Right-Wing Says You'll Die If Health Care Passes
- Thread starter Friday on my mind
- Start date
This is one of the most asinine things I've ever read. Without this profit there would be no medical innovations or the advancements we have had. The medical care you enjoy, free or not, would not exist. The comparison is stupid.
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
While I appreciate the example you offered, you understand that it is purely anecdotal. I'm sure that many of us have heard about the problems at various VA hospitals over the years. But I don't judge systems based on anecdotals. There are measurement systems which generate data, which can be analyzed. But anyway, William Kristol, a conservative, claims that the VA is an effective system, but the average American doesn't necessarily deserve that level of healthcare.
So, is the VA as you claim, a bad system that shouldn't be replicated? Or is it as William Kristol claimed, an effective system that ordinary Americans shouldn't feel entitled to?
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
I agree with you that tort reform is something that would be helpful, and not just on this issue. But to say that tort reform (by itself) is the root cause of the year over year increase in healthcare costs, that overly simplifies the issue. I believe there should be tort reform. I believe our overly litigious nature contributes to many issues. But a contributor isn't necessarily a primary root cause.
Cost more than what? The CBO doesn't and hasn't compared the cost of any reform plan versus doing nothing. If it has, I missed that study and I would be anxious to read it. Generally speaking, the CBO performs analysis on how much various legislation would add to/subtract from the deficit.
And that's an opinion which I feel you are entitled to. To be fair, even though I don't believe that's entirely correct, can you refer me to a piece of legislation which doesn't in some way play to some constituency?
Since I was in banking in a previous life, I'll offer up the FDIC without reservations. If we still had the banking system that we did in the 1920's, how do you think the streets would have looked in October and November of last year?
Universal Health Care in Canada and U.K. are very different. U.K. basically has a two tiers system in which the rich can afford private medical care. And most Britons do use the NHS.
Canada basically has a one-payer public system.
United States actually has a much bigger "Universal Health Care" system than Canada.
The Veteran Administration medical system plus the US Armed Force medical system provide almosts free medical service to all active GI. Veterans may have to pay $2.00 for a prescription if their medical problems are not service-related.
VA does not provide emergency service in most cases but US military bases hospitals do provide all trauma service.
I believe the current "Universal Health Care" system serving all active and reserve and veterans are excellent.
Most V.A. hospitals are affiliated with one or more medical schools. Many V.A. patients (public patients) may transfer to a private teaching hospital for more serious surgical operations such as transplants etc.
US Armed Force hospitals see the entire family of all GI and provide free medications and free health care around the clock. They work with private hopsitals and do send out patients for more complicated cases.
US Govt also operates free medical service for the native Indians, Federal inmates and many more.
It is the doctors, hospitals and private insurance companies that will lose most if President Obama's plan for Universal Health Care extends to all Americans.
Universal Health Care actually costs less and provide health care for all.
I believe it is time for United States to provide care for all its citizens.
The doctors will not lose much. Instead of making 1.5 million dollars a year, they make from $200,000.00 to $500,000.00. It is the CEO of the hospitals and private insurance companies lobby the Republicans against Obama's plan !
Canada basically has a one-payer public system.
United States actually has a much bigger "Universal Health Care" system than Canada.
The Veteran Administration medical system plus the US Armed Force medical system provide almosts free medical service to all active GI. Veterans may have to pay $2.00 for a prescription if their medical problems are not service-related.
VA does not provide emergency service in most cases but US military bases hospitals do provide all trauma service.
I believe the current "Universal Health Care" system serving all active and reserve and veterans are excellent.
Most V.A. hospitals are affiliated with one or more medical schools. Many V.A. patients (public patients) may transfer to a private teaching hospital for more serious surgical operations such as transplants etc.
US Armed Force hospitals see the entire family of all GI and provide free medications and free health care around the clock. They work with private hopsitals and do send out patients for more complicated cases.
US Govt also operates free medical service for the native Indians, Federal inmates and many more.
It is the doctors, hospitals and private insurance companies that will lose most if President Obama's plan for Universal Health Care extends to all Americans.
Universal Health Care actually costs less and provide health care for all.
I believe it is time for United States to provide care for all its citizens.
The doctors will not lose much. Instead of making 1.5 million dollars a year, they make from $200,000.00 to $500,000.00. It is the CEO of the hospitals and private insurance companies lobby the Republicans against Obama's plan !
Er, don't a lot of the advancements come from countries with socialized systems or the drug companies? Innovation won't be shackled by this bill or am I missing something? Under the current bean counting system isn't the drive always for the quarterly profit - usually the death of good research. If medical research was centralized wouldn't that lead to a more coherent research program.
Are there a wait time for the veterans at the VA hospitals? Yes
Are there a wait time for the family of active GI at US military hopsitals? Depends on individual cases.
But overall, the medical service provided by the VA hospitals are O.K. ( not the best ) but US military hospitals are excellent in terms of rehabilitation, burn units and trauma units.
