ObamaCare

[adam37]

 

 

Discuss…i know its from FoxNews, but just watch it anyway.

[YouWinGameOver]

I dont agree remotely with anyone comparing obama to communism and that is all I am hearing from conservatives and older generation. With that being said, I can’t listen to people *edited* about his proposals because they do not read them carefully.

 

My friends grandparents last weekend asked us what we thought about the reform then told us some garbled bull*edited* about euthanizing old people against their will. I told them they didnt read it properly and thats when they became increasingly defensive about the subject. It’s hard to respect your elders when their wrong.

[MasterP]

Your grandparents weren’t wrong. They will be required to see a doctor every few years who will discuss “dying with dignity”. They may not pull the trigger immediately but all 3 of Obama’s top advisors on this healthcare package believe that the best care and procedures should be reserved for those who will benefit the longest from it and that those 50 should get the least care. 50 because they stand to benefit much less from a heart operation than someone say 30.

 

There is a ton of documentation on this so please google it before writing off their “garbled bull*edited*”. They’re closer to the facts than you are.

 

Also, here’s a quote that got me banned from posting on Media Matters’ youtube videos. It’s directly from the House version of this bill.

 

HR3200 §102(a)(1) said:

(A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.

If this clause makes it into the final draft, and there’s no reason to think it won’t, then private health insurance companies will be forbidden from taking on new customers. It will effectively force everyone into grandfathering their existing coverage and if they lose it for any reason, like losing their job, they will be forced onto the government plan.

 

Children dropped off their parent’s plans by age limits (I think it’s like 25 now) will be forced to take the government plan and will have no alternative. Period.

 

In the same section it also forces private insurers to NEVER change pricing, benefits, or terms, regardless of whether or not the package you have is comperable or price competitve with other insurers. If the price were to ever lower, they wouldn’t be allowed to. If they want to raise the price they have to raise it equally to ALL in that risk group and before they can that they have to get permission from “the Commissioner”.

[MasterP]

Here’s something to think about Youwin.

 

If you, right now, were diagnosed with some form of cancer and your odds of survival were low, would you want to see the best doctors available and try to survive or would you rather talk to a doctor about how it would be best for society if you went ahead and died?

 

I know what the majority of people would do.

 

Also, keep in mind the US has done far worse in the past. Hitler’s eugenics program, which forcefully sterilized 400,000 people was based almost verbatim on a California program. In 1927 our own Supreme Court wrote “It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind…. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

 

Prove to me they’ve changed since then. Even now the truth is coming out about why Roe v. Wade was passed, it wasn’t about abortion, it was about having less desirables in society. That’s straight from Justice Ginsberg.

 

If you look closely I think you’ll find we’ll do much better having as little government intervention in our lives as possible. When they get involved, things get wrong. Fast.

[adam37]

MasterP said:

If you look closely I think you’ll find we’ll do much better having as little government intervention in our lives as possible. When they get involved, things get wrong. Fast.

AGREED X10000000

[newrayz]

MasterP said:

It will effectively force everyone into grandfathering their existing coverage and if they lose it for any reason, like losing their job, they will be forced onto the government plan.

 

Children dropped off their parent’s plans by age limits (I think it’s like 25 now) will be forced to take the government plan and will have no alternative. Period.

 

In the same section it also forces private insurers to NEVER change pricing, benefits, or terms, regardless of whether or not the package you have is comperable or price competitve with other insurers. If the price were to ever lower, they wouldn’t be allowed to. If they want to raise the price they have to raise it equally to ALL in that risk group and before they can that they have to get permission from “the Commissioner”.

 

 

What other option would one have if they lost their job (and obviously the benefits that come with it)? If you don’t make money it only makes sense you wouldn’t be able to afford ANY private health care plan. It’s not that you are forced onto it, its just once one loses their job, they aren’t exactly going to be able to go shopping for insurance. It only makes sense for them to get on a universal plan. Of course in our current beautiful system, one who loses their job, won’t have anything to fall back on; only adding to the ridiculously large amount on uninsured. Sure their is that unemployed check that we all know and love, but when you are unemployed the first thing you cut is any spending that isn’t needed to survive day to day, ei insurance. then the next day you get your leg blown off by a renegade tire off the road.

 

And the age is 21 I think, 25 if you are defined as a dependent and enrolled in school.

