Obama Healthcare Speech

[quote author="IrvineCommuter" date=1253000562][quote author="Nude" date=1252997288][quote author="no_vaseline" date=1252994061][quote author="Nude" date=1252987375]I can fire a private health care company and choose a new one. Where do I go to fire my government?</blockquote>


You can? Lucky you. We get one choice with my wife's employer. If she gets unemployed again we get no choice. Again, SEND ME THE BIG GUVMENT PLAN.</blockquote>
Enough of this false dichotomy, no_vas, because you have the same choices we have: eat the cost of the pre-existing conditions and buy private insurance to cover everything else. There is a difference between not wanting to pay for medication out of pocket and not being able to get health insurance. will it cover your wife's asthma? No, and it won't cover my wife's MS either, but that doesn't mean we can't go buy private insurance for other potential health costs. It does, however, require that we make hard choices in our financial lives.</blockquote>


What if you can't afford the medicine or the care without insurance? Should you just die or suffer? Should we just marginalize the poor and the sick? I refuse to the accept as an option in our country.</blockquote>


Fine, you refuse to accept it, just don't demand that I pay for your refusal.
 
[quote author="Nude" date=1253002529]no_vas, I'll check with a friend and get back to you.</blockquote>


Thanks, because if there's something I've missed, I'd appreciate knowing I'm full of shit. I have a huge gaping hole in my wallet from my wife being unemployed due to exactly this problem, and I'd like to think it was simply because I'm a moron and not being discriminated against.
 
[quote author="Nude" date=1253002453][quote author="IrvineCommuter" date=1253000562][quote author="Nude" date=1252997288][quote author="no_vaseline" date=1252994061][quote author="Nude" date=1252987375]I can fire a private health care company and choose a new one. Where do I go to fire my government?</blockquote>


You can? Lucky you. We get one choice with my wife's employer. If she gets unemployed again we get no choice. Again, SEND ME THE BIG GUVMENT PLAN.</blockquote>
Enough of this false dichotomy, no_vas, because you have the same choices we have: eat the cost of the pre-existing conditions and buy private insurance to cover everything else. There is a difference between not wanting to pay for medication out of pocket and not being able to get health insurance. will it cover your wife's asthma? No, and it won't cover my wife's MS either, but that doesn't mean we can't go buy private insurance for other potential health costs. It does, however, require that we make hard choices in our financial lives.</blockquote>


What if you can't afford the medicine or the care without insurance? Should you just die or suffer? Should we just marginalize the poor and the sick? I refuse to the accept as an option in our country.</blockquote>


Fine, you refuse to accept it, just don't demand that I pay for your refusal.</blockquote>


So people without kids should not have pay property tax for schools, I should not have to pay for public transit because I have a car, and the Amish and passivists should have to pay for the military because they don't believe in wars? What about people who do not own stock, they should not have to the government to maintain the SEC.



We should just disband into our individual countries.
 
[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1253002839][quote author="Nude" date=1253002529]no_vas, I'll check with a friend and get back to you.</blockquote>


Thanks, because if there's something I've missed, I'd appreciate knowing I'm full of shit. I have a huge gaping hole in my wallet from my wife being unemployed due to exactly this problem, and I'd like to think it was simply because I'm a moron and not being discriminated against.</blockquote>


I hope there is something out there for you and your wife.



BTW: Before 1996, your wife would have to stay at her current job because she could have been excluded from the plan of a new employer. Thanks those meddling democrats and that last democratic president, they enacted HIPAA which precluded exclusion of an individual from employer/group coverage if the pre-existing condition existed more than 6 months prior to the change of jobs. Those socialists also made it illegal to exclude coverage based upon pregnancy as a pre-existing condition.



Oh yeah...it was a Democratic representative who wrote the bill to enact COBRA in 1986.



Geez, why can't those democrats leave us common folks alone.



<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Insurance_Portability_and_Accountability_Act">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Insurance_Portability_and_Accountability_Act</a>
 
More of

Health Care Mythology

by Clifford S. Asness, Ph.D.







What We Know That Ain?t So



Will Rogers1 famously said, ?It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know

that ain't so.? So it is with the health care debate in this country. Quite a few ?facts? offered to

the public as truth are simply wrong and often intentionally misleading. It seems clear that no

truly productive solution will emerge when these false facts represent our common starting point.

