Do we need universal Healthcare

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Steveb7583. Show Steveb7583's posts

    Do we need universal Healthcare

    Oringinally from www.politicalinput.com

    I would strongly disagree with anyone who states: "let the strong have health insurance, and the weak not, and thus die." This is the 21st century, not the dark ages. Besides, who would one define as "weak." Those who have been laid off and lost coverage? Those who cannot get a decent job that offers health insurance because they live in a poverty stricken city? Those who even have health insurance but often find that many procedures/treatments will not be covered because of a pre-existing condition clause? The problem is, private health insurance companies exist like any other capitalistic corporation, TO MAKE MONEY! Not to provide the best possible services to their clients. On many occasion - in fact yesterday - Cassy's doctor was forced to take her off of a necessary prescribed medication because her insurance company deemed it new and experimental. So what you have now, and have had for some time, are insurance companies who decide what care is necessary, and what care is unnecessary for a patient. Is that right? No. They sure as hell didn't go to medical school. On top of this, these predatory insurance companies ratchet up premiums to the point where coverage is unattainable for those who seek to find and buy a plan on their own, rather than thru an employer. I deem it unacceptable that the United States - the so-called greatest country in the world - has 50M of its own citizens who are essentially shut off from health care because the costs are so outrageous. Every human being has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness right? How is one supposed to pursue happiness in life if they cant even have an ear infection fixed because the office visit and medication cost a combined $400? The system is currently broken.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from macnh1. Show macnh1's posts

    Re: Do we need universal Healthcare

    Of course we don't.

    The cost will go up, the access to healthcare and the quality will go down.  This is a FACT.

    No rational educated person would support a system with total government run healthcare.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Steveb7583. Show Steveb7583's posts

    Re: Do we need universal Healthcare

    In Response to Re: Do we need universal Healthcare:
    [QUOTE]Of course we don't. The cost will go up, the access to healthcare and the quality will go down.  This is a FACT. No rational educated person would support a system with total government run healthcare.
    Posted by macnh1[/QUOTE]

    Originally written by Jared at www.Politicalinput.com

    The fact is, the government will spend this money not only on care, but also on the jobs necessary to effectuate it. If we can spend the money on bombs and equipment to avenge a few thousand deaths on 9-11, then we can spend the money to fight cancer, Alzheimer's, and hearth disease, that kills hundreds' of thousands per year. The insurance companies will have to reorganize, or vanish, much the same way companies that produced type writers, gas guzzling cars, and VCR's have. :)

    - - Im battling with this type of mantality words of wisdom
     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from GreginMedford. Show GreginMedford's posts

    Re: Do we need universal Healthcare

    I would strongly disagree with anyone who states: "let the strong have health insurance, and the weak not, and thus die."
    -----------------------------
    Now all we have to do is find someone who states that.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from dexter67. Show dexter67's posts

    Re: Do we need universal Healthcare


    "So what you have now, and have had for some time, are insurance companies who decide what care is necessary, and what care is unnecessary for a patient. Is that right? No. They sure as hell didn't go to medical school."


    Funny but I've never been told by my insurance company what care was necessary for me. You know who decided? My doctor. The fact is that insurance companies cover pretty damn near everything. But of course we only hear about those instances where an insurer may not cover an experimental drug from time to time. So people like Steve latch on to that as a talking point. Sadly people like him are misinformed. The thing is that those experimental drugs eventually end up being drugs that ARE covered by insurers. 
    Oh and the medical directors at insurance companies DID go to medical school. Just another thing you're misinformed about. Insurers also have case managers, which are registered nurses. Bet you didn't know that either. 
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from GreginMedford. Show GreginMedford's posts

    Re: Do we need universal Healthcare

    "So what you have now, and have had for some time, are insurance companies who decide what care is necessary, and what care is unnecessary for a patient. Is that right?
    -------------------------

    No, its bullschiit
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from gabootwo2006. Show gabootwo2006's posts

    Re: Do we need universal Healthcare

    In Response to Do we need universal Healthcare:
    [QUOTE]Oringinally from www.politicalinput.com I would strongly disagree with anyone who states: "let the strong have health insurance, and the weak not, and thus die." This is the 21st century, not the dark ages. Besides, who would one define as "weak." Those who have been laid off and lost coverage? Those who cannot get a decent job that offers health insurance because they live in a poverty stricken city? Those who even have health insurance but often find that many procedures/treatments will not be covered because of a pre-existing condition clause? The problem is, private health insurance companies exist like any other capitalistic corporation, TO MAKE MONEY! Not to provide the best possible services to their clients. On many occasion - in fact yesterday - Cassy's doctor was forced to take her off of a necessary prescribed medication because her insurance company deemed it new and experimental. So what you have now, and have had for some time, are insurance companies who decide what care is necessary, and what care is unnecessary for a patient. Is that right? No. They sure as hell didn't go to medical school. On top of this, these predatory insurance companies ratchet up premiums to the point where coverage is unattainable for those who seek to find and buy a plan on their own, rather than thru an employer. I deem it unacceptable that the United States - the so-called greatest country in the world - has 50M of its own citizens who are essentially shut off from health care because the costs are so outrageous. Every human being has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness right? How is one supposed to pursue happiness in life if they cant even have an ear infection fixed because the office visit and medication cost a combined $400? The system is currently broken.
    Posted by Steveb7583[/QUOTE]