 

Forcing private insurers to NEVER change pricing, to me, is a much more positive thing than you make it out to be. It’s called regulation, something that is needed, especially with insurance fat cats. We spend more money on insurance than any other country in the world and still don’t have everyone insured. I don’t think regulating rates is a bad thing either. The exact verbiage could be worked on, but then again this bill isn’t on the floor. People are freaking out, understandably, but a lot of it seems to be speculation and assumptions. The majority are people who have been voting right all their lives, and are freaking out because their perfect little world is coming to an end.

[newrayz]

MasterP said:

If you look closely I think you’ll find we’ll do much better having as little government intervention in our lives as possible. When they get involved, things get wrong. Fast.

 

The clean air you breathe is because of progressive reform

The multicultural class rooms that you get to be in is because of progressive reform

If we didn’t have government intervention, kids could still be hired to crawl into giant machines because their hands are smaller than adults.

 

Clean water? oh yeah, government intervention. The fact is they have helped a lot more than you think. Little government to no government could have worked iono 200 years ago? But the fact is we have to many *edited* people to just expect things to just work out.

 

Yeah our government could use some work, but would you trade it for any other? It’s the best I know of. And this may be a mute point, but all I hear from you serfs, I mean republicans, is how bad progressive reform is. But what do you guys want to do about it? People are screaming in town halls, yelling down representatives, with stupid *edited* phrases like “just say no”. Here is an idea, throw out some “right” legislation that will make this all better. hmmm, anyone hear that? Sounds like NOTHING

[MajorMajorMajor]

NuRayZ said:

And the age is 21 I think, 25 if you are defined as a dependent and enrolled in school.

For me it was 18. Even though im still enrolled in school, I’ve been independent on my taxes since i was 17 (somehow i cost less that way) I’m currently health care free and the way to be. It’s awesome. I kno where all the free clinics are, i get to pay 900 dollars per pair of glasses, and dont get me started on the dentist -.-

[MasterP]

You covered a broad spectrum of excuses so I’ll cover them as well.

 

NuRayZ said:

What other option would one have if they lost their job (and obviously the benefits that come with it)? If you don’t make money it only makes sense you wouldn’t be able to afford ANY private health care plan. It’s not that you are forced onto it, its just once one loses their job, they aren’t exactly going to be able to go shopping for insurance. It only makes sense for them to get on a universal plan. Of course in our current beautiful system, one who loses their job, won’t have anything to fall back on; only adding to the ridiculously large amount on uninsured. Sure their is that unemployed check that we all know and love, but when you are unemployed the first thing you cut is any spending that isn’t needed to survive day to day, ei insurance. then the next day you get your leg blown off by a renegade tire off the road.

You missed the entire point of what I said. If you had an insurance policy that you absolutely loved you would never be able to get it back, even if you got another job. Once forced off your current private plan there would be no alternative but the government plan. That’s retarded and only a fool would be in favor of it.

 

NuRayZ said:

Forcing private insurers to NEVER change pricing, to me, is a much more positive thing than you make it out to be. It’s called regulation, something that is needed, especially with insurance fat cats.

Paying for insurance is one of the biggest investments you can make in your life. You pay $50,000 and get nearly twice that in care. I’m sure those “corporate fat cats” love losing money like that.

 

NuRayZ said:

We spend more money on insurance than any other country in the world

So why is our system the envy of the world? You do realize just how many foreigners come here every year specifically for medical care, right?

 

NuRayZ said:

and still don’t have everyone insured.

If you exclude illegal immigrants and those who already could afford insurance, the number is actually very small. FYI.

 

NuRayZ said:

I don’t think regulating rates is a bad thing either.

Maybe the same kind of regulation they put on the banks and corporations they bailed out. You know, still paying execs huge bonuses with taxpayer money. Perhaps thats the regulation on successful businesses that are making money and being profitable not being able to pay their execs more than a specified amount. Or maybe your referring to telling successful companies they can’t have more private jets and then turning in an order to the air force for 2 more for themselves.

 

NuRayZ said:

People are freaking out, understandably, but a lot of it seems to be speculation and assumptions.

Then what’s the truth? Please tell me because if I’m caught spreading “disinformation” someone could send my information in to Obama’s nazi hotline. I’m sure you’ve conveniently ignored that also.

 

NuRayZ said:

The majority are people who have been voting right all their lives, and are freaking out because their perfect little world is coming to an end.

Odd how wanting to choose the aspects of their healthcare is now considered a radical right-wing idea. I think Obama said we’d be able to do that? Obama is a right-wing nut? Maybe a good car salesmen?