So, this essay takes on the modest task of simply disabusing its readers of some untrue notions

about health care.

I do not take on the harder task of prescribing how we should (and if we should) reform health

care, though I offer a few thoughts. Important work must be done here by those who understand,

far better than I, the details of health care provision. However, no details are necessary for this

essay, and no animals (though perhaps some egos) were harmed in its creation. The fallacies I

present are basic and it takes only a rational economic framework to expose them

There are large groups of people in this country who want socialized medicine and they sense

that the stars are aligning, and now is their time to succeed. They rarely call it socialized

medicine, but instead ?single payer health care? or ?universal coverage? or something that their

public relations people have told them sounds better. Whatever they call it, they believe (or

pretend to believe) a lot of wrong-headed things, and they must be stopped. Step one is

understanding how and why they are wrong. Step two is kicking their asses back to Cuba where

they can get in line with Michael Moore for their free gastric bypasses.

Finally, please read my standard disclosure (though it?s more designed for something that might

be construed as financial advice, it can?t hurt) and my admission of non-originality.i,ii



Myth #1 Health Care Costs are Soaring

No, they are not. The amount we spend on health care has indeed risen, in absolute terms, after

inflation, and as a percentage of our incomes and GDP. That does not mean costs are soaring.

You cannot judge the ?cost? of something by simply what you spend. You must also judge what

you get. I?m reasonably certain the cost of 1950?s level health care has dropped in real terms

over the last 60 years (and you can probably have a barber from the year 1500 bleed you for

almost nothing nowadays). Of course, with 1950?s health care, lots of things will kill you that

2009 health care would prevent. Also, your quality of life, in many instances, would be far

worse, but you will have a little bit more change in your pocket as the price will be lower. Want

to take the deal? In fact, nobody in the US really wants 1950?s health care (or even 1990?s

health care). They just want to pay 1950 prices for 2009 health care. They want the latest pills,

techniques, therapies, general genius discoveries, and highly skilled labor that would make

today?s health care seem like science fiction a few years ago. But alas, successful science fiction

is expensive.



In the case of health care, the fact that we spend so much more on it now is largely a positive.

The negative part is if some, or a lot, of that spending is wasteful. Of course, that is mostly the

government?s fault and is not what advocates of government control want you to focus upon.

We spend so much more on health care, even relative to other advances, mostly because it is

worth so much more to us. Similarly, we spend so much more on computers, compact discs,

HDTV, and those wonderful one shot espresso makers that make it like having a barista in your

own home. Interestingly, we also spend a ton more on these other items now than we did in

1950 because none of these existed in 1950 (well, you could have hired a skilled Italian man to

live with you and make you coffee twice a day, so I guess that existed and the price has in fact

come down; my bad, analogy shot). OK, you get the point. Health care today is a combination

of stuff that has existed for a while and a set of entirely new things that look like (and really are)

miracles from the lens of even a few years ago. We spend more on health care because it?s

better. Say it with me again, slowly ? this is a good thing, not a bad thing.

By the way, I do not mean that the amount we spend on health care in this country isn?t higher

than it needs to be. Myth #4 covers that.

In summary, if one more person cites soaring health care costs as an indictment of the free

market, when it is in fact a staggering achievement of the free market, I?m going to rupture their

appendix and send them to a queue in the UK to get it fixed. Last we?ll see of them.2
 
September 14, 2009



Healthcare Reform is More Corporate Welfare

by Ron Paul













Last Wednesday the nation was riveted to the President's speech on healthcare reform before Congress. While the President's concern for the uninsured is no doubt sincere, his plan amounts to a magnanimous gift to the health insurance industry, despite any implications to the contrary.



For decades the insurance industry has been lobbying for mandated coverage for everyone. Imagine if the cell phone industry or the cable TV industry received such a gift from government? If government were to fine individuals simply for not buying a corporation's product, it would be an incredible and completely unfair boon to that industry, at the expense of freedom and the free market. Yet this is what the current healthcare reform plans intend to do for the very powerful health insurance industry.



The stipulation that pre-existing conditions would have to be covered seems a small price to pay for increasing their client pool to 100% of the American people. A big red flag, however, is that they would also have immunity from lawsuits, should they fail to actually cover what they are supposedly required to cover, so these requirements on them are probably meaningless. Mandates on all citizens to be customers of theirs, however, are enforceable with fines and taxes.