    Steveb7583,

    You are right about one thing. The health care system in this country is broken and does need overhauled. However, nationalizing health care isn't the answer because you then leave the decisions to your health to the bureaucrats and you end up getting rationed care and just as many problems, if not more, then when you started with and that is just unacceptable. Especially, for the pricetag that would be passed onto the American taxpayer who is already overstretched and overburdened with paying for other "nationized things" within the economy. I'd rather have the decision-making in the hands of the people who know what they are talking about - the doctors. I'd rather have a system that would leave the high quality of care the way it is, but also be prudent in lowering the financial burden on the patient. Why can't drug companies cut their costs, per pill, to the consumer? Why can't basic procedures, like treating an ear infection, fall under a more affordable cost structure? Why can't more basic care, cost effective facilities (cuts, bruises, colds, ear infections) be part of the solution and be more prevalent in the inner cities to ease the financial burden of those who can barely afford care now?

    However, the truth is, that business is business and everyone is out to turn a profit in this industry and no one wants to give up their share of the pie. There is just too much money to be had within the structure of how things are charged to the patients by drug companies, hospital higher-ups (suits), doctors, and insurance companies and "there within lies the rub" of this whole situation. What to do to make it "fair" all the way around so the patient doesn't get pumbled finanically, yet those on the medical side to turn their profit also?

    In addition, this whole structure within the insurance companies on what is "covered" and what is "not covered" is almost a scam. Pre-existing conditions are just another way the insurance companies protect themselves so that they are not libel for some patients "bad habits" (overweight, smoking, drug usage and so on) just in case something goes wrong with the corrective procedure and because of that many are denied coverage. Therefore, the patient is stuck with the full financial burden of the corrective procedure and that can be very expensive. Yet, that is how the system works currently and that is wrong. Care is care and if the corrective procedure makes the patient healthier then it should be covered. Isn't that the whole purpose of healthcare? To get patients better and healthier?

    The rest of your post, is really just a blame game. You stated "let the strong have health insurance, and the weak not, and thus die." A little harsh, don't you think? It isn't up to me, who has a good job and health insurance, to help you out and your situation. It is up to you and how you take responsibility towards how you make a better life for yourself in this country. Stop whining and complaining. If you want a better job, then earn it. If you want to get out of the inner city (where it is bad), get educated, work hard, earn your status in life and get out of the inner city. It isn't up to me to bail you out of your problems. There isn't any handouts, freebies or hand-holding you through situations once you become an adult with responsibities in this world. You create the road and path that you evenually drive on. It just depends on the choices you make. You even wrote it yourself. Every human being has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness right? Take responisibility and go after it.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Pymus. Show Pymus's posts

    Re: Do we need universal Healthcare

    Universal health care is a ruse! Look around. See anyone dying in the streets in this country? Ever hear of anyone getting kicked out of an emergency room?
    Of course not. Ask any (working) American. Healthcare is probably 4th or 5th on the list of concern. Jobs, safety for them and their families and the economy are probably numbers one two or three.

    Again - This is Barak Obama at his finest. He's never done anything in his life but have his hand out to take other peoples money first for himself then for his party and politics. Universal Heath Care is only a vehicle for him to take control of your life through government.

    What a sad sad sad state of affairs. Throw the bum out!
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from wwsf4ever. Show wwsf4ever's posts

    Re: Do we need universal Healthcare

    In Response to Do we need universal Healthcare:
    [QUOTE]Oringinally from www.politicalinput.com I would strongly disagree with anyone who states: "let the strong have health insurance, and the weak not, and thus die." This is the 21st century, not the dark ages. Besides, who would one define as "weak." Those who have been laid off and lost coverage? Those who cannot get a decent job that offers health insurance because they live in a poverty stricken city? Those who even have health insurance but often find that many procedures/treatments will not be covered because of a pre-existing condition clause? The problem is, private health insurance companies exist like any other capitalistic corporation, TO MAKE MONEY! Not to provide the best possible services to their clients. On many occasion - in fact yesterday - Cassy's doctor was forced to take her off of a necessary prescribed medication because her insurance company deemed it new and experimental. So what you have now, and have had for some time, are insurance companies who decide what care is necessary, and what care is unnecessary for a patient. Is that right? No. They sure as hell didn't go to medical school. On top of this, these predatory insurance companies ratchet up premiums to the point where coverage is unattainable for those who seek to find and buy a plan on their own, rather than thru an employer. I deem it unacceptable that the United States - the so-called greatest country in the world - has 50M of its own citizens who are essentially shut off from health care because the costs are so outrageous. Every human being has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness right? How is one supposed to pursue happiness in life if they cant even have an ear infection fixed because the office visit and medication cost a combined $400? The system is currently broken.
    Posted by Steveb7583[/QUOTE]

