D. Kucinich rips into a Doc about healthcare

[Spider]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DII7v8yeRjs&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DII7v8yeRjs&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[broncofan7]

His line of questioning and method of questioning is infuriating---I hope that if this national healthcare package passes, that Kucinich is forced to wait in line 6-8 months for chemotherapy--my wife has customers up in Canada and they routinely complain to her about how long it takes to see a specialist or to get a surgery or procedure that is routinely done in a matter of weeks here in America. While each side has plusses and minuses--the rationing of healthcare has far worse consequences (DEATH) than does our current system (bankruptcy)--I really believe that the national government should subsidize a 'catastrophic medical insurance' that would cover people who are unfortunate enough to be stricken with cancers or other genetic disorders, etc.......but socialized medicine is NOT the way to go in this country--despite this propaganda piece posted by some drunken trucker.

[peacepipe]

Gratzer got owned. legitiment questions were asked,kucinich was not going to allow Gratzer to spew propaganda without being challenged. I wish more senators were like him.

[broncofan7]

Gratzer got owned. legitiment questions were asked,kucinich was not going to allow Gratzer to spew propaganda without being challenged. I wish more senators were like him.

I only hope that you too are forced to wait months instead of a few weeks for the care that you and your loved ones currently receive here in the US.

[Rohirrim]

Dennis is absolutely right. When the insurance company shills get put on the spot they can't come up with ****. Why couldn't that guy answer the questions? And for those who believe health care isn't rationed in America or that there are long waits for elective procedures I've got a bridge for sale. Americans get denied coverage every day by insurance companies, in fact the trend is growing. Want an education? Go here: http://www.atlanet.org/resources/InsuranceTactics.pdf
(Especially entertaining is the one where the insurance company denies the $2 million dollar claim from a severely injured woman who's life is destroyed because the guy who ran into her car was expressing "road rage" and therefore, his actions were deliberate, and it was not an accident.)

As Dennis pointed out, the one thing our system gives us that Canada's would not is bankruptcies due to medical bills. As this AARP report points out, and I'm sure this little putz of a doctor couldn't answer for Dennis, it's 2 million per year. (http://www.bankruptcylawnetwork.com/2008/09/01/aarp-185-million-americans-go-bankrupt-due-to-medical-bills-in-one-year/
That means Americans get the joyful experience of not only dying from a terminal illness, but ruining their families on the way out the door. Let's hear if for capitalism without a conscience!

[broncofan7]

Dennis is absolutely right. When the insurance company shills get put on the spot they can't come up with ****. Why couldn't that guy answer the questions? And for those who believe health care isn't rationed in America or that there are long waits for elective procedures I've got a bridge for sale. Americans get denied coverage every day by insurance companies, in fact the trend is growing. As Dennis pointed out, the one thing our system gives us that Canada's would not is bankruptcies due to medical bills. As this AARP report points out, and I'm sure this little putz of a doctor couldn't answer for Dennis, it's 2 million per year. (http://www.bankruptcylawnetwork.com/2008/09/01/aarp-185-million-americans-go-bankrupt-due-to-medical-bills-in-one-year/
That means Americans get the joyful experience of not only dying from a terminal illness, but ruining their families on the way out the door. Let's hear if for capitalism without a conscience!

That is precisely why we need government backed catastrophic health insurance that individuals could purchase and write off from their taxes in addition to their primary healthcare coverage--similar to what a government funded AFLAC would be like but with more substance to it...

[Rohirrim]

That is precisely why we need government backed catastrophic health insurance that individuals could purchase and write off from their taxes in addition to their primary healthcare coverage--similar to what a government funded AFLAC would be like but with more substance to it...

I think it would be a great idea to have a government backed, single payer, optional coverage entity that covers everybody, could buy drugs at volume (from anywhere they wanted) and was not beholden to the rules, regulations, or control of big pharma, the AMA, or the insurance industry - or their lobbies. It would be interesting to see what happens to the prices once there is actual competition in the marketplace.

[rastaman]

That is precisely why we need government backed catastrophic health insurance that individuals could purchase and write off from their taxes in addition to their primary healthcare coverage--similar to what a government funded AFLAC would be like but with more substance to it...

This nation needs CHOICE! Citizens should have the choice btwn for profit private health insurance and a Single payer system.