Insurance providers seem to have successfully equated health insurance with health care but this is a relatively new concept. There were doctors and medicine long before there was health insurance. Health insurance is not a bad thing, but it is not the only conceivable way to get health care. Instead, we seem to still rely on the creativity and competence of politicians to solve problems, which always somehow seem to be tied in with which lobby is the strongest in Washington.



It is sad to think of the many creative, free market solutions that government prohibits with all its interference. What if instead of joining a health insurance plan, you could buy a membership directly from a hospital or doctor? What if a doctor wanted to have a cash-only practice, or make house calls, or determine his or her own patient load, or otherwise practice medicine outside the constraints of the current bureaucratic system? Alternative healthcare delivery models will be at an even stronger competitive disadvantage if families are forced to buy into the insurance model. And yet, the reforms are sold to us as increasing competition.



What if just once Washington got out of the way and allowed the ingenuity of the American people to come up with a whole spectrum of alternatives to our broken system? Then the free market, not lobbyists and politicians, would decide which models work and which did not.



Unfortunately, the most broken aspect of our system is that Washington sees the need to act on every problem in society, rather than staying out of the way, or getting out of the way. The only tools the government has are force and favors. These are tools that many unscrupulous and lazy corporations would like to wield to their own advantage, rather than simply providing a better product that people will willingly buy. It seems the health insurance industry will get more of those advantages very soon.
 
[quote author="awgee" date=1253004521]More of

Health Care Mythology

by Clifford S. Asness, Ph.D.







What We Know That Ain?t So



Will Rogers1 famously said, ?It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know

that ain't so.? So it is with the health care debate in this country. Quite a few ?facts? offered to

the public as truth are simply wrong and often intentionally misleading. It seems clear that no

truly productive solution will emerge when these false facts represent our common starting point.

So, this essay takes on the modest task of simply disabusing its readers of some untrue notions

about health care.

I do not take on the harder task of prescribing how we should (and if we should) reform health

care, though I offer a few thoughts. Important work must be done here by those who understand,

far better than I, the details of health care provision. However, no details are necessary for this

essay, and no animals (though perhaps some egos) were harmed in its creation. The fallacies I

present are basic and it takes only a rational economic framework to expose them

There are large groups of people in this country who want socialized medicine and they sense

that the stars are aligning, and now is their time to succeed. They rarely call it socialized

medicine, but instead ?single payer health care? or ?universal coverage? or something that their

public relations people have told them sounds better. Whatever they call it, they believe (or

pretend to believe) a lot of wrong-headed things, and they must be stopped. Step one is

understanding how and why they are wrong. Step two is kicking their asses back to Cuba where

they can get in line with Michael Moore for their free gastric bypasses.

Finally, please read my standard disclosure (though it?s more designed for something that might

be construed as financial advice, it can?t hurt) and my admission of non-originality.i,ii



Myth #1 Health Care Costs are Soaring

No, they are not. The amount we spend on health care has indeed risen, in absolute terms, after

inflation, and as a percentage of our incomes and GDP. That does not mean costs are soaring.

You cannot judge the ?cost? of something by simply what you spend. You must also judge what

you get. I?m reasonably certain the cost of 1950?s level health care has dropped in real terms

over the last 60 years (and you can probably have a barber from the year 1500 bleed you for

almost nothing nowadays). Of course, with 1950?s health care, lots of things will kill you that

2009 health care would prevent. Also, your quality of life, in many instances, would be far

worse, but you will have a little bit more change in your pocket as the price will be lower. Want

to take the deal? In fact, nobody in the US really wants 1950?s health care (or even 1990?s

health care). They just want to pay 1950 prices for 2009 health care. They want the latest pills,

techniques, therapies, general genius discoveries, and highly skilled labor that would make

today?s health care seem like science fiction a few years ago. But alas, successful science fiction

is expensive.



In the case of health care, the fact that we spend so much more on it now is largely a positive.

The negative part is if some, or a lot, of that spending is wasteful. Of course, that is mostly the

government?s fault and is not what advocates of government control want you to focus upon.

