mikem12 Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 I think you have no proof for that. My grandmother has had several major surgeries under our single payer system. You aren't even getting a single payer system. at this point you can't guarnatee anything, nada zilch. the gov can't guarantee there will be ample doctors to care for the 47 million influx of new entitlement patients. They can't guarantee the projected costs. They can't guarantee they won't raise taxes across the Board and they can't guarantee there will be no severe rationing once it's implemented. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 For some it may not be very surprising that we have: 1- Abortions 2- Euthanasia 4- A president that goes out of his way not to assure us that the elderly will get the services they require. 5- And now we are heading towards a govt controlled health care industry. Some wont be or wont see any connection. Peace and Blessings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem12 Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 For some it may not be very surprising that we have: 1- Abortions 2- Euthanasia 4- A president that goes out of his way not to assure us that the elderly will get the services they require. 5- And now we are heading towards a govt controlled health care industry. Some wont be or wont see any connection. Peace and Blessings Here is an article that give you an idea of the gov controlled health care system in Britain. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...cans_97810.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 Here is an article that give you an idea of the gov controlled health care system in Britain. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...cans_97810.html Good read. Thanks! Peace and Blessings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 at this point you can't guarnatee anything, nada zilch. the gov can't guarantee there will be ample doctors to care for the 47 million influx of new entitlement patients. They can't guarantee the projected costs. They can't guarantee they won't raise taxes across the Board and they can't guarantee there will be no severe rationing once it's implemented. They're not new patients. These people exist right now and they are getting their care in the most expensive way possible, at emergency rooms all over the country. By the time most go for care they are sicker and more expensive to treat than they would have been with preventative care. We are all paying for their care through hospitals that never collect on the bills, increased costs for paid and insured care, subsidies and bankruptcies of those who can't afford the medical bills. NO ONE is suggesting Socialized Medicine here. Socialized Medicine would be where the doctors are employed by the government. The doctors will still be privately employed just as they are when they treat medicare or medicaid patients. If you think there is no cost/benefit analysis going on with private insurers in determining who gets care, you're not paying attention to what is going on. Private insurance companies are for profit businesses and they ration care all the time in an effort to protect their profits. Denial of claims is common. Insurers have made an art form of coming up with new reasons to refuse to pay for procedures for their insureds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 (edited) Here is an article that give you an idea of the gov controlled health care system in Britain. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...cans_97810.html There is not one bill under consideration for British Style socialized health care. The article is comparing Apples to Kangaroos. Check out the real facts http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/subjects/health/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/ar...ost-human-life/ Edited August 10, 2009 by Mark B. Morrow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem12 Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 There is not one bill under consideration for British Style socialized health care. The article is comparing Apples to Kangaroos. Check out the real facts http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/subjects/health/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/ar...ost-human-life/ you mean the real clear web site has it wrong? could it be that any of these web sites aren't 100% truthful even the websites you provide could also be held suspect. Which facts are the true ones? here is another reason for the high cost of health care. This one was in the news. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLJxmJZXgNI Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 They're not new patients. These people exist right now and they are getting their care in the most expensive way possible, at emergency rooms all over the country. By the time most go for care they are sicker and more expensive to treat than they would have been with preventative care. We are all paying for their care through hospitals that never collect on the bills, increased costs for paid and insured care, subsidies and bankruptcies of those who can't afford the medical bills. NO ONE is suggesting Socialized Medicine here. Socialized Medicine would be where the doctors are employed by the government. The doctors will still be privately employed just as they are when they treat medicare or medicaid patients. If you think there is no cost/benefit analysis going on with private insurers in determining who gets care, you're not paying attention to what is going on. Private insurance companies are for profit businesses and they ration care all the time in an effort to protect their profits. Denial of claims is common. Insurers have made an art form of coming up with new reasons to refuse to pay for procedures for their insureds. The more one can afford, the better service one gets. However, Obama wants to get rid of that 100%. He is quoted as to saying that it will take 10 to 15 years to end private HC. So what is the difference between what you say he is going to give us v/s what he says he is going to give us v/s what we think he is going to give us??? I was 20 when I moved away from home in MN to CA on my own. I knew