[broncofan7]

This nation needs CHOICE! Citizens should have the choice btwn for profit private health insurance and a Single payer system.

I agree with that---just don't tax me for your ability to have a choice. And quite frankly, if you live in DFW, you can show up at Parkland in Dallas and JPS in Ft Worth and get treatment for free already

[peacepipe]

<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset" class=alt2>Debunking Canadian health care myths

By Rhonda Hackett
Posted: 06/07/2009 01:00:00 AM MDT

What do we pay for, anyway? (http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_12523429)As a Canadian living in the United States for the past 17 years, I am frequently asked by Americans and Canadians alike to declare one health care system as the better one.

Often I'll avoid answering, regardless of the questioner's nationality. To choose one or the other system usually translates into a heated discussion of each one's merits, pitfalls, and an intense recitation of commonly cited statistical comparisons of the two systems.

Because if the only way we compared the two systems was with statistics, there is a clear victor. It is becoming increasingly more difficult to dispute the fact that Canada spends less money on health care to get better outcomes.

Yet, the debate rages on. Indeed, it has reached a fever pitch since President Barack Obama took office, with Americans either dreading or hoping for the dawn of a single-payer health care system. Opponents of such a system cite Canada as the best example of what not to do, while proponents laud that very same Canadian system as the answer to all of America's health care problems. Frankly, both sides often get things wrong when trotting out Canada to further their respective arguments.
As America comes to grips with the reality that changes are desperately needed within its health care infrastructure, it might prove useful to first debunk some myths about the Canadian system.

Myth: Taxes in Canada are extremely high, mostly because of national health care.
In actuality, taxes are nearly equal on both sides of the border. Overall, Canada's taxes are slightly higher than those in the U.S. However, Canadians are afforded many benefits for their tax dollars, even beyond health care (e.g., tax credits, family allowance, cheaper higher education), so the end result is a wash. At the end of the day, the average after-tax income of Canadian workers is equal to about 82 percent of their gross pay. In the U.S., that average is 81.9 percent.

Myth: Canada's health care system is a cumbersome bureaucracy.
The U.S. has the most bureaucratic health care system in the world. More than 31 percent of every dollar spent on health care in the U.S. goes to paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, etc. The provincial single-payer system in Canada operates with just a 1 percent overhead. Think about it. It is not necessary to spend a huge amount of money to decide who gets care and who doesn't when everybody is covered.

Myth: The Canadian system is significantly more expensive than that of the U.S.
Ten percent of Canada's GDP is spent on health care for 100 percent of the population. The U.S. spends 17 percent of its GDP but 15 percent of its population has no coverage whatsoever and millions of others have inadequate coverage. In essence, the U.S. system is considerably more expensive than Canada's. Part of the reason for this is uninsured and underinsured people in the U.S. still get sick and eventually seek care. People who cannot afford care wait until advanced stages of an illness to see a doctor and then do so through emergency rooms, which cost considerably more than primary care services.

What the American taxpayer may not realize is that such care costs about $45 billion per year, and someone has to pay it. This is why insurance premiums increase every year for insured patients while co-pays and deductibles also rise rapidly.

Myth: Canada's government decides who gets health care and when they get it.
While HMOs and other private medical insurers in the U.S. do indeed make such decisions, the only people in Canada to do so are physicians. In Canada, the government has absolutely no say in who gets care or how they get it. Medical decisions are left entirely up to doctors, as they should be.

There are no requirements for pre-authorization whatsoever. If your family doctor says you need an MRI, you get one. In the U.S., if an insurance administrator says you are not getting an MRI, you don't get one no matter what your doctor thinks — unless, of course, you have the money to cover the cost.

Myth: There are long waits for care, which compromise access to care.
There are no waits for urgent or primary care in Canada. There are reasonable waits for most specialists' care, and much longer waits for elective surgery. Yes, there are those instances where a patient can wait up to a month for radiation therapy for breast cancer or prostate cancer, for example. However, the wait has nothing to do with money per se, but everything to do with the lack of radiation therapists. Despite such waits, however, it is noteworthy that Canada boasts lower incident and mortality rates than the U.S. for all cancers combined, according to the U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group and the Canadian Cancer Society. Moreover, fewer Canadians (11.3 percent) than Americans (14.4 percent) admit unmet health care needs.