We spend so much more on health care, even relative to other advances, mostly because it is

worth so much more to us. Similarly, we spend so much more on computers, compact discs,

HDTV, and those wonderful one shot espresso makers that make it like having a barista in your

own home. Interestingly, we also spend a ton more on these other items now than we did in

1950 because none of these existed in 1950 (well, you could have hired a skilled Italian man to

live with you and make you coffee twice a day, so I guess that existed and the price has in fact

come down; my bad, analogy shot). OK, you get the point. Health care today is a combination

of stuff that has existed for a while and a set of entirely new things that look like (and really are)

miracles from the lens of even a few years ago. We spend more on health care because it?s

better. Say it with me again, slowly ? this is a good thing, not a bad thing.

By the way, I do not mean that the amount we spend on health care in this country isn?t higher

than it needs to be. Myth #4 covers that.

In summary, if one more person cites soaring health care costs as an indictment of the free

market, when it is in fact a staggering achievement of the free market, I?m going to rupture their

appendix and send them to a queue in the UK to get it fixed. Last we?ll see of them.2</blockquote>


I am sorry..this article has such nonsensical circular arguments. We spend so much more on healthcare "mostly because it is worth so much more to us." Really, people in UK, Japan, Germany, France, Taiwan, and Switzerland enjoy being sick and dying so much more than we do? The fact that our healthcare costs takes up twice much in GDP (percentage) wise as those other nations is only because we care more?



The analogies are so flawed because the costs of gadgets (i.e. computers, TV, CD players) have significantly decreased as time has gone by while giving us significantly better products. Seriously, a $2,000 computer 20 years ago is at least 100 times less powerful than what is on an $100 ipod or cell phone today. On the contrary, healthcare costs have sky rocketed (go read the budget or talk to an employer) while millions of people do not have no access to care.



Explain to me why an uninsured American has to pay more for his prescription than an uninsured European? Is this a part of the 1950s costs he talks about?



Waste in the medical insurance system is the government's fault? Really, then why is the overhead at a private insurance significantly higher than Medicaid or the VA?



The last part about the queue in UK is the most ridiculous considering the last time I was involved in the hospital, I had to lay on a gurney in a neck brace for two hours to be seen in an ER. And I was brought in on an ambulance!
 
Please watch this excellent Frontline program regarding the healthcare system in our country and the rest of world. The reporting is very even handed in that it discusses both the benefits and problems experienced by countries who have implemented universal healthcare.



<a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/">http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/</a>
 
more from:

Health Care Mythology

by Clifford Asness, Ph.D.







Myth #2 The Canadian Drug Story

Ah ? one of the holy myths of the ?US health care sucks? crowd. This should be fun.

The general story is how you can buy many drugs in Canada cheaper than you can buy them in

the US. This story is often, without specifically tying the logic together, taken as an obvious

indictment of the US?s (relatively) free market system. This is grossly misguided.

Here?s what happens. We have a partially free market in the US where drug companies spend a

ton to develop new wonder drugs, much of which is spent to satisfy regulatory requirements.

The cost of this development is called a ?fixed cost.? Once it?s developed it does not cost that

much to make each pill. That?s called a ?variable cost.? If people only paid the variable cost (or

even a bit more) for each pill, the whole thing would not work. The drug company would never

get back the massive fixed cost of creating the drug in the first place, and so no company would

try to develop one. Thus, manufacturers have to, and do, charge more than the variable cost of

making each pill.3 Some look at this system and say to the drug companies ?gee, it doesn?t cost

you much to make one more pill, so it?s unfair that you charge much more than your cost.? They

are completely wrong and not looking at all the costs.

So, let?s bring this back to our good natured friends to the North (good natured barring hockey

when they?ll kill you as soon as look at you4). They have socialized medicine and they bargain

as the only Canadian buyer for drugs, paying well below normal costs. Drug companies that spent the enormous fixed costs to create new miracles are charging a relatively high cost in the

free and still largely competitive world (the US) to recoup their fixed cost and to make a profit.

But socialist societies like Canada limit the price they are allowed to charge. The US-based

company is then faced with a dilemma. What Canada will pay is not enough to ever have

justified creating the miracle pill. But, once created, perhaps Canada is paying more than the

variable cost of each pill. Thus, the company can make some money by also selling to Canada at

a lower price; as it?s still more than it costs them to make that last pill.5

However, this is an accident of Canada being a less-free country than the US, much smaller, and

next door. If we all tried to be Canada, it?s a non-working perpetual motion machine and no

miracle pills ever get made because there will be nobody to pay the fixed costs. I?m a big fan of

Canadians in general (particularly Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux, who, if healthy, probably

would have eclipsed Gretzky ? but I digress), but when it comes to pharmaceuticals they are

lucky hosers, subsidized by Americans. Drug companies in general sell their products to Canada

at low prices, making a little profit, and reducing slightly the amount they need to charge us.

