You are basically taking control away from the "greedy insurance companies" (who, by the way, make craptons of money while insuring MUCH more than the government does right now for low costs to the consumer)

 

 

 

Are you living under a rock? Jesus christ. Of course they insure more than the government, insurance companies have monopolies on certain states and regions. (some own 75-85% of the market in some states). Competition is especially hard nationally.

 

 

 

Low costs to the consumer? Get real. Health care spending in 2004 per capita was around $5,200. In 2005 it was $6,000. In 2006 it was $7,000 and in 2007 it was $7,400.

 

 

 

This is not normal, and this is NOT "low." This is an astronomical amount that if it's not taken care of NOW (not 4-8 years from now), the US will actually fall to the bankruptcy boogieman that libertarians have been warning about since 1913.

 

 

 

This is our last chance at this. We've tried since 1945, we've been talking about it for 60 years. How many more years do you want to subject the American people to "pounding out details" with a nationalist party that's flat out not interested in reform and a center-right corporatist party with some left-wing elements? The longer this waits, the worse the problem gets, and the less of a chance there is for reform. If not now, it's not going to happen. If this bill fails, reform is over for a long time. No one after Obama will want to try at it again for another 15-20 years because it will be politically toxic. And by then, health care costs will have bankrupted this country beyond repair.

 

 

 

but not how many could actually take advantage of it.

 

 

 

I'm really tired of people using anecdotes to deliver their messages. Look, people abuse welfare. We know this. I'm getting awfully tired of the Ronald Reagan exaggerations of Cadillac-driving welfare queens, though.

 

 

 

To same, people will probably abuse a national health care system just like they do in Britain, France et al. So what? Abuse happens, but it doesn't account for such a high percentage of problems that it's worth addressing above the actual need here: a national health care system.

 

 

 

Are you going to tell people who go into the public school system that they're abusing it by not going to a private school if they can "afford" it? This goes for universities as well.

 

 

 

What are your problems with this bill, specifically? All I keep seeing are general things like pork, loopholes, abuse, etc. I have my own problems with this bill:

 

 

 

a. The public option and health exchange aren't robust enough.

 

b. Not enough people have access to it right away when it's enacted (2013). Only an estimated 10-11 million people will have access to the public option by 2019.

 

c. It continues the role of employers in health insurance for far too long. While its goal is to get people off of it, it does it far too slowly. Only 30 million people will be in the exchange by 2019.

 

d. The protections given to the drug companies. For example, the 12 year patents, not allowing cheaper drugs to be imported from countries like Canada, it won't give Medicare the ability to directly negotiate prices with the drug companies.

 

 

 

Those are really my 4 biggest problems with the bill. Oh, and that it's not single payer, of course.

 

 

 

edit, here's a picture of how far split the parties are in their differences:

 

 

 

 

They haven't been this split since the 19th century. Wanting "bipartisanship" between the GOP and the Dems is a worthless cause. There's enough bipartisanship between the left wing and the right wing of the Democratic Party. We already compromised enough by ceding single payer.

It's not so-called "anecdotal" evidence. It's an observable trend. I work in the healthcare profession and this is something that everyone notices. It's not something that happens once in a blue moon.

Paid for the Republican party.

 

 

 

Not all of America thinks this way.

 

 

 

I laughed at this commercial though, because it's not true.

Low costs to the consumer? Get real. Health care spending in 2004 per capita was around $5,200. In 2005 it was $6,000. In 2006 it was $7,000 and in 2007 it was $7,400.

 

=D>

 

 

 

There was an interesting article discussing this. It said in 2002, the United States was spending $5,267 per capita on healthcare out of 30 countries surveyed. The second highest spending country was Switzerland who spent $3,446, 34% less than the U.S.. The median among the 30 countries was $2193 spent, 58% less than what we spend.

 

 

 

The article also answered the argument that nations with government run healthcare are able to keep their costs so low because of long waiting lists. It said, "The procedures with waiting lists in these other countries, however, represent only 3 percent of spending and therefore cannot explain much of the cost differential."