Myth: Canadians are paying out of pocket to come to the U.S. for medical care.
Most patients who come from Canada to the U.S. for health care are those whose costs are covered by the Canadian governments. If a Canadian goes outside of the country to get services that are deemed medically necessary, not experimental, and are not available at home for whatever reason (e.g., shortage or absence of high tech medical equipment; a longer wait for service than is medically prudent; or lack of physician expertise), the provincial government where you live fully funds your care. Those patients who do come to the U.S. for care and pay out of pocket are those who perceive their care to be more urgent than it likely is.

Myth: Canada is a socialized health care system in which the government runs hospitals and where doctors work for the government.
Princeton University health economist Uwe Reinhardt says single-payer systems are not "socialized medicine" but "social insurance" systems because doctors work in the private sector while their pay comes from a public source. Most physicians in Canada are self-employed. They are not employees of the government nor are they accountable to the government. Doctors are accountable to their patients only. More than 90 percent of physicians in Canada are paid on a fee-for-service basis. Claims are submitted to a single provincial health care plan for reimbursement, whereas in the U.S., claims are submitted to a multitude of insurance providers. Moreover, Canadian hospitals are controlled by private boards and/or regional health authorities rather than being part of or run by the government.

Myth: There aren't enough doctors in Canada.
From a purely statistical standpoint, there are enough physicians in Canada to meet the health care needs of its people. But most doctors practice in large urban areas, leaving rural areas with bona fide shortages. This situation is no different than that being experienced in the U.S. Simply training and employing more doctors is not likely to have any significant impact on this specific problem. Whatever issues there are with having an adequate number of doctors in any one geographical area, they have nothing to do with the single-payer system.

And these are just some of the myths about the Canadian health care system. While emulating the Canadian system will likely not fix U.S. health care, it probably isn't the big bad "socialist" bogeyman it has been made out to be.

It is not a perfect system, but it has its merits. For people like my 55-year-old Aunt Betty, who has been waiting for 14 months for knee-replacement surgery due to a long history of arthritis, it is the superior system. Her $35,000-plus surgery is finally scheduled for next month. She has been in pain, and her quality of life has been compromised. However, there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Aunt Betty — who lives on a fixed income and could never afford private health insurance, much less the cost of the surgery and requisite follow-up care — will soon sport a new, high-tech knee. Waiting 14 months for the procedure is easy when the alternative is living in pain for the rest of your life.
Rhonda Hackett of Castle Rock is a clinical psychologist. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
__________________

[cutthemdown]

Dennis is absolutely right. When the insurance company shills get put on the spot they can't come up with ****. Why couldn't that guy answer the questions? And for those who believe health care isn't rationed in America or that there are long waits for elective procedures I've got a bridge for sale. Americans get denied coverage every day by insurance companies, in fact the trend is growing. Want an education? Go here: http://www.atlanet.org/resources/InsuranceTactics.pdf
(Especially entertaining is the one where the insurance company denies the $2 million dollar claim from a severely injured woman who's life is destroyed because the guy who ran into her car was expressing "road rage" and therefore, his actions were deliberate, and it was not an accident.)

As Dennis pointed out, the one thing our system gives us that Canada's would not is bankruptcies due to medical bills. As this AARP report points out, and I'm sure this little putz of a doctor couldn't answer for Dennis, it's 2 million per year. (http://www.bankruptcylawnetwork.com/2008/09/01/aarp-185-million-americans-go-bankrupt-due-to-medical-bills-in-one-year/
That means Americans get the joyful experience of not only dying from a terminal illness, but ruining their families on the way out the door. Let's hear if for capitalism without a conscience!

I already debunked the medical bankruptcy stat. They are way to encompassing when they made those stats.

Do you know that if a couple had a baby they couldn't afford it goes under a medical bankruptcy? Also it fails to take into account that soometimes Americans spend to much, go into a little debt, then got sick and that led to bankruptcy. So IMO those numbers a little off.

[cutthemdown]

If it's hard to get doctors into rural areas what about some sort of tax incentive to get them to do so?

[barryr]

Democrats support tax incentives? I guess a first for everything.