This does create the silly illusion that the Canadian system is somehow better than ours because

our own drugs are cheaper there. They are only cheaper to the extent we are subsidizing them by

paying their portion of drug development costs and, unfortunately, we cannot subsidize ourselves

(or we go blind).6,7

So, what is the purpose behind those who tell tales of cheap Canadian drugs? They seek to

imply that our system is broken, and delivers only expensive drugs, when the socialist Canadian

system delivers the goods for its people. Thus, they implicitly argue that we need to have

socialism here. It?s not complicated.

So, repeat after me. We could go with the Canadian system and have super cheap drugs, if only

we can find a much bigger, more medically advanced, freer country right next to us to make

miracle drugs for themselves, and then we insist that we pay them only a bit above their variable

cost for our share, and then they in turn agree to let us be their parasite. Mexico, would you

mind helping us out?
 
<em>?It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.?</em> ? <strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong>
 
[quote author="awgee" date=1253010043]more from:

Health Care Mythology

by Clifford Asness, Ph.D.







Myth #2 The Canadian Drug Story

Ah ? one of the holy myths of the ?US health care sucks? crowd. This should be fun.

The general story is how you can buy many drugs in Canada cheaper than you can buy them in

the US. This story is often, without specifically tying the logic together, taken as an obvious

indictment of the US?s (relatively) free market system. This is grossly misguided.

Here?s what happens. We have a partially free market in the US where drug companies spend a

ton to develop new wonder drugs, much of which is spent to satisfy regulatory requirements.

The cost of this development is called a ?fixed cost.? Once it?s developed it does not cost that

much to make each pill. That?s called a ?variable cost.? If people only paid the variable cost (or

even a bit more) for each pill, the whole thing would not work. The drug company would never

get back the massive fixed cost of creating the drug in the first place, and so no company would

try to develop one. Thus, manufacturers have to, and do, charge more than the variable cost of

making each pill.3 Some look at this system and say to the drug companies ?gee, it doesn?t cost

you much to make one more pill, so it?s unfair that you charge much more than your cost.? They

are completely wrong and not looking at all the costs.

So, let?s bring this back to our good natured friends to the North (good natured barring hockey

when they?ll kill you as soon as look at you4). They have socialized medicine and they bargain

as the only Canadian buyer for drugs, paying well below normal costs. Drug companies that spent the enormous fixed costs to create new miracles are charging a relatively high cost in the

free and still largely competitive world (the US) to recoup their fixed cost and to make a profit.

But socialist societies like Canada limit the price they are allowed to charge. The US-based

company is then faced with a dilemma. What Canada will pay is not enough to ever have

justified creating the miracle pill. But, once created, perhaps Canada is paying more than the

variable cost of each pill. Thus, the company can make some money by also selling to Canada at

a lower price; as it?s still more than it costs them to make that last pill.5

However, this is an accident of Canada being a less-free country than the US, much smaller, and

next door. If we all tried to be Canada, it?s a non-working perpetual motion machine and no

miracle pills ever get made because there will be nobody to pay the fixed costs. I?m a big fan of

Canadians in general (particularly Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux, who, if healthy, probably

would have eclipsed Gretzky ? but I digress), but when it comes to pharmaceuticals they are

lucky hosers, subsidized by Americans. Drug companies in general sell their products to Canada

at low prices, making a little profit, and reducing slightly the amount they need to charge us.

This does create the silly illusion that the Canadian system is somehow better than ours because

our own drugs are cheaper there. They are only cheaper to the extent we are subsidizing them by

paying their portion of drug development costs and, unfortunately, we cannot subsidize ourselves

(or we go blind).6,7

So, what is the purpose behind those who tell tales of cheap Canadian drugs? They seek to

imply that our system is broken, and delivers only expensive drugs, when the socialist Canadian

system delivers the goods for its people. Thus, they implicitly argue that we need to have

socialism here. It?s not complicated.