    STEVEY... Maybe you should actually pay attention to OBAMA's next infomercial..... 
    He said that choices would have to be made, and at one point was asked about those choices.  He intimated that the gov't would have to use Productivity of the patient vs cost in allowing procedures.....  SO why might you think that the companies who develop drugs should give them cheaper given all the costs they beared. WHat makes you think that the gov't pencil pusher would decide the productivity vs cost graph for Cassy was favorable and therefore she gets treated.

    The problem is ; at this time there are some very expensive treatments (Agreed) However you have the choice on whether you want to go indebt to have them or not.  When Obama care gets approved (if it does) THE GOV'T WILL HAVE THAT CHOICE NOT YOU! 
    The LIAR in chief keeps saying you will be able to keep your Dr and Insurance- BUT THAT IS A LIE!   Your Dr will not accept 15 cents on the dollar (which is what some economists say the gov't will pay) for his services as long as their are insurance companies and other patients around..... and YOUR insurance company will not attempt to compete with the gov't as they have NO BOTTOM LINE- (Profitability) that they have to maintain.  Once the go'vt has control over healthcare the quality of it will go right down the SEWER....

    I know those of you that do not have gov't healthcare do not believe that- but please let me relate a few things to you.
    The gov't runs VA healthcare....
    The Gov't runs Military Healthcare (Walter Reed- Most deplorable conditions in the country).

    I did a 22 yr military career- always proud to defend the country I believed in (wouldn't do it now). During my career- I actually got a deep gash on my left wrist once.... I went to Military medical- I waited 2 hrs to be seen with my arm wrapped in a bloody towel - then I was handed Motrin told the Dr was very busy and told I might want to come back tomorrow.  The bleeding had not stopped yet, so I figured I had better wait. about 30 minutes later a corpsman came out took me in a room and bandaged it and told me come back tomorrow to see the Dr.  I changed said dressing 4X that night, went to the ER and they ended up putting 22 stitches in that wound. 
    I had to go back to the Dr the next day and he was Pissed.... Not that the Corpsman didn't tell him.... but rather that I went elsewhere over night.  It would have been fine until morning he said (Even though he never looked at it) .  The A-hole pulled the stitches to see in the wound, and said Good sewing job, as he did- then re-stitched it with 18 stitches.  HMMM?  Quality gov't healthcare.

    Let me relate another story- different command-  Went to sickcall with a severe pain in my right side.... Barely able to walk. Everything I had in me was coming out forcefully wither orally or the other end.  Seemed pretty straight forward to me....  I thought I had apendicitis... Well I got handed something (Metmucil?) to attempt to fix my regularity.  The next day I returned in a Sweat almost unable to move.  They still did not believe that I had a problem- so they put me on a gurney and allowed me to wait for the Dr. 
    When he came in the room he placed a drape over me and put a towel over my eyes so that I could not see him.  When he touched my right abdomen every single muslce in my body clenched.  It launched me 4-6" off the gurney- a half-hour later I was on a stretcher being lifted off the ships flight deck by winch into a helo- so I  could be med-evac'd to the local hospital from a shipyard.  I got to the hospital and they kept dilly dallying.... well the apendix ruptured, and I ended up in Septic Shock.  A week and a half later I finally was under control enough to be allowed to leave the hospital.  OF course they had BOTCHED the damed thing so bad that the Dr. Gave me 6 weeks of no work... as I had TWO surgeries through my abdomenal wall.... ALL because of GOOD GOV't medicine...

    I KNOW you are thinking those are military medicine.... that is not what we shall get....  Well that is debateable as you will get what can be allowed.

    SO let me relate another story to you... I am a military Retiree and as such Me and My wife have an insurance plan through the gov't called TRI-CARE....
    This is exactly the kind of care that Obama proposes for all of you....  Let me relate to you something....  on 1/2/07 My wife had a minor heart attack... She was ambulanced to the nearest hospital which was a block away.  They took her into the ER, got her all wired up gave her medication, the entire bit.  I walked in just afew minutes later and had to wait for the admin desk to be available (as that was most important to the hosp- I was not allowed to be with my wife before the bills were accounted for).
    Anyway- to further upset me the ER had several people I KNEW to be illegally in the country as I had told my landscaper they were not allowed on my property when he told me that they had no documentation.  Anyway I digress... I finally made it to the counter 45 minutes later... and demanded to see my wife. 

