/article/20090813/METRO/908130465/Mich.-regulators-OK-Blue-Cross-rate-hike

Now do to unfortunate circumstances.

We are paying a LOT more for it.

Still have no use for Goverment controlled healthcare.

I can take care of myself, why should I take care of people who can't?

Same thing sickens me over welfare...

[cedarlkDJ]

So I'm assuming that everyone who is so passionately opposed to nationalized health care is psyched about Blue Cross getting to increase their rates by 22% in Michigan? Free market and all that? ;):lol:

http://www.detnews.com/article/20090813/METRO/908130465/Mich.-regulators-OK-Blue-Cross-rate-hike

We all want to reform the Health-Care mess!....having Government control it, is what this is all about!!!!....Government controlling your life on this issue is just more of our freedoms being taken away!....too dependent on the Government and we are a lost people!!!!......I could respond with a ton of s**t but, going out bluegill fishing while I still can!....(from my own house, in my own boat and going to eat them if I want too!.......maybe more to follow!!!!

[micaileana]

Remember - " SOILEN GREEN " ? BEWARE PEOPLE. Be afraid of your servants that you vote for and send them to White House , Senate , Congress , Governors, Mayors and so an and so an and so:yikes::evilsmile:evil::confused: an.........!

[cedarlkDJ]

It's 'Soylent Green'......for those too young! or those that have forgotten!
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=soylent+green&aq=1&oq=soyl&aqi=n1g10

[trentonbill]

I think that this measure is to important to be left to elected officials. Let them finalize the plan, send out copies of the plan to all registered voters and then let it be put to a national vote. Let the voices of the people be heard

[boltaction]

Well this is all very confusing. People up in arms disputing this, disputing that. This is what I heard that he said he heard. This is exactly what the politicians want. This is how they all ways get what they want and we fall for it every time. I believe we have the best health care in the world. Yes there are areas in health care that need to be dealt with and areas that should be improved. If your trucks engine is running rough you don't scrap it and buy a new one, that would cost you too much, you have it tuned up. The U.S. Constitution was written on four parchment pages and contains 4,543 words, including the signatures. It is the world's oldest and shortest constitution of government still in use. The United States government is run completly by this document alone. Very simple and to the point so that every person can understand it and won't be confused as to what there rights are and how government is to be run. Now, if you want confusion and total control of the population you right 1000 page bills or have a tax code that not even a Harvard professor can understand.

[YooperTroll]

debate is good, but the anti-commie/socialist/let's-get-the-country-back-to-the-founding-fathers rants are a bit self-serving and hypocritical.

if those spewing such lines burn their social security checks, start paying cash instead of using medicare, and stop buying subsidized food products (or taking government handouts if they are farmers) for starters, i'd be more apt to listen to those lines.

seriously. think about it.

[pkuptruck007]

debate is good, but the anti-commie/socialist/let's-get-the-country-back-to-the-founding-fathers rants are a bit self-serving and hypocritical.

if those spewing such lines burn their social security checks, start paying cash instead of using medicare, and stop buying subsidized food products (or taking government handouts if they are farmers) for starters, i'd be more apt to listen to those lines.

seriously. think about it.



You forgot to mention that the ones GETTING Medicare and Social Security have been FORCED ( or taxed if you will) into PAYING for that system since they were able to work. So that argument is not only weak, it is boarderline ignorant...

Not the same issue.

If some of these folks ( and current folks) were given the opportunity, I bet they would LOVE to opt out of the moross that those fine institutions are in.... ( that is going broke, being plundered annually, and to make up for it... just raise the tax some more! )

[Greenbush future]

debate is good, but the anti-commie/socialist/let's-get-the-country-back-to-the-founding-fathers rants are a bit self-serving and hypocritical.

if those spewing such lines burn their social security checks, start paying cash instead of using medicare, and stop buying subsidized food products (or taking government handouts if they are farmers) for starters, i'd be more apt to listen to those lines.

seriously. think about it.

How about our elected officials in Washington get rid of the sweet heart insurance package they have and adopt the policy that they are trying to pass off on the regular citizen?
That social security check is something most folks have earned and should receive if the crooks in Washington didnt steal it from you and give away to somone else, or somthing else.
Let's put blame where it really belongs. When you sleep with dogs...
What about that silly little notion of change that he so willingly sold many on? Quite frankly he is no better than any of the other career thiefs we have in Washington.

He is not what he said he was, not by a long shot..neither was anyone else who ran before him.

[MuskyDan]

why don't we get rid of the whole insurance end of the deal? Let the doctors and hospitals charge what the market will let them. Insurance companies are the devil that forced the healthcare inflation to begin with. So why can't we just cut them loose? Start subsidizing people for being healthy and paying cash for routine check ups. Tax breaks for people and families that make an attempt to better their quality of life through exercise and diet.

[Greenbush future]

why don't we get rid of the whole insurance end of the deal? Let the doctors and hospitals charge what the market will let them. Insurance companies are the devil that forced the healthcare inflation to begin with. So why can't we just cut them loose? Start subsidizing people for being healthy and paying cash for routine check ups. Tax breaks for people and families that make an attempt to better their quality of life through exercise and diet.