I needed a job with health care. So I got a job as a cook. Poor pay, Hot work, Long hours, had to work 40+ and a 2nd part time job just to afford my 1/2 of the rent for a 2br apt in an OK neighborhood. I married a hard working woman who got a job with good Ins. When I finally got a better job behind a desk I got much better Ins. I knew that both her and I having PPO Ins. together was a huge blessing as we started to have kids. 250,000,000 of us have good to excellent Ins. Why do we have to loose that for 100,000,000 (50,000,000 citizens and 50,000,000 Illegals) that don't have Ins., many who may not care, many that do not deserve it, etc.??? It is a tough world. We all have to live in it. The idea is that you work to get out of the tough part. You can't just take the tough part from people and spread it over to another group and give them a double helping of tough world. If Obama wanted to clean up SSI and give those actually disabled a livable wage and improve Medicare I would be all for that. But that is not the plan. Redistribution is the plan. And redistribution is never an answer let alone a good answer. I respect and appreciate what I have, I worked hard to get it and maintain it, and I am careful to keep it. I have little desire to provide excellent health Ins. to the 5 guys just fired at my buddies Kemps job moving and shipping Ice Cream because they come to work with alcohol on their breath, take 3 hour lunches, show up 10+ min late every day and sneak out 15+ min early each day. Immagine. In this economy, employees that do not want $15 an hour jobs that move to $19 an hour in 18 months!!! Why do they deserve a freebie and why do I deserve to pay for their freebie? Peace and Blessings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted August 10, 2009 Author Share Posted August 10, 2009 I think you've pretty much hit the nail on the head, Mac. Most Americans are looking at their personal (health insurance) situation, and although it may not be perfect, they're generally satisfied with it. Then they hear what would appear to be an obvious fallacy; that you can cover 20% more people, spend less money doing it, and improve everyone's healthcare. That falls under the "too good to be true" category, and given the level of apparent secrecy, that being NOONE seems to have a clue what any of the miriad of "bills" floating around actually says, most are left with a feeling of "I've got a lot to lose in this", and reject what they're being told. Obviously for those who favor a "single-payer" system (regardless of whether the bill actually IS single-payer), ANY form or "reform" that provides a greater degree of government involvement is one step closer to achieving that goal. It scares the hell out of those of us who believe the ultimate endpoint of government involvement is "single-payer", and therefore "single-decider" or "single-rationer". Put simply, the question is "What's in it for me", and when the average (insured) American looks at the fatso on one side, and the chain smoker on the other, the answer is "nothing to gain and everything to lose". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 I think you've pretty much hit the nail on the head, Mac. Most Americans are looking at their personal (health insurance) situation, and although it may not be perfect, they're generally satisfied with it. Then they hear what would appear to be an obvious fallacy; that you can cover 20% more people, spend less money doing it, and improve everyone's healthcare. That falls under the "too good to be true" category, and given the level of apparent secrecy, that being NOONE seems to have a clue what any of the miriad of "bills" floating around actually says, most are left with a feeling of "I've got a lot to lose in this", and reject what they're being told. Obviously for those who favor a "single-payer" system (regardless of whether the bill actually IS single-payer), ANY form or "reform" that provides a greater degree of government involvement is one step closer to achieving that goal. It scares the hell out of those of us who believe the ultimate endpoint of government involvement is "single-payer", and therefore "single-decider" or "single-rationer". Put simply, the question is "What's in it for me", and when the average (insured) American looks at the fatso on one side, and the chain smoker on the other, the answer is "nothing to gain and everything to lose". Yep! 60% of of us have nothing to gain, but a lot to loose! 20% are not entitled nor deserving!!! 20% would be entitled, but what % of them is deserving? Peace and Blessings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 The more one can afford, the better service one gets. However, Obama wants to get rid of that 100%. Good. Health should be about need, not ability to pay. What ever happened to the teachings of that guy....what's his name again? Oh yeah, Christ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 (edited) Anyway, you can all stop running around screaming. Oh, and pay close attention to the bold I think someones trying to send a message: GUADALAJARA, Mexico (AP) -- President Barack Obama says Canada's government-run health care system works for Canada, but wouldn't work for the U.S. He warned Canadians that they will probably continue to get dragged into the debate over health care changes in the U.S. by those who oppose his proposals. Opponents of Obama's plan to reshape health care have contended it would result in a government-run system where people are denied care, as they say happens in Canada. Obama said he didn't find Canadians scary but that they were proving a bogeyman for others. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Canadians support their own system but the debate should be left to Americans. The two spoke in response to a question from a Canadian journalist at a North American summit. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Obama-Canadi...ml?x=0&.v=1 I agree with the Prime Minister. If only we would be left out of it, then we could leave it. Edited August 11, 2009 by suv_guy_19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted August 11, 2009 Author Share Posted August 11, 2009 Good. Health should be about need, not ability to pay. What ever happened to the teachings of that guy....what's his name again? Oh yeah, Christ. When Christ healed the sick, he didn't have to pay for his office, malpractice insurance, and several thousands of dollars of student loans. Doctors provide a service, just the same as your plumber or electrician. They are entitled to make a living commensurate with their level of importance in society. To be sure, there are those doctors who volunteer, or work in clinics at wages below what they could expect to make otherwise, but that is their decision. You can't expect all of them to be saints. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Yep! 60% of of us have nothing to gain, but a lot to loose! 20% are not entitled nor deserving!!! 20% would be entitled, but what % of them is deserving? Peace and Blessings When one of the uninsured gets hit by a car or has a heart attack and shows up in the E/R you and I are paying for his care. What do you suggest? Letting them die? BTW, Who are you to decide who is entitled or deserving to live? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
napfirst Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 When one of the uninsured gets hit by a car or has a heart attack and shows up in the E/R you and I are paying for his care. What do you suggest? Letting them die? BTW, Who are you to decide who is entitled or deserving to live? If I'm paying, I have more right than the govt. does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 If I'm paying, I have more right than the govt. does. What about a doctor who decides that someone needs care? Do you have more right than them. As Mark said, you're already paying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 You can't expect all of them to be saints. Nor do I. There isn't a western country on earth where doctors aren't wealthy. There is only one western country where they are filthy rich though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmccap Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 When one of the uninsured gets hit by a car or has a heart attack and shows up in the E/R you and I are paying for his care. What do you suggest? Letting them die? BTW, Who are you to decide who is entitled or deserving to live? But who is to decide what amout of money to take from me and what to spend it on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmccap Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 What about a doctor who decides that someone needs care? Do you have more right than them. As Mark said, you're already paying. Why can't they provide the service for free then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Why can't they provide the service for free then? They aren't running a charity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmccap Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 They aren't running a charity. You expect the rest of us to run a charity then??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem12 Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Good. Health should be about need, not ability to pay. What ever happened to the teachings of that guy....what's his name again? Oh yeah, Christ. the Bible also says if a man has ten sheep he should give one away to those who have nothing. He didn't to support them the rest of their lives. remember the teach a man to fish part. Also, the constitution says you are guaranteed the right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. It says nothing of making your life, liberty and the persuit of happiness at government's expense. it appears you too are one of the entitlement crowd that say the governement owes me because I was born and still breathing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Good. Health should be about need, not ability to pay. What ever happened to the teachings of that guy....what's his name again? Oh yeah, Christ. If you had a balanced view of scripture you would know the double edged sword offered when using Jesus as a comparison or example in relationship to how man does things. He would have told many that he was not here to heal their physical, but spiritual. He would have told many to get up off their butts and fight the good fight, take care of and provide for their families instead of sitting sit in a chair collecting welfare and free medical and waiting for the next free hand out? He would have told the law breakers to obey the law, and a law limiting immigration is not an unjust law. He would not have cast His perls before swine. You would know this if you had a balanced belief based upon all scripture instead of your cherry picked beliefs that meet your personal needs, but have no wisdom or salvation within. Denying what God says in the bible because you don't like it is to deny God. Scripture is not to fit us. We are to fit it. Why did not Jesus become King of the land and open up free food and free health care to everyone? Per you, that is the kind of thing He should have done. But He did not do that. Why??? So why even use Him as an example when you don't believe in Him or what He says? All of what He says. Peace and Blessings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 When one of the uninsured gets hit by a car or has a heart attack and shows up in the E/R you and I are paying for his care. What do you suggest? Letting them die? BTW, Who are you to decide who is entitled or deserving to live? How droll. We have never withheld ER care from visitors, illegal aliens, or others. I am 1000% aware of who pays the bills for these people. I, and probably everyone else on this site, has no problems providing ER care to travelers or even Illegals for free. However, travelers usually have the ability and Ins. to pay for it. Here is the question you should have asked, but would not work for your red herring. Are you going to pay ELECTIVE surgery for travelers or illegals? I certainly do not want to! Peace and Blessings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem12 Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Nor do I. There isn't a western country on earth where doctors aren't wealthy. There is only one western country where they are filthy rich though. Bull shit! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.