    The reply was this will only take a few minutes, and I said until I see her I am not signing anything .  SO they asked for my insurance card, and I PROUDLY HANDED HER THE TRI-CARE CARD. US MILITARY RETIREE INSURANCE.. US HOSPITAL... HMMM this should work.  She asked me for another payer card.  I said HUH?  She said we would like to have another insurance card if you have one sir.  I said : I am sorry that is our insurance at this time as I am out of work.  

    She said well I will be right back, and she went back where my wife was, came back and said "WE HAVE TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS". HUH?... WHAT?

    My wife was just taken from me by ambulance- I come over- you don't let me see her and I have to make arrangements? />>> WHAT?
     
    I got out of my chair and told her she had better unlock the door and let me see my wife, or I would break it down.  She unlocked it (never realizing what she had said to me - I am sure). I went in and saw Tina- and she told me that they were moving her to another hospital. HUH? SO they stabilized her and sent her by ambulance to a hospital almost 60 miles away (I followed in our car).

    I guess that was the "Military retiree" charity hopsital.  The people there were great, it was a hospital affiliated with a church, and they were very caring.   HOWEVER, those who get the GOV't insurance will be treated the way my wife was unless the gov't is the only payer. 

    At this time my wife drives 40+ miles to go to the only DR. That will accept Tri-care as an insurer.  She has semiannual cardiac stuff done as follow up, and has to drive 40 miles to get it.  GOV't insurance sux.  

    She is 50 yrs old and the Dr recomended a mammogram almost two months ago.  The questions have flown back and forth between the pencil pusher and the Dr and that simple (preventative test) should finally get done next thursday.

    For an American there is nothing worse than having Gov't healthcare- YOU have no choices and no input into your care.  You must sit and await the pencil pusher's decision and you are bound by it. 

    When tests were required, my wife has received calls (from the gov't insurer) asking such questions as the age of our children, whether she was still working, etc etc ... the only reason for these inquiries is so that they could decide whether her situation warranted the expense.... DON't kid yourself.... if she is deemed expendible they will refuse anything they desire to do that with.  OUR president said that to all of America- when the benefit she provides to society outweights the cost of insurance the gov't will make the choices to allow your family memebers to suffer and die.

     Mammograms take 2 months?

    Be careful America about what you ask for.... they will take away all your ability to determine your own fate....

    People in GB have been dying from curable forms of cancer at a rate more than 10% higher than here... same with Canada... as the gov't determines the cost outweighs their benefit.

    "WE" have lived through it.  I have other horrendous stories I could tell you.... 6 months to get an MRI and the only reason it was approved at that point was that a civilian Dr threatened to sue Tri-care as I had a problem while on his property.  Otherwise they had refused it twice.  The stories of problems mount....

    Don;t get me wrong- IF you are living in an area that the gov't wants you to stay in..... (in Tri Care case- a huge military area) then the serviceis a little better as they partner with the military care facility....  However, if a gov't insurance determines where you can live... do you have any freedome left?

    BE CAREFUL OF WHAT YOU ASK FOR...BECAUSE THE GRASS IS ALWAYS GREENER ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE- BECAUSE THE SEPTIC TANK IS BACKED UP.

    For those of you that believe civilian insurers will stay and play I must ask you this one question;  WOuld you participate of one of the other players was also the referreee and rules makers for the game, and had no limits to what they could spend or deny while you had to live within the rules? 

    DON't kid yourself- you will have gov't medicine and only gov't provided care..... and if it is so good .. WHY ARE THERE TWO CODESILS BUILT INTO THE BILL.....

    1) The UAW members will be expempt from TAXES should our gov't be forced to tax health care benefits..... HMMMM- Obama bin liar taking care of his donors? 
    2) Why doesn;t Congress and the president have to use the same health care we do.... They are improving it right.  They are making it better (just like theirs, right?)... Then why do they not have to use it also?  MAKE THEM USE IT ALSO- MAKE IT REQUIRED FOR CONGRESS TO USE THE NEW Healthcare.  Several of them have been asked. and have said I have NO plans to change.  WHY?. />> WHY????? 

    Gov't provided healthcare MAY help cassy.... but then again more than likely they will also decide that new/experimental drugs are not worth the cost vs productivity.....  Just like your president told you they would.  