Are there a wait time for the family of active GI at US military hopsitals? Depends on individual cases.
But overall, the medical service provided by the VA hospitals are O.K. ( not the best ) but US military hospitals are excellent in terms of rehabilitation, burn units and trauma units.
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
The saddest thing was that old lady who called into the Town Hall meeting, because she'd been tricked into thinking that if any sort of reform passed, the government was going to send out workers and force old people to decide then & there how they wanted to die.
One way to defeat (or pass) legislation is to play upon the ignorance of the populace. Remember what my grandfather said: "When in danger, when in doubt... run in circles, scream and shout." Those kinds of people will always be with us... and they'll always be taken advantage of by one side or the other - maybe both.
The political talking heads all need to save the rhetoric and provide unfiltered data. But until the public and the media demand that of these goofballs, it won't happen.
One way to defeat (or pass) legislation is to play upon the ignorance of the populace. Remember what my grandfather said: "When in danger, when in doubt... run in circles, scream and shout." Those kinds of people will always be with us... and they'll always be taken advantage of by one side or the other - maybe both.
The political talking heads all need to save the rhetoric and provide unfiltered data. But until the public and the media demand that of these goofballs, it won't happen.
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
Most doctors will tell you they'd much rather deal with Medicare than for-profit insurance companies. It works in a reasonable fashion....why can't universal health care do the same?
It's complete and total ignorance that is stopping this from happening. And of course you can blame the lobby groups(you can thank Reagan for that one) and the insurance companies for this mentality. People seem to forget that the health care here is not as great as one you like to believe. And this total fear over any type of socialized programs that will actually be a good thing for people is viewed by most as wrong or evil. The problem is the IGNORANT associate socialism with communism, and the last time I checked, they are not the same. This is all to keep people in fear because there is no money to be made from this...its all greed that is driving this mentality. I have been to Europe and the health care is socilized and from what I could see, they are no worse off than we are here in the U.S. But according to the opponents of this, they make it sound like everyone is going to suffer and die. What about those that don't have any health insurance at all? When my mom went through here second round of cancer, the chemo treatments were $3000.00 per session...and without insurance my parents would have gone broke.
I know there are some abuses of the system especially welfare, this is why it is important to have some form of monitoring to make sure it is not being abused. How many times have we heard stories of insurance companies denying claims to legitimate people who need the care? There are tons of stories like that. But just remember it is all GREED that is driving this mentality. I'd like to see my taxes being used for some constructive instead of worthless garbage that puts our country so far in debt past our eyeballs over a lie. Because no one can make a buck off it...then it is an evil thing. Look at the pharma industry, yes I understand that those companies need to make a profit and they can do it without overblowing the price of medication.
I know there are some abuses of the system especially welfare, this is why it is important to have some form of monitoring to make sure it is not being abused. How many times have we heard stories of insurance companies denying claims to legitimate people who need the care? There are tons of stories like that. But just remember it is all GREED that is driving this mentality. I'd like to see my taxes being used for some constructive instead of worthless garbage that puts our country so far in debt past our eyeballs over a lie. Because no one can make a buck off it...then it is an evil thing. Look at the pharma industry, yes I understand that those companies need to make a profit and they can do it without overblowing the price of medication.
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
Oh really? So there have been no advancements in law enforcement technology over the past few decades? The military? Space? Other government run agencies will show similar progress in the evolution of technology if you research it.
The profit motive is still plainly in play in any endeavor....whether it be government subsidized or not. Where do you think the government buys their stuff? From private enterprise, obviously. The constant quest to develop leading-edge technology in all industries is driven from the profit motive. Ask any factory owner how he'd like to have a government contract if you think there is no profit motive involved here. However, in my opinion, profit should not be the primary objective in a public responsibility like health care, and therefore should be run as such and, not to put words in FOMM's mouth, this is what he is saying in his post from my perspective.
The comparison is not at all stupid.
Actually it's your statement that is pretty silly. People like you talk like there hasn't been any innovation since the Stone Age that wasn't motivated and created by profit. I hate to break this to you but most of the greatest thinkers and scientist humanity has ever had didn't have profit as a main concern. For a lot of them it wasn't any concern at all. Even for some of the ones that did care about it they only did in so much as they could have a job out of their knowledge, and not because they gave a shit about how much the corporation they working for was raking in. As long as all those people are given a fair salary now from the government or some other entity it's not going to make any difference if some stock rises somewhere to them. A lot of people will do it just for the notoriety of advancing their field of study.
It's a good thing when we were trying to send a man to the Moon that people like you didn't decide things. Could you imagine if somebody would have said, "I think we should totally take the government out of this and let private industry try it. Without profit to motivate them we will never get the innovation or advancement we need to pull it off."
You're delusional if you don't think that medical companies and pharmaceuticals will spend billions on new procedures, treatments, cures and medicines to not make a profit. It wouldn't happen.
The United States has been at the forefront of medical technology for decades, and we have certainly contributed the most.