 

 

 

The article also addressed the argument that higher malpractice suits are the culprit to blame, saying "The researchers compared the number of malpractice claims and awards in the United States, Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom and found that while U.S. citizens sue more often, the actual settlements from all four countries were comparable."

 

 

 

http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2005/anderson_healthspending.html

 

 

 

And don't think we're getting better quality care either. In 2006, the U.N. ranked us 38th in the world in life expectancy, and 33rd in lowest infant mortality rate. This is well below France, Canada, and the U.K..

Doctors aren't as innocent as you claim:

 

 

 

In August 2005, doctors at Urological Associates, a medical practice on the Iowa-Illinois border, ordered nine CT scans for patients covered by Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield insurance. In September that year, they ordered eight. But then the numbers rose steeply. The urologists ordered 35 scans in October, 41 in November and 55 in December. Within seven months, they were ordering scans at a rate that had climbed more than 700 percent.

 

 

 

The increase came in the months after the urologists bought their own CT scanner, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post. Instead of referring patients to radiologists, the doctors started conducting their own imaging -- and drawing insurance reimbursements for each of those patients.

 

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 04285.html

 

 

 

I'm sure many abuse it, but the overwhelming majority do not. And that's not a reason to shut down reform. What don't you like about this bill?

 

 

 

Speaking of shutting down reform, is this what you were hoping for if the process is "slowed down to talk it over?":

 

 

 

Two weeks ago, Rep. Mike Castle, R-Del., was shouted down and saw his town meeting hijacked over the question of the presidents birth certificate. Watching the crowd force Castle to recite the Pledge of Allegiance instead of talk about healthcare can make you want to laugh and cry at the same time.

 

 

 

Then, two days ago, Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, had his meeting with constituents overrun by people protesting healthcare reform and chanting, Just say no! Theres apparently a loose affiliation between this mob, as Doggett called them, and the infamous Tea Partiers of several months ago. At the very least, the Just say no! crowd, with its hammer-and-sickle-adorned anti-government posters, draws obvious inspiration from the winter anti-tax rallies.

 

 

 

And on Sunday, Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius presided over a tense public meeting at a packed Constitution Center in Philadelphia. Questioners raised the standard complaints about the government being incompetent to run any sort of healthcare plan.

 

 

 

Astroturfing is still running strong among opponents of reform. They're busing in people to purposefully disrupt townhall meetings. [bleep] Armey's crew of corporate astroturfers, so awesome.

 

 

 

Here's a nice quote from the memo:

 

 

 

Artificially Inflate Your Numbers: Spread out in the hall and try to be in the front half. The objective is to put the Rep on the defensive with your questions and follow-up. The Rep should be made to feel that a majority, and if not, a significant portion of at least the audience, opposes the socialist agenda of Washington.

 

 

 

Be Disruptive Early And Often: You need to rock-the-boat early in the Reps presentation, Watch for an opportunity to yell out and challenge the Reps statements early.

 

 

 

Try To Rattle Him, Not Have An Intelligent Debate: The goal is to rattle him, get him off his prepared script and agenda. If he says something outrageous, stand up and shout out and sit right back down. Look for these opportunities before he even takes questions.

 

 

 

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/upl ... onmemo.pdf

 

 

 

They have no interest in reform, so they have nothing to lose. My only hope is that we start pushing through a more liberal bill rather than this watered down one. I doubt it, though. Max Baucus' coffers have been littered with insurance/hospital/pharma money.

Newly unveiled court documents show that ghostwriters paid by a pharmaceutical company played a major role in producing 26 scientific papers backing the use of hormone replacement therapy in women, suggesting that the level of hidden industry influence on medical literature is broader than previously known.

 

 

 

The articles, published in medical journals between 1998 and 2005, emphasized the benefits and de-emphasized the risks of taking hormones to protect against maladies like aging skin, heart disease and dementia. That supposed medical consensus benefited Wyeth, the pharmaceutical company that paid a medical communications firm to draft the papers, as sales of its hormone drugs, called Premarin and Prempro, soared to nearly $2 billion in 2001.