So, repeat after me. We could go with the Canadian system and have super cheap drugs, if only

we can find a much bigger, more medically advanced, freer country right next to us to make

miracle drugs for themselves, and then we insist that we pay them only a bit above their variable

cost for our share, and then they in turn agree to let us be their parasite. Mexico, would you

mind helping us out?</blockquote>


So the United States should subsidize drug care for the rest of the world? It's not just Canada you know, UK, Japan, Germany, and France all have substantially lower prescription drug costs than the US (2 to 3 times less in fact). So I get it, the opponents of health care reform is just watching out for the rest of the world while allowing drug companies to charge Americans more...I completely misread this topic.



The argument that innovation/R&D will be affect by a "lack of profit" is such a red herring. Much of our scientific research today are done not by corporations but rather at universities and foundations that are funded by grants. The same structure can be set up for drug research. You know, there are people out there who would want to research new drugs for the betterment of society and not just for profit. I have worked in a lab...you don't do it unless you love the idea of spending years of your life toiling in return for the potential for a new discovery.



Also, I am not sure but I think that Germany, France, Japan, the UK, and Switzerland have a few drug companies of their own...like Bayer, Novartis, Roche, and GlaxoSmith Kline.
 
<blockquote>What if you can?t afford the medicine or the care without insurance? Should you just die or suffer? Should we just marginalize the poor and the sick? I refuse to accept this as an option in our country.</blockquote>


This is the truth we accept in this modern world of the 21st century. We need to look at the past for what can happen if we go the other direction.



Back in the 30`s we had a government in Europe that understood what to do with those that were sick and didnt believe in the current form of government at the time.



I hear that in the background here. Its just a small step away from what you think is fair.



Lets put the weak, the poor and the sick in a camp. Then the next step up from that ? Well I think you see my point.
 
[quote author="bltserv" date=1253050915]<blockquote>What if you can?t afford the medicine or the care without insurance? Should you just die or suffer? Should we just marginalize the poor and the sick? I refuse to accept this as an option in our country.</blockquote>


This is the truth we accept in this modern world of the 21st century. We need to look at the past for what can happen if we go the other direction.



Back in the 30`s we had a government in Europe that understood what to do with those that were sick and didnt believe in the current form of government at the time.



I hear that in the background here. Its just a small step away from what you think is fair.



Lets put the weak, the poor and the sick in a camp. Then the next step up from that ? Well I think you see my point.</blockquote>


Don't go SkipperDan on us. Those camps had nothing to do with the sick the poor, or the weak and you damn well know it. Either post facts, cites, or links that support your opinion on the current state of heath care, or shut the f*ck up. We don't need that kind of baiting in what is already an emotional discussion.
 
This comes from huffingtopost so it's obviously got a liberal slant to it. However, the facts behind the article are pretty interesting:



"With the White House zeroing in on the insurance-industry practice of discriminating against clients based on pre-existing conditions, administration allies are calling attention to how broadly insurers interpret the term to maximize profits.



It turns out that in eight states, plus the District of Columbia, getting beaten up by your spouse is a pre-existing condition.



Under the cold logic of the insurance industry, it makes perfect sense: If you are in a marriage with someone who has beaten you in the past, you're more likely to get beaten again than the average person and are therefore more expensive to insure.



In human terms, it's a second punishment for a victim of domestic violence.



In 2006, Democrats tried to end the practice. An amendment introduced by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), now a member of leadership, split the Health Education Labor & Pensions Committee 10-10. The tie meant that the measure failed.



All ten no votes were Republicans, including Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming), a member of the "Gang of Six" on the Finance Committee who are hashing out a bipartisan bill. A spokesman for Enzi didn't immediately return a call from Huffington Post.



At the time, Enzi defended his vote by saying that such regulations could increase the price of insurance and make it out of reach for more people. "If you have no insurance, it doesn't matter what services are mandated by the state," he said, according to a CQ Today item from March 15th, 2006."



<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/14/when-getting-beaten-by-yo_n_286029.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/14/when-getting-beaten-by-yo_n_286029.html</a>
 
[quote author="Nude" date=1253052402][quote author="bltserv" date=1253050915]<blockquote>What if you can?t afford the medicine or the care without insurance? Should you just die or suffer? Should we just marginalize the poor and the sick? I refuse to accept this as an option in our country.</blockquote>


This is the truth we accept in this modern world of the 21st century. We need to look at the past for what can happen if we go the other direction.