The United States has been at the forefront of medical technology for decades, and we have certainly contributed the most.
meesterperfect
Hiliary 2020
yeah jag but honestly a big reason for that is because medicaid/medicare are more easily milked and tricked than a private company. no?
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
What is it that you don't understand? Nothing changes....they sell their products resulting from investment in R & D to the government instead of for-profit health care companies.....they make a profit. Your argument has no substance....sorry.
By the way, European pharmaceutical companies have been every bit as contributory to advancements in the field as American companies have.
Those that are supporting nationalized healthcare are poorly informed. Michael D. Tanner director of health and welfare studies at the Cato Institute says "Critics of the U.S. health care system frequently point to other countries as models for reform. They point out that many countries spend far less on health care than the United States yet seem to enjoy better health outcomes. The United States should follow the lead of those countries, the critics say, and adopt a government- run, national health care system. However, a closer look shows that nearly all health care systems worldwide are wrestling with problems of rising costs and lack of access to care. There is no single international model for national health care, of course. Countries vary dramatically in the degree of central control, regulation, and cost sharing they impose, and in the role of private insurance. Still, overall trends from national health care systems around the world suggest the following:
-Health insurance does not mean universal access to health care. In practice, many countries promise universal coverage but ration care or have long waiting lists for treatment.
-Rising health care costs are not a uniquely American phenomenon. Although other countries spend considerably less than the United States on health care, both as a percentage of GDP and per capita, costs are rising almost everywhere, leading to budget deficits, tax increases, and benefit reductions.
In countries weighted heavily toward government control, people are most likely to face waiting lists, rationing, restrictions on physician choice, and other obstacles to care.
-Countries with more effective national health care systems are successful to the degree that they incorporate market mechanisms such as competition, cost sharing, market prices, and consumer choice, and eschew centralized government control. Although no country with a national health care system is contemplating abandoning universal coverage, the broad and growing trend is to move away from centralized government control and to introduce more market-oriented features. The answer then to America’s health care problems lies not in heading down the road to national health care but in learning from the experiences of other countries, which demonstrate the failure of centralized command and control and the benefits of increasing consumer incentives and choice.
Furthermore on July 22, 2009 house Democratic leaders pledged to meet the president's goal of health care legislation before their August break, offering a $1.5 trillion plan that for the first time would make health care a right and a responsibility for all Americans. Yet Barack Obama planned to cut the national deficit in half by end of his term (February 2009). By some accounts Barack Obama is going to add $6.5 trillion to the national debt. It seems he's more interested in adding to our debt rather than trying to cut it in half.
If you wish to have anymore proof as to why Universal Healthcare/National Healthcare deserves to be voted down look at these following links:
Universal Healthcare Pros/Cons
Cons of Universal Healthcare
Universal Healthcare is a bad idea
Doctors Debate Universal Healthcare
Sources for my arguments:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123871911466984927.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31921017/ns/politics-capitol_hill/
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100980077
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9272
-Health insurance does not mean universal access to health care. In practice, many countries promise universal coverage but ration care or have long waiting lists for treatment.
-Rising health care costs are not a uniquely American phenomenon. Although other countries spend considerably less than the United States on health care, both as a percentage of GDP and per capita, costs are rising almost everywhere, leading to budget deficits, tax increases, and benefit reductions.
In countries weighted heavily toward government control, people are most likely to face waiting lists, rationing, restrictions on physician choice, and other obstacles to care.
-Countries with more effective national health care systems are successful to the degree that they incorporate market mechanisms such as competition, cost sharing, market prices, and consumer choice, and eschew centralized government control. Although no country with a national health care system is contemplating abandoning universal coverage, the broad and growing trend is to move away from centralized government control and to introduce more market-oriented features. The answer then to America’s health care problems lies not in heading down the road to national health care but in learning from the experiences of other countries, which demonstrate the failure of centralized command and control and the benefits of increasing consumer incentives and choice.
Furthermore on July 22, 2009 house Democratic leaders pledged to meet the president's goal of health care legislation before their August break, offering a $1.5 trillion plan that for the first time would make health care a right and a responsibility for all Americans. Yet Barack Obama planned to cut the national deficit in half by end of his term (February 2009). By some accounts Barack Obama is going to add $6.5 trillion to the national debt. It seems he's more interested in adding to our debt rather than trying to cut it in half.
If you wish to have anymore proof as to why Universal Healthcare/National Healthcare deserves to be voted down look at these following links:
Universal Healthcare Pros/Cons
Cons of Universal Healthcare
Universal Healthcare is a bad idea
Doctors Debate Universal Healthcare
Sources for my arguments:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123871911466984927.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31921017/ns/politics-capitol_hill/
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100980077
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9272
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
That is a totally separate issue. However, I might consider that to be a possibility but not without documentation. Do you have any? Isn't that a matter of administration and enforcement anyway?
Very well said, D-Rock! :thumbsup:
Similar threads