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from wwsf4ever. Show wwsf4ever's posts

    Re: Do we need universal Healthcare

    In Response to Re: Do we need universal Healthcare:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Do we need universal Healthcare : Originally written by Jared at www.Politicalinput.com The fact is, the government will spend this money not only on care, but also on the jobs necessary to effectuate it. If we can spend the money on bombs and equipment to avenge a few thousand deaths on 9-11, then we can spend the money to fight cancer, Alzheimer's, and hearth disease, that kills hundreds' of thousands per year. The insurance companies will have to reorganize, or vanish, much the same way companies that produced type writers, gas guzzling cars, and VCR's have. :) - - Im battling with this type of mantality words of wisdom
    Posted by Steveb7583[/QUOTE]
    STEVE, you really havew no clue about what you speak.

    So the gov't is going to make more jobs to get better service?.... OKAY.... But if we allow more people to become Dr's doesn;t that mean that more inferior people will make it througjh the training and therewfore the quality will drop?

    People like you amaze me.. OMBAMA says it is possible so you believe it....

    NOT eveyrone can be a Dr, Not everyone can be an engineer, but your president makes you believe that we just need to give away more free school and these people will materialize... WRONG!

    IF you see a building fall, or a train collide it probably has something to do with an anegineering oops.....  SORRY.. Inferior people getting the title of Dr or Engineer just means that we get a lower quality of work from them. 
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from wwsf4ever. Show wwsf4ever's posts

    Re: Do we need universal Healthcare

    In Response to Re: Do we need universal Healthcare:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Do we need universal Healthcare : Steveb7583, You are right about one thing. The health care system in this country is broken and does need overhauled. However, nationalizing health care isn't the answer because you then leave the decisions to your health to the bureaucrats and you end up getting rationed care and just as many problems, if not more, then when you started with and that is just unacceptable. Especially, for the pricetag that would be passed onto the American taxpayer who is already overstretched and overburdened with paying for other "nationized things" within the economy. I'd rather have the decision-making in the hands of the people who know what they are talking about - the doctors. I'd rather have a system that would leave the high quality of care the way it is, but also be prudent in lowering the financial burden on the patient. Why can't drug companies cut their costs, per pill, to the consumer? Why can't basic procedures, like treating an ear infection, fall under a more affordable cost structure? Why can't more basic care, cost effective facilities (cuts, bruises, colds, ear infections) be part of the solution and be more prevalent in the inner cities to ease the financial burden of those who can barely afford care now? However, the truth is, that business is business and everyone is out to turn a profit in this industry and no one wants to give up their share of the pie. There is just too much money to be had within the structure of how things are charged to the patients by drug companies, hospital higher-ups (suits), doctors, and insurance companies and "there within lies the rub" of this whole situation. What to do to make it "fair" all the way around so the patient doesn't get pumbled finanically, yet those on the medical side to turn their profit also? In addition, this whole structure within the insurance companies on what is "covered" and what is "not covered" is almost a scam. Pre-existing conditions are just another way the insurance companies protect themselves so that they are not libel for some patients "bad habits" (overweight, smoking, drug usage and so on) just in case something goes wrong with the corrective procedure and because of that many are denied coverage. Therefore, the patient is stuck with the full financial burden of the corrective procedure and that can be very expensive. Yet, that is how the system works currently and that is wrong. Care is care and if the corrective procedure makes the patient healthier then it should be covered. Isn't that the whole purpose of healthcare? To get patients better and healthier? The rest of your post, is really just a blame game. You stated "let the strong have health insurance, and the weak not, and thus die." A little harsh, don't you think? It isn't up to me, who has a good job and health insurance, to help you out and your situation. It is up to you and how you take responsibility towards how you make a better life for yourself in this country. Stop whining and complaining. If you want a better job, then earn it. If you want to get out of the inner city (where it is bad), get educated, work hard, earn your status in life and get out of the inner city. It isn't up to me to bail you out of your problems. There isn't any handouts, freebies or hand-holding you through situations once you become an adult with responsibities in this world. You create the road and path that you evenually drive on. It just depends on the choices you make. You even wrote it yourself. Every human being has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness right? Take responisibility and go after it.
    Posted by gabootwo2006[/QUOTE]

    Gabootwo... I know you and I have had our disagreements in the past... but I would love to say GREAT LETTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    This is exactly what I think.. Beuraucracies make it worse.....
    One thing you failed to mention is part of the reason that drug companies initially charge so much for their pills is..... THE GOV"T!  The testing and proving for a drug in America is twice what it is in other countries, and that expense is borne in the cost of bringing the drug to market.  Like any business the drug coumpany has to retire that debt (For testing) within a set schedule... usually somewhere in the first 5-7 yrs (at longest).  As such, depending on how many patients are expected to need a drug the company prices it to retire the debt.  STEVE probably doesn't pay his own debt off so he doesn't understand that.  Also we AGAIN... have the problem of frivolous lawsuits....  I took this drug and it made my eyes water everyday when I took it- I want $10mil... OKAY!  Then the drug company will turn around and attach that to debt that needs to be retired....