 

 

 

But the seeming consensus fell apart in 2002 when a huge federal study on hormone therapy was stopped after researchers found that menopausal women who took certain hormones had an increased risk of invasive breast cancer, heart disease and stroke. A later study found that hormones increased the risk of dementia in older patients.

 

 

 

The ghostwritten papers were typically review articles, in which an author weighs a large body of medical research and offers a bottom-line judgment about how to treat a particular ailment. The articles appeared in 18 medical journals, including The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and The International Journal of Cardiology.

 

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/05/healt ... ghost.html

 

 

 

And it continues to get even worse than I had ever imagined.

I'm just amazed someone actually wants this... Canadian health care sucks. Did you know there's a LOTTERY TO SEE WHO GETS TREATED!?!?!?!? And people who need dire surgeries etc. may have to wait 6 months? Bet the Messiah didn't tell you THAT... Also, if you want truth you can't argue with, AKA common freakin sense, try watching Glenn Beck once in a while. Speaking of which, it's on now.

 

And, it isn't just Canadian health care, it's free government run health care.

 

And apparently if you don't like it, you're a right wing extremist.

 

This is mostly coming from neutral Glenn Beck.

I'm just amazed someone actually wants this... Canadian health care sucks. Did you know there's a LOTTERY TO SEE WHO GETS TREATED!?!?!?!? And people who need dire surgeries etc. may have to wait 6 months? Bet the Messiah didn't tell you THAT... Also, if you want truth you can't argue with, AKA common freakin sense, try watching Glenn Beck once in a while. Speaking of which, it's on now.

 

And, it isn't just Canadian health care, it's free government run health care.

 

And apparently if you don't like it, you're a right wing extremist.

 

This is mostly coming from neutral Glenn Beck.

 

 

 

 

 

Lol, I can't tell if you're being facetious or not. I thought you were being serious until you mentioned Glenn Beck, the psychopath who compares Obama to Hitler on a regular basis and dreams about banging his sister in his book.

This is mostly coming from neutral Glenn Beck.

 

 

 

As a viewer of Glenn Beck, that is a horribly innaccurate statement. I personally admire him; but he is very economically right. Not as right as magekillr is left...but neutral is grossly innacurate.

 

 

 

Lol, I can't tell if you're being facetious or not. I thought you were being serious until you mentioned Glenn Beck, the psychopath who compares Obama to Hitler on a regular basis and dreams about banging his sister in his book.

 

 

 

That's not an ad hominem attack at all. You might want to try something other then the classic authoritarian lynching of anyone who dares to disagree with your blind ideology.

Lol, I can't tell if you're being facetious or not. I thought you were being serious until you mentioned Glenn Beck, the psychopath who compares Obama to Hitler on a regular basis and dreams about banging his sister in his book.

 

 

 

That's not an ad hominem attack at all. You might want to try something other then the classic authoritarian lynching of anyone who dares to disagree with your blind ideology.

 

 

 

It's not an ad hominem attack. Perhaps you should learn what an ad hominem attack is. Glenn Beck is not neutral, and it's demonstrated by his comparing Obama to Hitler on a regular basis. Would you like me to finish the logical end point?

 

 

 

Glenn Beck compares BO to Hitler, the Nazis and the 3rd Reich.

 

Comparing Barack Obama to Hitler and the Nazis is not neutral, and it's a psychotic thing to do.

 

Glenn Beck does assorted other psychotic things:

 

People who do these things need help and are not neutral.

 

Glenn Beck is a psycho.

 

 

 

The dude's insane. Glenn Beck not as far right as I am left? Dude, listen...read back a few pages where I explained the troubling thing about American politics. Glenn Beck and most Republicans in power right now are not just "on the right." They are far right nationalists. The Democrats are a center right party.

 

 

 

No wonder you don't believe in climate change when you're listening to Glenn Beck:

 

 

 

If you'd like to discuss health care policy, I'd be glad to do it with facts and data. It's not my fault your ideology doesn't follow that. Which is fine...I can respect someone who says "You know what, government "run" health care saves money, it insures more people, and it's more efficient overall. However, I don't care because I don't want the government doing that."