I'm still trying to figure out why companies that offer insurance will continue to do so if people can get their own insurance. This is why Obama and his supporters can not guarantee that those that like the insurance they have with their companies will keep it if they choose.

[cutthemdown]

Democrats support tax incentives? I guess a first for everything.

I'm still trying to figure out why companies that offer insurance will continue to do so if people can get their own insurance. This is why Obama and his supporters can not guarantee that those that like the insurance they have with their companies will keep it if they choose.

Well if the govt plan is good and cheaper, then I will quit paying for blue cross and go the other route for sure.

I think they are trying to make it to where companies have to keep offering insurance, otherwise they would just tell everyone go to govt to get it and then maybe pay people a bit more.

For sure though unless govt plan compete with private plans people will flock to whatever is cheaper IMO.

Also Obama said he was against mandating people buy insurance in election, that was hilliary's idea, now he says he is for it.

Weird how quickly he changes his mind.

[cutthemdown]

As far as this questioning goes he frames the questions in such a way that answering them also admits that some of kuchinic points are already proven.

In a debate with real judges those type of points are frowned upon.

[cutthemdown]

It's like saying HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU GET DRUNK DUE TO THE FACT YOU ARE AN ASS? You can't answer how many times without admitting that is why you did it.

First you would have to prove the person is an ass, then that they drank, then that they were connected.

[Rohirrim]

Well if the govt plan is good and cheaper, then I will quit paying for blue cross and go the other route for sure.

I think they are trying to make it to where companies have to keep offering insurance, otherwise they would just tell everyone go to govt to get it and then maybe pay people a bit more.

For sure though unless govt plan compete with private plans people will flock to whatever is cheaper IMO.

Also Obama said he was against mandating people buy insurance in election, that was hilliary's idea, now he says he is for it.

Weird how quickly he changes his mind.

Car insurance is mandated. What's the big deal?

[Spider]

<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset" class=alt2>Debunking Canadian health care myths

By Rhonda Hackett
Posted: 06/07/2009 01:00:00 AM MDT

What do we pay for, anyway? (http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_12523429)As a Canadian living in the United States for the past 17 years, I am frequently asked by Americans and Canadians alike to declare one health care system as the better one.

Often I'll avoid answering, regardless of the questioner's nationality. To choose one or the other system usually translates into a heated discussion of each one's merits, pitfalls, and an intense recitation of commonly cited statistical comparisons of the two systems.

Because if the only way we compared the two systems was with statistics, there is a clear victor. It is becoming increasingly more difficult to dispute the fact that Canada spends less money on health care to get better outcomes.

Yet, the debate rages on. Indeed, it has reached a fever pitch since President Barack Obama took office, with Americans either dreading or hoping for the dawn of a single-payer health care system. Opponents of such a system cite Canada as the best example of what not to do, while proponents laud that very same Canadian system as the answer to all of America's health care problems. Frankly, both sides often get things wrong when trotting out Canada to further their respective arguments.
As America comes to grips with the reality that changes are desperately needed within its health care infrastructure, it might prove useful to first debunk some myths about the Canadian system.

Myth: Taxes in Canada are extremely high, mostly because of national health care.
In actuality, taxes are nearly equal on both sides of the border. Overall, Canada's taxes are slightly higher than those in the U.S. However, Canadians are afforded many benefits for their tax dollars, even beyond health care (e.g., tax credits, family allowance, cheaper higher education), so the end result is a wash. At the end of the day, the average after-tax income of Canadian workers is equal to about 82 percent of their gross pay. In the U.S., that average is 81.9 percent.

Myth: Canada's health care system is a cumbersome bureaucracy.
The U.S. has the most bureaucratic health care system in the world. More than 31 percent of every dollar spent on health care in the U.S. goes to paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, etc. The provincial single-payer system in Canada operates with just a 1 percent overhead. Think about it. It is not necessary to spend a huge amount of money to decide who gets care and who doesn't when everybody is covered.

Myth: The Canadian system is significantly more expensive than that of the U.S.
Ten percent of Canada's GDP is spent on health care for 100 percent of the population. The U.S. spends 17 percent of its GDP but 15 percent of its population has no coverage whatsoever and millions of others have inadequate coverage. In essence, the U.S. system is considerably more expensive than Canada's. Part of the reason for this is uninsured and underinsured people in the U.S. still get sick and eventually seek care. People who cannot afford care wait until advanced stages of an illness to see a doctor and then do so through emergency rooms, which cost considerably more than primary care services.