    Look at the price of medication today.... REALLY.... LOOK.... the stuff used by the majority or that is old technology is really quite inexpnsive.  WALMART sells over 400 generics at $3 a month (that is with the retailer markup).  It is the stuff that is a "niche drug"... that is fewer people use it and it is not mass produced or it is very new that these prices soar.

    Now what we want to do is have everyone help Steve pay his bills. It is not bad enough that I have to help pay his mortgage, and I have to give him a tax free car, and he got $600 handed to him last year, but now I have to pay for everything he wants or needs?..... WHY?

    STEVE... I will be honest with you.... I was never an inner city guy.  I grew up in the burbs.... but I was the son of a very poor couple.  We had three children. During the winter of 76/77 living in the northeast we lived in a home with No Natural Gas an No electricity.  The parents couldn't afford it. We went to school and the parents went to work (even when they did not work) for the warmth.  I spent time at the neighbors house shivering as I had been in a house that was 40 degrees allnight long. Each one of us children has a sleeping bag inside a sleeping bag covered with two blankets.  Mom/Dad sold one car, to try and get money for food.  We ate Tripe/Beef heart and a heck of a lot of soup bones.  The gov't gave us cheese so we havd grilled (and I do mean grilled) cheese sandwiches  which were cooked on an old grill on the deck.  Mom /Dad broke up that year but all of us stayed togeter (as a family) to fight our way through adversity.
    I was not given freeschool.  I was not given free healthcare... I too worked several jobs to make ends meet.  I swore my children would never go through what I had...PERIOD. In 1979 I met a lady and we fell in love, and had two wonderful children.    In 1984 I desided to join the military, I went in and while I was active I got a Mechanical engineering degree.  I continued my career, and my loving wife moved everywhere the gov't asked me to go.  We made 10 moves in 22 yrs.... but the family was MOST IMPORTANT and we went as a unit. 
    Just before I got out I got an advanced engineering degree.  I got injured at the very end of my career and cannot work using that advanced degre- however, I do work.  I have moved out of the area I grew up in, just because my back yard (that Mom & dad had) is now the property of 16 estates.  We got nothing as mom sold it for the debts owed on it to a developer.  ANyway, today I am considered in my area as well off... I need no help from my gov't because I made it that way.  Our gov't would ove to have you indebted to them, as it gives the ruling dictator power.  BREAK FREE.....  Demand something better!  NOT Gov't- but better. YOU do not know how bad gov't medicine is.... and YOU refure to listen to the rightwing commercials that try to show you.. IT IS TERRIBLE.  When costs outweigh gains they give you ZERO! 

    For this country to ever truly be great again is going to require something this generation does not have...... 

    It is going to require people like steve to be willing to give up for the good of the country, to be accountable and responsible for himself and his family.  I am sorry but anyone who is saying Uncle sam help me- is not any of those things.  That is what Friends and family are for... to pull you through the hard times, and ease the pain.  It is not my job, or responsibility to cover any portion of your needs... HOWEVER, if I knew you Steve I assure you as a friend I help my friends... 

    Obama de Robin Hood needs to stop.....

    He is a LIAR of the utmost.... Some have told me that we made a huge mstake electing him....  I have heard the jokes about him going away... but if you really want to stop all these lies... SHOOT the guy programming the teleprompter..... LOL cause without the prompter we get more Uhhs and Ahhs from Barak than we did for George W.     
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from 7x4. Show 7x4's posts

    Re: Do we need universal Healthcare

    Friday's WSJ

     

    The Dangers of Fannie Mae Health Care

    A public plan would have certain advantages. That's precisely the problem.

    }

    President Obama and most congressional Democrats say they want to preserve private health insurance. They also want to add a "public plan" to compete with private insurance plans. Their basic argument is that a public plan would offer needed competition, save money through low administrative costs and zero profits, realize greater economies of scale, and be a superior negotiator of the prices of medical services and technology.

    [COMMENTARY] David Klein

    The first three arguments are bogus. The fourth argument is only half-bogus -- but the half that isn't reveals a great danger: If a public plan is inserted into private insurance markets, the American health-care system could rapidly evolve into a single-payer system, which would have devastating effects on R&D for new medical technology.

    The first argument, that we need a public plan to spur competition, just isn't plausible. Hundreds of health insurance plans already exist, and employer benefit managers can choose among numerous alternatives. There is no lack of firms willing to compete to provide health insurance.

    As to the second argument, what is to be saved by avoiding profits? Nonprofit health insurance firms are common, including many of the Blue Cross-Blue Shield plans. Nonprofit status has not proved to be a reliable source of efficiency and cost-saving. The addition of new nonprofit cooperatives and the like -- as a bipartisan group of senators has proposed -- would make little difference, unless the new plans are given the power to set prices and take on extra risk supported by government subsidies.