 

 

 

What annoys me is when people refuse to believe the evidence that's right there in front of them, deny it, and say our system is just fine calling America "the greatest health care system in the world." Throw in a few tax breaks, some "tort reform," and call it a day. Texas did tort reform, they have caps, and their health care costs are spiraling out of control just as fast, if not faster than the rest of the country. Incidientally they also have the most people uninsured.

It's not an ad hominem attack. Perhaps you should learn what an ad hominem attack is. Glenn Beck is not neutral, and it's demonstrated by his comparing Obama to Hitler on a regular basis. Would you like me to finish the logical end point?

 

 

 

Glenn Beck compares BO to Hitler, the Nazis and the 3rd Reich.

 

Comparing Barack Obama to Hitler and the Nazis is not neutral, and it's a psychotic thing to do.

 

Glenn Beck does assorted other psychotic things:

 

People who do these things need help and are not neutral.

 

Glenn Beck is a psycho.

 

 

 

The dude's insane. Glenn Beck not as far right as I am left? Dude, listen...read back a few pages where I explained the troubling thing about American politics. Glenn Beck and most Republicans in power right now are not just "on the right." They are far right nationalists. The Democrats are a center right party.

 

 

 

No wonder you don't believe in climate change when you're listening to Glenn Beck:

 

 

 

If you'd like to discuss health care policy, I'd be glad to do it with facts and data. It's not my fault your ideology doesn't follow that. Which is fine...I can respect someone who says "You know what, government "run" health care saves money, it insures more people, and it's more efficient overall. However, I don't care because I don't want the government doing that."

 

 

 

What annoys me is when people refuse to believe the evidence that's right there in front of you, deny it, and say our system is just fine. Throw in a few tax breaks, some "tort reform," and call it a day. Texas did tort reform, they have caps, and their health care costs are spiraling out of control just as fast, if not faster than the rest of the country. Incidientally they also have the most people uninsured.

 

 

 

So calling someone who has led a successful life a psychopath because you disagree with them isn't an ad hominem...perhaps you should review your definitions.

 

 

 

I didn't say Beck was neutral, in fact I quite clearly stated that he is rather far right wing

 

As a viewer of Glenn Beck, that is a horribly innaccurate statement. I personally admire him; but he is very economically right.

 

 

 

People in the Democratic party constantly compared George Bush to Hitler, what's your point? I think its overboard to use such analogies but there are logical comparisons between Nazi tactics and the tactics of Obama and the far left(Of course, I am not accussing them of anything nearly as bad as the Nazi's from a morality stand point).

 

 

 

Certainly you didn't imply that you were moderate?

 

 

 

Also, I was quite aware that Beck criticized both parties and is a libertarian not a Republican.

 

 

 

First, I'm impressed you bothered to remember a discussion on climate change. Second, I quite clearly stated I believed climate change was occuring in that conversation.

 

 

 

If you'd like to discuss health care policy, I'd be glad to do it with facts and data. It's not my fault your ideology doesn't follow that. Which is fine...I can respect someone who says "You know what, government "run" health care saves money, it insures more people, and it's more efficient overall. However, I don't care because I don't want the government doing that."

 

 

 

You know what, government "run" health care wastes money, it causes more problems, and it's less efficient overall. Therefore, I don't want government run health care on that basis along with the social implications of the government taking over the management of people's personal lives.

So calling someone who has led a successful life a psychopath because you disagree with them isn't an ad hominem

 

 

 

Straw man. My argument wasn't he's a psychopath because he disagrees with me. Glenn Beck literally has mental issues.

 

 

 

I wouldn't compare Bush to Hitler, but he certainly did take a lot of lessons from him when it came to torture, and the possibility of using the military as a police force.

 

 

 

Nope, I'm not a moderate, but the point is that I'm just "left." Bill Maher talked with Dennis Kucinich back in 2007, and as he stated then, "I don't consider myself a radical." America just has no left wing, so that's the way it appears.