[MasterP]

NuRayZ said:

The clean air you breathe is because of progressive reform

We’re not talking about air, where talking about hot air, which is against the EPA regulations btw. It’s interesting you’d mention such a hypocritical program. They’re the reason it take 10-20 years to build a nuclear plant and roughly half that to build a coal or gas fired plant. How does that make sense? Answer me which one is cleaned for the surrounding area, hires more local employees, and burns less fuel?

 

NuRayZ said:

The multicultural class rooms that you get to be in is because of progressive reform

Please tell me you aren’t bringing up affirmative action… Even “minorities” are starting to turn against this because it makes the “majority” question the competancy of their “minority” classmates. Any program that fixes racial discrimination by bumping one student for another because one is one race and one is another is the definition of hypocracy.

 

NuRayZ said:

If we didn’t have government intervention, kids could still be hired to crawl into giant machines because their hands are smaller than adults.

lol?

 

NuRayZ said:

Clean water? oh yeah, government intervention.

There was always clean water in areas that cared. Interesting how most of the water issues were in California and liberal states…

 

NuRayZ said:

But the fact is we have to many *edited* people to just expect things to just work out.

So how many should we have?

 

I’m sure you’ll ignore the fact that illegal immigrants are the ones placing the hardest burden on our system…

 

NuRayZ said:

Yeah our government could use some work, but would you trade it for any other? It’s the best I know of.

Were you saying this while Bush was in office or is it a recent discovery?

 

NuRayZ said:

And this may be a mute point, but all I hear from you serfs, I mean republicans, is how bad progressive reform is. But what do you guys want to do about it? People are screaming in town halls, yelling down representatives, with stupid *edited* phrases like “just say no”. Here is an idea, throw out some “right” legislation that will make this all better. hmmm, anyone hear that? Sounds like NOTHING

The Republicans have made alternate plans to every controversial plan the liberals have pushed through so far. Their budget proposal would have drastically lowered the deficit. Nice try though, ignorant, but decent.

 

It’s interesting though that ALL liberals are ignoring the fact that the entire crowd is joining in. Maybe the one or two people starting it in the crowd are plants, big deal, but when the entire crowd is chanting those excuses are no longer valid. Try as we might, Republicans can’t plant an entire crowd, especially in heavily liberal districts.

[MajorMajorMajor]

Either way, with nationalize health care or privatized health care, I just see myself paying out the *edited*.

 

tylenol, pepto-bismal, sudaphed, benedryl, and hydrogen peroxide is all i need.

[newrayz]

MasterP said:

Your grandparents weren’t wrong. They will be required to see a doctor every few years who will discuss “dying with dignity”. They may not pull the trigger immediately but all 3 of Obama’s top advisors on this healthcare package believe that the best care and procedures should be reserved for those who will benefit the longest from it and that those <10 and >50 should get the least care. <10 because anyone who needs major care that early in life will likely be a welfare case for the entirety of their lives and >50 because they stand to benefit much less from a heart operation than someone say 30.

 

So i understand why people are getting angry.

 

principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions

Ezekiel Emmanuel MD

http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/PIIS0140673609601379.pdf

 

For those of you who don’t know, Ezekiel is one of the 3 health advisors MP mentioned. He is also being blasted as a Nazi for the above article. In it, he talks about medical precedence for people in between 10 and 50. Yet he has objections to his own hypothesis (something that many of the opponents of this seem to forget).

 

Basically this backs up what MasterP is saying. Well kinda, he adds his republican twang to it, but basically it’s why people are yelling at town hall meetings. Mostly old people. Baby boomers.

 

Yet how can one fairly allocate scarce medical interventions?

 

Just a first on the list basis? Or a lottery? What these doctors were trying to do was NOT formulate some kind of evil nazi reform, granted some have twisted that way, but seriously looking at it, its just a hypothesis on a better more just way to dish out care. Now I’m not exactly sure if I agree that this is the best way, it still seems not fair, but neither is our current system. I don’t think this would ever get passed, like never, but I also don’t think it’s evil either.