    Would a public plan have lower administrative costs? Well, how often are public enterprises run more efficiently than private ones? Why did practically all economically advanced nations dismantle their public airlines, phone companies, and so on, invariably obtaining lower administrative costs and consumer prices?

    As Stanford University health economist Victor Fuchs has pointed out, what "insurance" firms actually sell to large employers -- which account for the single largest segment of the entire health-care market -- is usually administrative services, not actual insurance. (Large companies are not insured; they pay benefits directly.) There is no reason to expect a Medicare-like public plan to match the administrative efficiency of Aetna, Blue Cross-Blue Shield, Cigna, UnitedHealth Group, and WellPoint. Medicare doesn't even try. It outsources most administrative services to the private sector.

    Turning to public plans like Medicare and Medicaid for more efficient administration is a fool's errand.

    What about economies of scale? Aetna currently serves about 18 million subscribers, UnitedHealth Care serves between 25 million and 30 million, and WellPoint more than 35 million. That is more than is served by the health-care monopoly of Canada (population 33.6 million), and more than the entire health-care systems of most European nations. Once a plan reaches a few million subscribers, there may not be a lot of economies of scale left that can enable public plans to provide lower prices.

    Finally, there is the crucial task of negotiating prices for doctors, hospitals, clinics, drugs, devices and thousands of other items essential to modern health care. Here, there are really two arguments for a public plan. The first is about bargaining skill and the firm size, basic ingredients in any negotiating environment.

    There is no reason to think the administrators of a public plan will possess skills superior to those honed by private plan personnel during years of negotiations under the pressure of competition. Nor is there any reason to think that mere size would help.

    True enough, relatively small European nations routinely obtain better drug prices than are achieved by mammoth American pharmacy benefit managers such as Express Scripts (50 million patients) and Medco (60 million patients), each of whose numbers exceed the entire citizenry of all but the largest European nations. Even sparsely populated New Zealand (population four million) gets better prices than the giant drug-price negotiators in the American private market.

    Their success is due to what economists call "monopsony power." Monopsony occurs when a single buyer negotiates prices with several competing sellers (as opposed to monopoly, where there are many buyers but one seller).

    Thus, if you want to sell your branded drug in New Zealand, your prices are negotiated with PharMac, a branch of the government. Much the same is true when selling to Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, and essentially the entire developed world save the United States. The negotiating power of these government entities results from monopsony, not superior skill.

    For example, the various sellers of cholesterol drugs (Lipitor, Crestor, and so on) have to compete with one another while they all face a single government negotiator. If one seller balks at government prices, it leaves competitors to pick up more sales. The same is true for most other drug classes and most medical devices. This uneven battle ensures that negotiated prices will be well below those in a competitive market.

    But here is where the huge risks of creating a "public plan" to compete with private insurance firms come into focus. Foremost among these risks are the effects of monopsony power in the purchase of medical technology.

    The U.S. is unique because it alone is the source of half of world-wide profits that provide the payoff for the complex, lengthy, and expensive process of developing new treatments. When other nations construct their health-care systems, they ignore the impact of their pricing policies on R&D incentives. As the dominant R&D funding wellhead, we do not have that option.

    Competitive markets have generated the prices and the profits necessary to induce a steady flow of medical innovation in this country. A public plan option would tend to dismantle that system. The people in charge will not know how to set reimbursement levels to motivate reasonable R&D efforts, and there is no reason to expect them to try. In public plans, the tried-and-true method is to push the prices of suppliers down until something gives -- too few doctors willing to take on Medicare patients, for example -- and then to ease up. That is a destructive approach to medical technology R&D.

    Who knows what drugs will not be developed if reimbursement levels for a new multiple-sclerosis treatment are too measly? In virtually every advanced economy but our own, pricing authorities simply make sure prices are high enough so that existing drugs continue to be made available. We can expect a public plan here to do the same. The inevitable result is to drastically under-incentivize R&D.

    This problem would not matter if a public plan remained small -- but it would likely grow into a monster. Monopsony negotiating power will generate lower prices, so many consumers will switch to a public plan. Employers eager to offload health-care costs will also dump unwilling employees into the public plan. That is the basis for the Lewin Group's much-cited prediction that a public plan would come to dominate any market in which it is allowed to compete.

    Bargaining power, however, is far from the only potential source of below-market prices for public plans. In the home mortgage market, the public plans -- known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- were for years viewed by investors as less risky because they would be bailed out by the federal government if they took on too much risk. That translated into lower prices (the interest rates paid by borrowers), which eventually translated into extraordinary and unseemly growth, culminating in bankruptcy and a federal bailout.