 

 

 

You know what, government "run" health care wastes money, it causes more problems, and it's less efficient overall. Therefore, I don't want government run health care on that basis along with the social implications of the government taking over the management of people's personal lives.

 

 

 

There you go again, ignoring reality. Would you like to get rid of Medicare and the VA? Surely they manage people's lives, and shouldn't be in existence.

 

 

 

What's your solution to the problem? Or do you not think there's a problem?

Doctors aren't as innocent as you claim:

 

 

 

In August 2005, doctors at Urological Associates, a medical practice on the Iowa-Illinois border, ordered nine CT scans for patients covered by Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield insurance. In September that year, they ordered eight. But then the numbers rose steeply. The urologists ordered 35 scans in October, 41 in November and 55 in December. Within seven months, they were ordering scans at a rate that had climbed more than 700 percent.

 

 

 

The increase came in the months after the urologists bought their own CT scanner, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post. Instead of referring patients to radiologists, the doctors started conducting their own imaging -- and drawing insurance reimbursements for each of those patients.

 

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 04285.html

 

 

 

I'm sure many abuse it, but the overwhelming majority do not. And that's not a reason to shut down reform. What don't you like about this bill?

 

 

 

Speaking of shutting down reform, is this what you were hoping for if the process is "slowed down to talk it over?":

 

 

 

Two weeks ago, Rep. Mike Castle, R-Del., was shouted down and saw his town meeting hijacked over the question of the presidents birth certificate. Watching the crowd force Castle to recite the Pledge of Allegiance instead of talk about healthcare can make you want to laugh and cry at the same time.

 

 

 

Then, two days ago, Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, had his meeting with constituents overrun by people protesting healthcare reform and chanting, Just say no! Theres apparently a loose affiliation between this mob, as Doggett called them, and the infamous Tea Partiers of several months ago. At the very least, the Just say no! crowd, with its hammer-and-sickle-adorned anti-government posters, draws obvious inspiration from the winter anti-tax rallies.

 

 

 

And on Sunday, Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius presided over a tense public meeting at a packed Constitution Center in Philadelphia. Questioners raised the standard complaints about the government being incompetent to run any sort of healthcare plan.

 

 

 

Astroturfing is still running strong among opponents of reform. They're busing in people to purposefully disrupt townhall meetings. [bleep] Armey's crew of corporate astroturfers, so awesome.

 

 

 

Here's a nice quote from the memo:

 

 

 

Artificially Inflate Your Numbers: Spread out in the hall and try to be in the front half. The objective is to put the Rep on the defensive with your questions and follow-up. The Rep should be made to feel that a majority, and if not, a significant portion of at least the audience, opposes the socialist agenda of Washington.

 

 

 

Be Disruptive Early And Often: You need to rock-the-boat early in the Reps presentation, Watch for an opportunity to yell out and challenge the Reps statements early.

 

 

 

Try To Rattle Him, Not Have An Intelligent Debate: The goal is to rattle him, get him off his prepared script and agenda. If he says something outrageous, stand up and shout out and sit right back down. Look for these opportunities before he even takes questions.

 

 

 

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/upl ... onmemo.pdf

 

 

 

They have no interest in reform, so they have nothing to lose. My only hope is that we start pushing through a more liberal bill rather than this watered down one. I doubt it, though. Max Baucus' coffers have been littered with insurance/hospital/pharma money.

 

 

 

Laying aside that fact that there is no proof that the Republicans are astroturfing, as well as the fact of whether or not even the US under socialized health care would have better healthcare, I would like to know where in the US constitution the right to govern health care or insurance is given to either the federal government. Yes, I am a strict constructionist.

So calling someone who has led a successful life a psychopath because you disagree with them isn't an ad hominem

 

 

 

Straw man. My argument wasn't he's a psychopath because he disagrees with me. Glenn Beck literally has mental issues.

 

 

 

I wouldn't compare Bush to Hitler, but he certainly did take a lot of lessons from him when it came to torture, and the possibility of using the military as a police force.

 

 

 

Nope, I'm not a moderate, but the point is that I'm just "left." Bill Maher talked with Dennis Kucinich back in 2007, and as he stated then, "I don't consider myself a radical." America just has no left wing, so that's the way it appears.