 

No one wants to see old people or babies die, or anyone for that matter. Yet the points the doctor brings up, albeit ugly, are things that should be thought about. Scenario: 1 month year old, 12 year old, and a 70 year old all need a new liver. Yet there is only one available at the moment. Who do you give it to? Now under the traditional method, its based on who’s name is on the top of the list. For the sake of arguing lets say its the 70 year old. He gets it, and lives for another X years. the other two patients die. To me, that’s throwing away two potential long lives so one can live another couple years. I’m a nazi for wanting to change that? Yes it seems cruel to say “well you are too old, this liver could be better used in a younger body”, but doesn’t it seem just as cruel to give the liver to the 70 year old, and just blame it on fate that the other two had to die?

 

It’s not that <10 and >50 should get least care, but rather they are the ones who need most care, and basically suck the most money. And they will still get the most care, and use the most money, because the chances of them getting sick or needing a transplant is much higher than the ones in between. The frequency of the middle group going to the doctor is much lower than the frequency of the other two groups. So what is wrong with saying that whenever that random time comes along when the middle group gets injured or sick, they get precedence over the <10 and >50. I’m still debating this one in my head, I just can’t get over the ethical rape in the face that this rational creates. But I don’t think it’s NAZI to ponder it or even consider it.

[Ephraim]

I’m really not all that worried, because I doubt anything will get passed this year. Public support for ObamaCare is sinking so fast that any politician who supports it runs a major risk of getting torn apart by the voters. My prediction is that an extremely watered down version of the bill will pass next year. In the mean time, Obama will continue to look like a dope in front of the nation as he tries in vain to explain how his nonsensical proposal is supposed to work. It is strange how such a well-spoken politician turns into a bumbling mess when he has to describe his own plan.

[MasterP]

Ok NuRayz, I got you thinking, now think about this.

 

From the start Obama has said there would be no rationing of care. Now we see that if there is rationing of care, the weakest in society will be the least likely to get care and the CBO predicts the costs will far exceed what Obama has said all along. If there’s not enough money for this program because it’s exceeded predicted cost, as every government program ever proposed by either party has done, then there will be rationing based on this rationale.

 

The biggest problem I have with the new system is the forceful reduction in pharmaceutical costs. Now before you say it, yes I know they’re more expensive than they should be. A good chunk of the money paid for pills goes towards future drug research, which I don’t mind paying for. It makes sense that the more you depend on the current generation of drugs, the more you should be giving to help pay for the next generation of drugs. Now if the drug companies are forced to significantly lower their prices, that’s going to also significantly reduce or eliminate their research efforts. Besides laying off thousands of chemists and engineers, it puts the collective global society at a medical disadvantage when you shut down the world’s largest medical contributor.

 

Sure our current system is as expensive as hell and sure it’s way cheaper in other countries. What makes me ok with our system is that if I need a proceedure I can go someplace in my own country, have their doctors diagnose it one day and be treated the next. There’s no rationing.

 

I think the biggest contributor to the healthcare cost is that so few hospitals and treatment centers are actually run like businesses. It’s no longer about what is most efficient or cost effective, it’s about raw numbers. For example, the Cleveland Clinic is one of the most efficiently run hospitals in the world and also has extremely quick diagnosis to treatment turnarounds. It’s pricey, but you get the treatment that best suits you, not what makes the hospital the most.

[YouWinGameOver]

after mp i didnt read anymore but… it wasnt my grandparents and i would like to see the best doctors however I still consider what they said to be garbled bull*edited* because they forcefully look at obama as a communistic leader.

[newrayz]

MasterP said:

Ok NuRayz, I got you thinking, now think about this.

 

From the start Obama has said there would be no rationing of care. Now we see that if there is rationing of care, the weakest in society will be the least likely to get care and the CBO predicts the costs will far exceed what Obama has said all along. If there’s not enough money for this program because it’s exceeded predicted cost, as every government program ever proposed by either party has done, then there will be rationing based on this rationale.

 

The biggest problem I have with the new system is the forceful reduction in pharmaceutical costs. Now before you say it, yes I know they’re more expensive than they should be. A good chunk of the money paid for pills goes towards future drug research, which I don’t mind paying for. It makes sense that the more you depend on the current generation of drugs, the more you should be giving to help pay for the next generation of drugs. Now if the drug companies are forced to significantly lower their prices, that’s going to also significantly reduce or eliminate their research efforts. Besides laying off thousands of chemists and engineers, it puts the collective global society at a medical disadvantage when you shut down the world’s largest medical contributor.

 

Sure our current system is as expensive as hell and sure it’s way cheaper in other countries. What makes me ok with our system is that if I need a proceedure I can go someplace in my own country, have their doctors diagnose it one day and be treated the next. There’s no rationing.