Litigation and lawsuits is more likely the problem. Insurance is regulated quite well, by the govt and isn’t as crazy as one might think. You stop the litigation, and then you will see health care start to turn the corner on cost.
The second problem is a very small portion of insured people are paying for the rest of the uninsured, both legally and illegally here. Stop paying for illegal aliens and you will see a double digit drop in insurance premiums. Where is the outrage on this little legalized theft of your $$?
An illegal alien goes to have a baby here and they (doctors or hospitals) don’t care about visa status and these illegal people know it. It's a known fact in the illegal community that it's all free here, and it's abused on a level you can’t even fathom.
If Our President had a clue he would start at the beginning of the problem and not jump in trying to make it work with all of the above, and much more; working against us him. He will fail and he knows it!! Town hall is going real well isn’t it?

It would be nice to cover the entire world but I don’t think we can afford it, I know I can’t!

[MuskyDan]

Litigation and lawsuits is more likely the problem. Insurance is regulated quite well, by the govt and isn’t as crazy as one might think. You stop the litigation, and then you will see health care start to turn the corner on cost.
The second problem is a very small portion of insured people are paying for the rest of the uninsured, both legally and illegally here. Stop paying for illegal aliens and you will see a double digit drop in insurance premiums. Where is the outrage on this little legalized theft of your $$?
An illegal alien goes to have a baby here and they (doctors or hospitals) don’t care about visa status and these illegal people know it. It's a known fact in the illegal community that it's all free here, and it's abused on a level you can’t even fathom.
If Our President had a clue he would start at the beginning of the problem and not jump in trying to make it work with all of the above, and much more; working against us him. He will fail and he knows it!! Town hall is going real well isn’t it?

It would be nice to cover the entire world but I don’t think we can afford it, I know I can’t!

I know a couple of insurance guys and they are living more than comfortably off of the raping they're putting on the American people. So you're saying that the government is capable of governing the insurance companies? Do those regulations go hand in hand with greasy palms and lobbyists? Where is the sense in paying a middleman? The insurance companies are nothing more than giant casinos and the house always wins otherwise there wouldn't be casinos!!! Health insurance is a necessary evil but it is the easiest part of the equation to drop.

[Greenbush future]

I know a couple of insurance guys and they are living more than comfortably off of the raping they're putting on the American people. So you're saying that the government is capable of governing the insurance companies? Do those regulations go hand in hand with greasy palms and lobbyists? Where is the sense in paying a middleman? The insurance companies are nothing more than giant casinos and the house always wins otherwise there wouldn't be casinos!!! Health insurance is a necessary evil but it is the easiest part of the equation to drop.

I am not well versed in this but I do know that they must get increases approved by insurance regulators, you hear about this all the time with the bigger providers, and I agree with the fact that they are playing the #'s to make $. That's how it works, and while they regulate I wont say they are effective, just invloved, and my guess is close to your view, in that they do have lobbyist's and they are used quite a bit. My view would be, if the govt plan was ever forced on us, it would only be much more exactly what you see now. They cant just jump in the middle and expect anything good to come out of this joke. I would start at the beginning, and fix all the cheaters, and illegal alien waste, then define what we can aford and are willing to pay for. The coruption and stealing of free health care by the uninsured must be stopped, or we will all go broke. I would venture that many who "choose" not to be covered are doing so because they know they will get it free, based on our existing policy. That abuse at my cost is what I would enjoy seeing fixed.

[MuskyDan]

I am one of the uninsured lot that you speak of. I haven't been to the doctor in over 15 years unless it was an emergency and in that case I paid cash. I have found out that eating healthy and exercise keeps me out of the doctors office. When I was overweight I needed a perscription for an asthma inhaler and was sick more often. Since I took control over my health those problems have been left behind. So you should rephrase your statement and say, "fat people and folks who don't care about their physical quality of life and expect their insurance provider to cover them regardless of the lifestyle they chose to live are costing all of us in the long run!" You should emphasize the fact that the over insured abuse the system by addicting themselves to seeing the doctor everytime their nose runs, the elderly are so drugged it's amazing they can still metabolize anything with their livers. And the fact that doctors offices charge insurance companies different prices for office calls than they do uninsured folks like myself. It isn't the fault of the uninsured nor is it the fault of the illegals (which I don't think should get any form of treatment). The problem is directly related to the sub par health of the American people and our dependancy on feeling good with out having to work at it. The problem is the insurance companies and Washington getting rich off of the consumer demand. And the problem is as you said frivolous law suits and get rich quick schemes along with spineless judges that hear these cases.

[S.NIEMI]

Musky Dan.....Over the years....I thought you were a teacher?

[MuskyDan]

I work in a sporting goods store selling bows, guns and fishing gear. I am certified to teach P.E. and health but I really love the job I have. When the right teaching opportunity presents itself I will take it but in the meantime I will continue to do what I enjoy doing and substitue teach to help with the income.