Back in the 30`s we had a government in Europe that understood what to do with those that were sick and didnt believe in the current form of government at the time.



I hear that in the background here. Its just a small step away from what you think is fair.



Lets put the weak, the poor and the sick in a camp. Then the next step up from that ? Well I think you see my point.</blockquote>


Don't go SkipperDan on us. Those camps had nothing to do with the sick the poor, or the weak and you damn well know it. Either post facts, cites, or links that support your opinion on the current state of heath care, or shut the f*ck up. We don't need that kind of baiting in what is already an emotional discussion.</blockquote>


bltserv is actually not that wrong in this regard. Part of the Nazi propaganda was the "outrageous" cost of caring for the very sick and handicapped. They were advocating for forced sterilization (in cases of hereditary diseases) and eventually euthanasia so that the people wouldn't have to be burdened with the cost of caring for them. You may want to refresh your history by checking out the <a href="http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/focus/disabilities/">United States Holocaust Memorial Museum</a>.



PS: I'm not supporting the argument, just shedding some light on the atrocities that happened - which you seem to deny.
 
[quote author="Nude" date=1253052402][quote author="bltserv" date=1253050915]<blockquote>What if you can?t afford the medicine or the care without insurance? Should you just die or suffer? Should we just marginalize the poor and the sick? I refuse to accept this as an option in our country.</blockquote>


This is the truth we accept in this modern world of the 21st century. We need to look at the past for what can happen if we go the other direction.



Back in the 30`s we had a government in Europe that understood what to do with those that were sick and didnt believe in the current form of government at the time.



I hear that in the background here. Its just a small step away from what you think is fair.



Lets put the weak, the poor and the sick in a camp. Then the next step up from that ? Well I think you see my point.</blockquote>


Don't go SkipperDan on us. Those camps had nothing to do with the sick the poor, or the weak and you damn well know it. Either post facts, cites, or links that support your opinion on the current state of heath care, or shut the f*ck up. We don't need that kind of baiting in what is already an emotional discussion.</blockquote>


Easy Nude. I was making an extreme point of how ignoring the fact we have millions of uninsured and those that never

get adequate care is a real issue in our modern society. What do you think we should do with the uninsured

or indigent in the case of extreme costly illness ?



A couple of simple points. Inner City Hospitals. Like King Drew. Or in my Sisters case. Brotman in Culver City.

So if your unlucky enough to live in these areas. (My sister lives in Culver City and has full health coverage).

And you happen to have an accident or condition of some type. In my sisters case she had a stroke.

Because the inner city hospital is so inundated with emergency room cases that could have been handled by a regular

doctor if they were insured. My sister fails to get proper care because the admitting Nurse thinks she is on drugs.

Thank god my neice got out of school and got her over to UCLA or she might have died. She sat for sveral hours

that are critical in her case of stroke. All beacuse our system is broken. Emergency rooms were never designed

this way.



Also looking at the 3rd world efforts of RAM. Except this time the 3rd world is in Inglewood.

Normally RAM would be in Africa or after some other natural disaster.

This is the strongest nation in the world. Yet we put more effort and money into making war than our own people ?



<a href="http://www.ramusa.org/about/stanbrock.htm">http://www.ramusa.org/about/stanbrock.htm</a>



<object width="325" height="250"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/youtube" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="325" height="250"></embed></object>
 
Doctors overwhelmingly in support of a public option:



<a href="http:// http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112839232"> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112839232</a>



Among all the players in the health care debate, doctors may be the least understood about where they stand on some of the key issues around changing the health care system. Now, a new survey finds some surprising results: A large majority of doctors say there should be a public option.



When polled, "nearly three-quarters of physicians supported some form of a public option, either alone or in combination with private insurance options," says Dr. Salomeh Keyhani. She and Dr. Alex Federman, both internists and researchers at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, conducted a random survey, by mail and by phone, of 2,130 doctors. They surveyed them from June right up to early September.



Most doctors ? 63 percent ? say they favor giving patients a choice that would include both public and private insurance. That's the position of President Obama and of many congressional Democrats. In addition, another 10 percent of doctors say they favor a public option only; they'd like to see a single-payer health care system. Together, the two groups add up to 73 percent.



<img src="http://npr.org/news/graphics/2009/09/gr-doctorsurvey-300.gif" alt="" />
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top