 

I think the biggest contributor to the healthcare cost is that so few hospitals and treatment centers are actually run like businesses. It’s no longer about what is most efficient or cost effective, it’s about raw numbers. For example, the Cleveland Clinic is one of the most efficiently run hospitals in the world and also has extremely quick diagnosis to treatment turnarounds. It’s pricey, but you get the treatment that best suits you, not what makes the hospital the most.

 

But there is no model which gives complete equality all around (in regards to rationing). Especially when there isn’t enough money. Which is what the doctor brings up in his objections. His “nazi” reform, while it is discriminatory to the elderly, promotes more equality, in terms of rich vs. poor, than any other form of allocation, theoretically at least. But it’s not just that old people are going to be discriminated against, agism is only a component of like 7 more points in his allocation system, including the worse-off, prognosis, social value (treating a teacher vs. a drug addict), and some others. Principle based systems like the Lottery, first come first server, DALY and QALY, UNOS, and others are far from equal, and are actually prone to corruption; even though they are designed to be fair. We have to cut waste and corruption, first and for most, regardless of what type of plan we go with.

 

I do hear you though. Paying for all this is, is ultimately the main reason why people are getting so upset. Yet I do think it’s doable. At the expense of quality? Probably, but with time it should balance out. It does seem like we are ‘watering down’ our health care system. But by watering it down, more people will be able to get care. I can’t see eye to eye with you on this one, because I guess I’m a bit of a socialist. I want to see more people cared for even if it calls for some sacrifices. Hell, I’ll go as far as saying we should care for the undocumented workers. Call me crazy. Even though they are illegal, they still work their asses off, and do a lot of things for people at a much cheaper price. Granted, there are bad ones, but the majority are just trying to work, and will do it for cheap. Does it hurt our country that they are here? Maybe, well I’m not so sure, but I know for a fact that both republicans and democrats use them, even abuse them.

 

It’s the same old argument, like security at the expense of personal freedoms, prolife vs. prochoice, and in this case quantity vs. quality. We need to find a balance, something that is hard as hell to do, especially with such strong emotions on each side. If one is going to bash it, then this health care plan is more socialist than fascist, but just because a plan is more socialist, doesn’t automatically make it a socialist plan; it’s just ‘more’ socialist than the last. A lot of the fears people are getting, are fears which come from information taken out of context. People will see one or two things stick out at them, and yell wolf, without fully understanding the whole thing.

[adam37]

I also like how Obama isnt going to raise the taxes of the middle class….which is obviously not true.

[MasterP]

Well when those taxcuts for the “rich” expire I think alot of people will change their minds about how in the tank Bush was over large businesses.

 

“What do you mean my taxes are $500 higher this year? Those tax cuts were for the rich, not me!”

“But sir, everyone who pays taxes benefitted from that tax cut.”

“But why are MY taxes going up?”

“Because you are part of the forementioned ‘everyone’.”

 

There’s no way Obama can fund this program without raising EVERYONE’S taxes. Sure the rich might be able to cover the initial 50-80 million people, maybe and if so barely, but once people start getting forced off their current plans and onto the government plan there’s no way the “wealthiest 5%” can pay for 180-250 million people. That math just doesn’t compute.

 

You can only steal from the rich for so long…

[YouWinGameOver]

its not stealing its economizing

[MasterP]

Also, it’s important to keep in mind that if this new program destroys the private insurance industry it will never come back. There’s no reason to believe that they will be able to compete with a government program, especially when the government program is entirely subsidized by the taxes of EVERYONE and isn’t required to actually make money like a normal company does. The government doesn’t have to “stay in business”. If they get low on money or go into debt they can simply print more money and truck on.

 

It’s going to be really sad when in 10 years on the program we have rationing, prioritization, long lines, waiting lists, and long wait times for surgeries. The tragic part is that once this happens it’s too late to go back to the system we have now. We’ll forever be on it, like Canada and the UK. Hundreds of thousands dying needlessly each year will be Obama’s legacy to America and history will hate him and his political party for decades.

 

America is one of the last countries that still have hyper-active treatment and pharmaceutical research programs, which Obamacare will force to shut down. The bills being pushed force drug companies to focus their efforts on making current drugs affordable rather than developing new ones. This alone will kill millions. Imagine a drug company working new cancer treatments being forced to abandon research and focus on making alergy meds cheaper. It’s retarded.