 

 

 

You know what, government "run" health care wastes money, it causes more problems, and it's less efficient overall. Therefore, I don't want government run health care on that basis along with the social implications of the government taking over the management of people's personal lives.

 

 

 

There you go again, ignoring reality. Would you like to get rid of Medicare and the VA? Surely they manage people's lives, and shouldn't be in existence.

 

 

 

What's your solution to the problem? Or do you not think there's a problem?

 

 

 

That is not a strawman; technically I am accusing you of accusing someone of mental illness solely because you disagree with them. You did call him a psychopath, and since he's clearly a functioning indivdual with a healthy family you must be basing this on something not founded in reality.

 

 

 

We aren't going to have a waterboarding debate, but waterboarding is hardly comparable to many of the terrible acts Nazi interrogators used.

 

 

 

American politics are rather screwy; the left and right are both equally authoritarian, just authoritarian in different ways...after all you were the one who suggested a tax on trans fats.

 

 

 

There is a clear division between medicare type services and the government mandating health care for all. Of course, there is a difference between supporting somethings creation and its continuence. Something like medicare would be a tremendous hassle to undo so regardless of my personal feelings about it, I wouldn't attempt to end it.

 

 

 

Im looking for some statistics involving the uninsured; my actual thoughts on fixing healthcare will be posted soon.

I would like to know where in the US constitution the right to govern health care or insurance is given to either the federal government.

 

 

 

It's right here, Article I, Section 1:

 

 

 

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

 

 

 

They have the power to make law. And here in Article I, Section 8:

 

 

 

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

 

 

 

They have implied powers to make laws necessary to carry out government actions. Now you have to show me in the US Constitution where public healthcare is unconstitutional.

And I'm pretty sure the founding fathers would of wanted the BEST for the country, no matter how "communist" it may seem.

And I'm pretty sure the founding fathers would of wanted the BEST for the country, no matter how "communist" it may seem.

 

 

 

Communism didn't exist during this time. Their beef was with the monarchy, and their "divine right" to rule.

And I'm pretty sure the founding fathers would of wanted the BEST for the country, no matter how "communist" it may seem.

 

 

 

Communism didn't exist during this time. Their beef was with the monarchy, and their "divine right" to rule.

 

 

 

Not to mention that they owed tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of pounds to King George...each. They took advantage of popular feelings of the days in order to skip out on a debt, it could be argued.

 

 

 

Edit: Before you guys kill me, the guy who wrote the expose almost a hundred years ago was Frederick Jackson Turner, one of the most revered and respected historians of American history. And he had the records to prove it.

And I'm pretty sure the founding fathers would of wanted the BEST for the country, no matter how "communist" it may seem.

 

 

 

Communism didn't exist during this time. Their beef was with the monarchy, and their "divine right" to rule.

 

That's the point. Communism, monarchy, whatever, the point of this country is to provide the pursuit of happiness. How are we supposed to do that if we can't afford to pay for our illness?

Not to mention that they owed tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of pounds to King George...each. They took advantage of popular feelings of the days in order to skip out on a debt, it could be argued.

 

 

 

Edit: Before you guys kill me, the guy who wrote the expose almost a hundred years ago was Frederick Jackson Turner, one of the most revered and respected historians of American history. And he had the records to prove it.

 

 

 

I remember my history prof. bringing this up. I'll say here what I said back then in class: I think there's truth to it, but it's a very narrow way to paint the causes of the American Revolution. But maybe we should go find a history forum to fight about it instead of derailing this thread. :lol:

 

 

 

And I'm pretty sure the founding fathers would of wanted the BEST for the country, no matter how "communist" it may seem.

 

 

 

Communism didn't exist during this time. Their beef was with the monarchy, and their "divine right" to rule.

 

That's the point. Communism, monarchy, whatever, the point of this country is to provide the pursuit of happiness. How are we supposed to do that if we can't afford to pay for our illness?

 

 

 

I'm on your side. I support public healthcare.