What the American taxpayer may not realize is that such care costs about $45 billion per year, and someone has to pay it. This is why insurance premiums increase every year for insured patients while co-pays and deductibles also rise rapidly.

Myth: Canada's government decides who gets health care and when they get it.
While HMOs and other private medical insurers in the U.S. do indeed make such decisions, the only people in Canada to do so are physicians. In Canada, the government has absolutely no say in who gets care or how they get it. Medical decisions are left entirely up to doctors, as they should be.

There are no requirements for pre-authorization whatsoever. If your family doctor says you need an MRI, you get one. In the U.S., if an insurance administrator says you are not getting an MRI, you don't get one no matter what your doctor thinks — unless, of course, you have the money to cover the cost.

Myth: There are long waits for care, which compromise access to care.
There are no waits for urgent or primary care in Canada. There are reasonable waits for most specialists' care, and much longer waits for elective surgery. Yes, there are those instances where a patient can wait up to a month for radiation therapy for breast cancer or prostate cancer, for example. However, the wait has nothing to do with money per se, but everything to do with the lack of radiation therapists. Despite such waits, however, it is noteworthy that Canada boasts lower incident and mortality rates than the U.S. for all cancers combined, according to the U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group and the Canadian Cancer Society. Moreover, fewer Canadians (11.3 percent) than Americans (14.4 percent) admit unmet health care needs.

Myth: Canadians are paying out of pocket to come to the U.S. for medical care.
Most patients who come from Canada to the U.S. for health care are those whose costs are covered by the Canadian governments. If a Canadian goes outside of the country to get services that are deemed medically necessary, not experimental, and are not available at home for whatever reason (e.g., shortage or absence of high tech medical equipment; a longer wait for service than is medically prudent; or lack of physician expertise), the provincial government where you live fully funds your care. Those patients who do come to the U.S. for care and pay out of pocket are those who perceive their care to be more urgent than it likely is.

Myth: Canada is a socialized health care system in which the government runs hospitals and where doctors work for the government.
Princeton University health economist Uwe Reinhardt says single-payer systems are not "socialized medicine" but "social insurance" systems because doctors work in the private sector while their pay comes from a public source. Most physicians in Canada are self-employed. They are not employees of the government nor are they accountable to the government. Doctors are accountable to their patients only. More than 90 percent of physicians in Canada are paid on a fee-for-service basis. Claims are submitted to a single provincial health care plan for reimbursement, whereas in the U.S., claims are submitted to a multitude of insurance providers. Moreover, Canadian hospitals are controlled by private boards and/or regional health authorities rather than being part of or run by the government.

Myth: There aren't enough doctors in Canada.
From a purely statistical standpoint, there are enough physicians in Canada to meet the health care needs of its people. But most doctors practice in large urban areas, leaving rural areas with bona fide shortages. This situation is no different than that being experienced in the U.S. Simply training and employing more doctors is not likely to have any significant impact on this specific problem. Whatever issues there are with having an adequate number of doctors in any one geographical area, they have nothing to do with the single-payer system.

And these are just some of the myths about the Canadian health care system. While emulating the Canadian system will likely not fix U.S. health care, it probably isn't the big bad "socialist" bogeyman it has been made out to be.

It is not a perfect system, but it has its merits. For people like my 55-year-old Aunt Betty, who has been waiting for 14 months for knee-replacement surgery due to a long history of arthritis, it is the superior system. Her $35,000-plus surgery is finally scheduled for next month. She has been in pain, and her quality of life has been compromised. However, there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Aunt Betty — who lives on a fixed income and could never afford private health insurance, much less the cost of the surgery and requisite follow-up care — will soon sport a new, high-tech knee. Waiting 14 months for the procedure is easy when the alternative is living in pain for the rest of your life.
Rhonda Hackett of Castle Rock is a clinical psychologist. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
__________________
LOL and everyone on the right skips right over this one ....... happened before ......
None of the bedwetters have a real reason to hate the health care plan Obama is offering , The bedwetters do what they do best wet the bed and start crying before they know all the facts .........
Just like that thread started about healthcare ripping people off to the tune of billions ........ the Bedwetter known as Cah said something to the effect of if government was so good , why are they just now finding this out about the health insurance companies , Ijust shook my head in amazement , Bedwetter Cah seems to forget the right had control of everything 12 out of the last 14 years .....good thing for us bedwetters part is getting smaller and smaller , less people are listening to these ass wipes ....