 

I have mixed feelings about this though. I know in a very short time it will cripple the Democrat party and hurl them out of power for at least a decade or two but the cost of that would be halting the medical research programs and reverting medical care back to 1930s standards. As good as those pros sound they just don’t outweigh the cons.

[YouWinGameOver]

“The bills being pushed force drug companies to focus their efforts on making current drugs affordable rather than developing new ones. This alone will kill millions. Imagine a drug company working new cancer treatments being forced to abandon research and focus on making alergy meds cheaper.”

 

The government had to abandon stem cell research so that you could go to heaven…

[MasterP]

The government still does stem cell research…

[Nickname]

MasterP said:

There’s no reason to believe that they will be able to compete with a government program

Last time I checked, UPS and FedEx are doing a fine job competing with the postal service…

 

MasterP said:

Hundreds of thousands dying needlessly each year will be Obama’s legacy

Um… I’m gonna point out that people in serious need of surgery/doctors etc will get them all the same, so I strongly doubt your claim, but I will say that hundreds of thousands of lives will be SAVED because the 52 million people without health insurance now will actually be able to get the care they need.

 

MasterP said:

America is one of the last countries that still have hyper-active treatment and pharmaceutical research programs, which Obamacare will force to shut down.

Please show me in his plan where he plans to stop said research programs. Regardless, many of these companies get this money from private donations, which is unlikely to just stop.

 

MasterP said:

I know in a very short time it will cripple the Democrat party and hurl them out of power for at least a decade or two but the cost of that would be halting the medical research programs and reverting medical care back to 1930s standards.

Wow… I think LOL will suffice as a reply to that. And that is coming from someone who isnt even a democrat.

 

A lot of the negative press about all this is being passed on by a very small group of people. Many Canadians, for example, actually enjoy their healthcare system. You won’t find that on Fox News (if you can call that news, it is owned by fox ENTERTAINMENT group for a reason), but I will provide some sources anyways:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p…oryId=111721651

http://www.ourfuture.org/node/21313

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-mann/am…a_b_215256.html

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_12523427

 

I am tired but I will gladly post more if you really want.

 

I guess my only issue with the whole thing is that companies like BCBS employ a LOT of people and if they cannot compete with obamacare then potentially quite a few jobs could be lost.

[MasterP]

Nickname said:

Last time I checked, UPS and FedEx are doing a fine job competing with the postal service…

That’s because USPS isn’t geared to compete with UPS and FedEx. USPS has roughly 13% marketshare and it is assumed that when you ship with them it’s not going to get there fast or in good condition. When was the last time you shipped something of value via USPS?

 

Also, USPS is posting record losses and there are talks of closing offices. They have already cut the hours of rural offices and most of them around where I live close at noon at least one day a week. If USPS weren’t a government entity it would be getting in line for bailout money.

 

Nickname said:

Um… I’m gonna point out that people in serious need of surgery/doctors etc will get them all the same, so I strongly doubt your claim, but I will say that hundreds of thousands of lives will be SAVED because the 52 million people without health insurance now will actually be able to get the care they need.

If there’s a 3 month waiting list on the surgery then no, they won’t be getting it all the same. The only thing preventing people from getting care now is money, if there’s rationing all the money in the world won’t get you that surgery.

 

Oh and btw even with the currently proposed plan that 52 million number you gave will be more like 20. 30 million or so will still remain completely uninsured.

 

Also worth noting, while 100% of Canadians are insured, around 12% aren’t able to get assigned to a family doctor due to shortages. Without a family doctor assignment they aren’t able to get routine care and can’t see specialists because they weren’t referred. This essentially makes them uninsured. Sure they can get emergency care but that’s not what the current debate is about anymore.

 

Nickname said:

Please show me in his plan where he plans to stop said research programs. Regardless, many of these companies get this money from private donations, which is unlikely to just stop.

I didn’t say the government was directly forcing them to stop, I said they were forcing them to make the current drugs cheaper. If the pharmaceutical companies have to sale all their drugs at the $5 Walmart price there’s no way they can continue to fund future research. It’s going to take a ton of private donations to make up for that amount of profit loss and in the current economy that’s not going to happen. They’ll have to cut costs somewhere…

 

Nickname said:

A lot of the negative press about all this is being passed on by a very small group of people. Many Canadians, for example, actually enjoy their healthcare system.