[cutthemdown]

Car insurance is mandated. What's the big deal?

I've actually made the point quite often tons of uninsured Americans could afford insurance. The numbers are skewed.

I'm not against mandated insurance really, I would though wonder what the penalties would be. Denial of care? fines? what.

I know a dude who bought a jet ski, broke his ankle, then complained he didn't have insurance. You know so yeah a mandate probably not a bad idea, I just worry about govt finding another way to make money on fines, without anything getting better.

We will see though. I think the better question is were other peoples ideas better then Obama's, and he just won because he was a good looking black man?

[Spider]

Car insurance is mandated. What's the big deal?

;D.......

[cutthemdown]

Roh I would think the mandatory would be like a major medical thing don't you think? Like the minimum would be everyone getting at least coverage for if something really bad happens, but maybe not coverage that pays for all your office visits etc. Probably would be good for young people to not have to spend a ton when they probably won't go all that much. But good to have them covered if they get really sick or hurt?

[kappys]

I agree with that---just don't tax me for your ability to have a choice. And quite frankly, if you live in DFW, you can show up at Parkland in Dallas and JPS in Ft Worth and get treatment for free already


Or you can go to any Emergency Department and receive free care. Performed in the most cost inefficient way possible with horrible outcomes - and this is the system we should keep?

[cutthemdown]

LOL and everyone on the right skips right over this one ....... happened before ......
None of the bedwetters have a real reason to hate the health care plan Obama is offering , The bedwetters do what they do best wet the bed and start crying before they know all the facts .........
Just like that thread started about healthcare ripping people off to the tune of billions ........ the Bedwetter known as Cah said something to the effect of if government was so good , why are they just now finding this out about the health insurance companies , Ijust shook my head in amazement , Bedwetter Cah seems to forget the right had control of everything 12 out of the last 14 years .....good thing for us bedwetters part is getting smaller and smaller , less people are listening to these ass wipes ....

The fact you think its proposed by Obama shows you need more information. He's not even writing the thing, or anything. He's letting Pelosi, Kennedy, etc etc write everything. That's why his promises keep getting trampled on by the legislation. First it was no pork in stimulus, dems laughed in his face and said that's not how its done.

Now they say mandatory insurance which Obama was against. Tax the health benefits which Obama was against. Not only against but he made specific points in debates that he thought those ideas were really bad.

I don't know anyone in Canada so who knows. I do know we have way more people then them and that makes anything tougher.

[broncofan7]

Or you can go to any Emergency Department and receive free care. Performed in the most cost inefficient way possible with horrible outcomes - and this is the system we should keep?

Try walking into Baylor's ER in Frisco and see if they treat you--they will ship your A$$ to Parkland or some other public hospital---and quite frankly, no it isn't a system that they should keep--they should make basic health insurance the same as auto insurance--you have it or you get fined if you seek treatment without it. We already have enough collections in medicine---why not add to their job security...........

[Spider]

The fact you think its proposed by Obama shows you need more information. He's not even writing the thing, or anything. He's letting Pelosi, Kennedy, etc etc write everything. That's why his promises keep getting trampled on by the legislation. First it was no pork in stimulus, dems laughed in his face and said that's not how its done.

Now they say mandatory insurance which Obama was against. Tax the health benefits which Obama was against. Not only against but he made specific points in debates that he thought those ideas were really bad.

I don't know anyone in Canada so who knows. I do know we have way more people then them and that makes anything tougher.

LOL ,No , it is Senators trying to add riders to his proposal..... google obama 3 points of healthcare .......:rofl:

[kappys]

Try walking into Baylor's ER in Frisco and see if they treat you--they will ship your A$$ to Parkland or some other public hospital---and quite frankly, no it isn't a system that they should keep--they should make basic health insurance the same as auto insurance--you have it or you get fined if you seek treatment without it. We already have enough collections in medicine---why not add to their job security...........