The negative press seems to be spread by much more than Fox because all the mainsteam groups are running nothing but positive coverage about the new plan yet popular support for it is falling hard. Like REALLY hard.

 

Many Americans, for example, actually enjoy their current healthcare system. Roughly 9/10 Americans have some sort of health insurance and 84% rate it good or excellent. Recent polling shows the reform legislation is down to 34% in favor and 49% opposed. The longer this issue drags on the more that number will grow.

 

 

I’ll debunk your sources one at a time.

 

Nickname said:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p…oryId=111721651

NPR typically leans liberal, most of the time actually, but that aside I’ll quote from the article to prove my point.

“Several years ago, when she was on a long waiting list for a pain clinic…”

“about half of Canadians say they would like the option to buy a private health insurance plan. Currently, that’s not allowed.”

 

Commentary on this from Canadians point out that they pay 40-50% in taxes which is consistent with my uncle’s family used to pay when they lived up there. If the middle class hates their 20-25% I can’t imagine how they’d ever tolerate 40% income tax and the double digit sales tax Canadians have.

 

Nickname said:

http://www.ourfuture.org/node/21313

Here’s a bit From the About Us of their website.

 

Quote:

We live in a remarkable political moment: precarious, yet potentially transforming. At the Campaign for America’s Future, our daily work is to bring about the progressive transformation.

 

After three decades of conservative dominance in American politics, we Americans are threatened with economic disintegration, environmental devastation and international

isolation.

 

But out of the ashes of this era of conservative failure comes an historic opportunity for progressives to salvage the American Ideal and shape this young century.

 

That’s where we come in.

 

The Campaign for America’s Future is the strategy center for the progressive movement. Our goal is to forge the enduring progressive majority needed to realize the America of shared prosperity and equal opportunity that our country was meant to be.

So Fox News is biased but these guys aren’t? Wow dude, just, wow.

 

Nickname said:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-mann/am…a_b_215256.html

Huffington Post? Dude…

 

Dude…

 

Even the most liberal people will admit they’re biased. Way to fail.

 

Nickname said:

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_12523427

This is really your only solid source. I’ll debunk it tomorrow.

 

Nickname said:

I guess my only issue with the whole thing is that companies like BCBS employ a LOT of people and if they cannot compete with obamacare then potentially quite a few jobs could be lost.

I’m less concerned about BCBS employees as I am their customers. That’s about 100 million people who’ll lose their coverage if they go under and you know BCBS is a solid insurance company that treats customers right.

 

Personally, I like the health savings account I have and know I won’t get that flexibility on a government plan.

[Nickname]

I really don’t feel like dragging this all out so im only gonna reply to a couple things you said.

 

MasterP said:

If there’s a 3 month waiting list on the surgery then no, they won’t be getting it all the same. The only thing preventing people from getting care now is money, if there’s rationing all the money in the world won’t get you that surgery.

Yeah there will be waiting lists mainly for non-critical surgery and elective surgery. Critical surgery will still be a priority as always. BTW you already have to wait for some of that stuff anyways so yeah…

Also as biased as it is, I liked this quote:

CBS News said:

The reality?

 

“You would have a greater chance of being killed by a Death Star in one of the Star Wars movies than you would being killed by a government-run death panel, which is to say they don’t exist,” Oberlander said.

maybe a little extreme, but probably fairly accurate.

 

MasterP said:

Many Americans, for example, actually enjoy their current healthcare system. Roughly 9/10 Americans have some sort of health insurance and 84% rate it good or excellent. Recent polling shows the reform legislation is down to 34% in favor and 49% opposed. The longer this issue drags on the more that number will grow.

LOL you used fox news polling… I found it online while looking for sources against what you had to say. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/13…hentic-outrage/ just for LOLs I will give the CBS (liberal) alternative

CBS News said:

“Our most recent poll found that more than eight out of 10 Americans think the U.S. health care system either needs fundamental change or needs to be completely rebuilt,” said Sarah Dutton, the head of surveys at CBS News. “Even 70 percent of Republicans feel that way.”

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/16/…in5245168.shtml

 

Anyways… here is a slightly older poll but I think it actually hits right between what we both are saying: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/19/hea…poll/index.html

CNN said:

…nearly three out of four said they’re happy with their overall health care coverage.

 

But satisfaction drops to 52 percent when it comes to the amount people pay for their health care, and more than three out of four are dissatisfied with the total cost of health care in the United States.

 

“When Americans say they support health care reform, that doesn’t mean they want to lose their own coverage or give up their own doctor,” said Keating Holland, CNN’s polling director.

I mean I think that speaks for itself there that even though people rate their coverage as good doesn’t necessarily mean they are happy with the cost or happy with the system at large.

 

Oh and finally, pol of americans vs canadians on their healthcare: http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/…ives/175523.asp

[MajorMajorMajor]

Stay Positive Nickname, I’ve got a good feeling about this!

[adam37]

If you want TRULY unbiased, you have to look at BBC.

Here is an article that has both sides of the argument:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8165267.stm

[newrayz]

1.) The government isn’t forcing the pharmaceutical companies to lower their prices. The Companies themselves are saying they can lower the prices. Also, think about all the money wasted on named brand medication. Generic is just as effective any form and a lot cheaper too. These pharmaceutical companies willing to work with the government, to supply more people with cheaper medication, and in turn probably make more money; it’s not like we are sticking a gun in their face.

 

2.) Premiums. Why the hell are they being raised so god *edited* much? Part of it has to do with the above statement. Some insurance companies will only allow people to get named brand medication, because it’s more expensive. Also it just seems like a vicious cycle. Premiums go up = More people who can’t afford health insurance goes up = more people who need charity cases = more wasted money = rise in premiums. Premiums have gone up over 3 fold compared to raises in minimum wage. When someone has to decide whether to put food on the table or buy medicine for their child, it’s time for *edited*ing reform. People in AMERICA should have the assurance that they will be able to work hard, and provide for their family; without getting screwed over by insurance companies.

 

3.) Types of plans. For one thing, there is ALOT which can be reformed in this section alone. HMO’s are horrible. And people are dropped all the time because they get sick more than the insurance companies want them too. How can you sit there and defend insurance companies, when hundreds of thousands die every year because they were uninsured, OR RATHER kicked off their insurance plan because the insurance companies found them not profitable. You wanna talk about rationing and prioritizing?

 

4.) Insurance profits. Okay, yes, they are allowed to make a profit. But how much? And at what expense? At the expense of millions who get sick and die every year without health insurance? *edited* that. Have you seen some of the compensations these insurance giants have been making? Lets take a look at their CEO’s

 

http://www.sickforprofit.com

UnitedHealth CEO

Stephen J. Hemsley

2007 Compensation

$13.2 million

2008 Compensation (Forbes)

$3,241,042

Former Managing Partner and CFO of Arthur Andersen (BusinessWeek)

Total Value of Unexercised Stock Options (Forbes)

$744,232,068

2009 Options Exercise

$127,001,281

Value of Wayzata, Minnesota Home (Hennepin County Assessor)

$6,640,000

 

And that’s just ONE GUY. ONE PERSON. hmm… we are trying to figure out how to help more people get health insurance, and we have these morons raking in millions with a *edited*ing ‘s’. Now, unless your father is a CEO, why in the flipping world would you believe someone like this? Someone who is just trying to make more money, not provide fair and affordable health insurance.

[YouWinGameOver]

tl dr

 

 

usps is a *edited*ing joke anyways. I work for the post office in my school and when the govt post office delivers mail at random *edited*ing times they always mess some *edited* up. Some of the people there deserve to get fired/”laid off” because they suck at their jobs.

[Nickname]

adam37 said:

If you want TRULY unbiased, you have to look at BBC.

Here is an article that has both sides of the argument:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8165267.stm

lol i love reading some of those opinions, both for and against, are compeletely absurd.

Notables:

retard for healthcare plan said:

A country like the US needs a universal health plan, if it is going to continue to be a leading economy and be competitive with other emerging countries like China, Russia, and India.

lol how the hell does this health care plan have ANYTHING to do with us having a good economy vs china/india/russia etc.

 

retard against healthcare plan said:

I’m appalled at Obama’s claim that huge numbers of Americans do not have access to healthcare. A blatant lie, as every hospital is obliged to care for everyone, even illegals that come to their door.

um that is not really accurate because all hospitals have to do is stabalize patients, if someone needs an organ transplant, for example, they will not get it without insurance. “John Q” anyone?

 

I don’t think any level-minded person will argue that there are definitely both pros and cons to a government-run healthcare plan. I personally think the pros outweigh the cons, MasterP thinks the opposite. Doesn’t mean either of us is right or wrong (that was a lie, of course I am right).

[Author]

Posts