Wrong. Go there with a real emergency and they'll have to treat you or risk some pretty serious Federal fines. Parkland will accept most transfers to a point - but when Parkland is full(which it almost always is) it had better be a neurosurgical or hand transplant emergency or they won't take it and no other ED will either.

If we start fining people what's the endpoint? Jail? Refusal to provide services? Fines are all well and good how is that at all differnt from simple nonpayment?

[Spider]

Try walking into Baylor's ER in Frisco and see if they treat you--they will ship your A$$ to Parkland or some other public hospital---and quite frankly, no it isn't a system that they should keep--they should make basic health insurance the same as auto insurance--you have it or you get fined if you seek treatment without it. We already have enough collections in medicine---why not add to their job security...........

First they have to get you stable for transport , then there has to be room at the other hospital .........

[cutthemdown]

LOL ,No , it is Senators trying to add riders to his proposal..... google obama 3 points of healthcare .......:rofl:

Sorry but Obama didn't write any of this legislation. He has taken come heat for the fact his admin just letting congress write everything.

Obama should write the health care bill, get all his points in it, none of what he doesn't want, show exactly how it will be paid for, and then make congress vote on it.

[Spider]

Sorry but Obama didn't write any of this legislation. He has taken come heat for the fact his admin just letting congress write everything.

Obama should write the health care bill, get all his points in it, none of what he doesn't want, show exactly how it will be paid for, and then make congress vote on it.

So it was Congress telling Obama what to say on the campaign trail .......... diabolical

[Dudeskey]

This nation needs CHOICE! Citizens should have the choice btwn for profit private health insurance and a Single payer system.

Agreed. the dems are trying to get everyone across the board and not everyone wants it...™

[TailgateNut]

I agree with that---just don't tax me for your ability to have a choice. And quite frankly, if you live in DFW, you can show up at Parkland in Dallas and JPS in Ft Worth and get treatment for free already


For FREE??? Are you ****ing STUPID (never mind, we know the answer)?

Someone is currently paying for that FREE medical care.

[TailgateNut]

I've actually made the point quite often tons of uninsured Americans could afford insurance. The numbers are skewed.

I'm not against mandated insurance really, I would though wonder what the penalties would be. Denial of care? fines? what.

I know a dude who bought a jet ski, broke his ankle, then complained he didn't have insurance. You know so yeah a mandate probably not a bad idea, I just worry about govt finding another way to make money on fines, without anything getting better.

We will see though. I think the better question is were other peoples ideas better then Obama's, and he just won because he was a good looking black man?


It's not that people can't afford insurance, it's that they can't afford not to have insurance considering the fees Doctors, hospitals and pharmacies charge. Fees which should be considered ARMED HIGHWAY ROBBERY.

[kappys]

It's not that people can't afford insurance, it's that they can't afford not to have insurance considering the fees Doctors, hospitals and pharmacies charge. Fees which should be considered ARMED HIGHWAY ROBBERY.

Those fees exist primarily because of the legal requirements to provide free/indigent care.

[TailgateNut]

Those fees exist primarily because of the legal requirements to provide free/indigent care.

Well, if we rid ourselves of the illegal immigrant portion of that medical care burden, things would improve.

California is heading in the right direction. (See California thread)

[Dudeskey]

http://images.salon.com/comics/tomo/2007/01/08/tomo/story.jpg

[Meck77]

Well, if we rid ourselves of the illegal immigrant portion of that medical care burden, things would improve.

California is heading in the right direction. (See California thread)

What steps has obama taken to fix this? Anything? Nothing?

[TailgateNut]

What steps has obama taken to fix this? Anything? Nothing?

That was one of his negatives when he ran for office. He and many other candidates did not and do not see this as an important issue facing our country, when in fact it is of major concern.

[Rohirrim]

http://images.salon.com/comics/tomo/2007/01/08/tomo/story.jpg

They forgot to show the part where the politicians get paid off to keep this cash cow, joke of a system operating.

[kappys]

Well, if we rid ourselves of the illegal immigrant portion of that medical care burden, things would improve.

California is heading in the right direction. (See California thread)

What direction? It is a Federal Mandate that all patients presenting to an ER must receive stabilizing medical care. California can't override that.