    The lesson for health insurance is clear. All insurance plans -- especially in health-care markets -- have to take on risk. Prudent planning, including the maintenance of reasonable financial reserves, is necessary. That increases costs. It would be all too easy for a public plan to gain a competitive advantage by taking on extra risk while keeping prices low because everyone would expect the federal government to take care of financial surprises down the road.

    In sum, a public plan would possess formidable and perhaps overwhelming competitive advantages -- generated not by efficiency but by the artificial advantages of "public" status. This would have two disastrous consequences. The first will be to cause most Americans now covered by private insurance to move to public insurance -- one step away from single-payer health care. The second will be to undermine incentives to develop more of the immensely valuable medical technology that is central to all of health care.

    Mr. Calfee is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from GreginMedford. Show GreginMedford's posts

    Re: Do we need universal Healthcare

    Superb
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Xaphius. Show Xaphius's posts

    Re: Do we need universal Healthcare

    Sounds logical.

    But I'm unconvinvced there will be such a devestating effect on R&D.  I think the monospony power is exactly what is needed to keep the parma companies in line. 

    What are they gonna do - take all their toys and go home?  Unlikely.

    I hear speculation, but I don't see foundation for the fear of it.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from wwsf4ever. Show wwsf4ever's posts

    Re: Do we need universal Healthcare

    In Response to Re: Do we need universal Healthcare:
    [QUOTE]Sounds logical. But I'm unconvinvced there will be such a devestating effect on R&D.  I think the monospony power is exactly what is needed to keep the parma companies in line.  What are they gonna do - take all their toys and go home?  Unlikely. I hear speculation, but I don't see foundation for the fear of it.
    Posted by Xaphius[/QUOTE]
    Nope they will not take their toys and go home, they just will NOT put so much money into the R&D if the gov't is going to STEAL the proceeds of the investment.   Therefore, they will not push as hard to break a new drug on the market, as there will be NO REASON to do so.

    I understand that you do not believe it, but that does not mean it is not true.... Look what happened in other SOCIAL Medicine countries.... seems I haven't heard of a cure for anything coming from those countries that have the boom of universal SCAM CARE.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from gabootwo2006. Show gabootwo2006's posts

    Re: Do we need universal Healthcare

    In Response to Re: Do we need universal Healthcare:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Do we need universal Healthcare : Gabootwo... I know you and I have had our disagreements in the past... but I would love to say GREAT LETTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is exactly what I think.. Beuraucracies make it worse..... One thing you failed to mention is part of the reason that drug companies initially charge so much for their pills is..... THE GOV"T!  The testing and proving for a drug in America is twice what it is in other countries, and that expense is borne in the cost of bringing the drug to market.  Like any business the drug coumpany has to retire that debt (For testing) within a set schedule... usually somewhere in the first 5-7 yrs (at longest).  As such, depending on how many patients are expected to need a drug the company prices it to retire the debt.  STEVE probably doesn't pay his own debt off so he doesn't understand that.  Also we AGAIN... have the problem of frivolous lawsuits....  I took this drug and it made my eyes water everyday when I took it- I want $10mil... OKAY!  Then the drug company will turn around and attach that to debt that needs to be retired.... Look at the price of medication today.... REALLY.... LOOK.... the stuff used by the majority or that is old technology is really quite inexpnsive.  WALMART sells over 400 generics at $3 a month (that is with the retailer markup).  It is the stuff that is a "niche drug"... that is fewer people use it and it is not mass produced or it is very new that these prices soar. Now what we want to do is have everyone help Steve pay his bills. It is not bad enough that I have to help pay his mortgage, and I have to give him a tax free car, and he got $600 handed to him last year, but now I have to pay for everything he wants or needs?..... WHY? STEVE... I will be honest with you.... I was never an inner city guy.  I grew up in the burbs.... but I was the son of a very poor couple.  We had three children. During the winter of 76/77 living in the northeast we lived in a home with No Natural Gas an No electricity.  The parents couldn't afford it. We went to school and the parents went to work (even when they did not work) for the warmth.  I spent time at the neighbors house shivering as I had been in a house that was 40 degrees allnight long. Each one of us children has a sleeping bag inside a sleeping bag covered with two blankets.  Mom/Dad sold one car, to try and get money for food.  We ate Tripe/Beef heart and a heck of a lot of soup bones.  The gov't gave us cheese so we havd grilled (and I do mean grilled) cheese sandwiches  which were cooked on an old grill on the deck.  Mom /Dad broke up that year but all of us stayed togeter (as a family) to fight our way through adversity. I was not given freeschool.  I was not given free healthcare... I too worked several jobs to make ends meet.  I swore my children would never go through what I had...PERIOD. In 1979 I met a lady and we fell in love, and had two wonderful children.    In 1984 I desided to join the military, I went in and while I was active I got a Mechanical engineering degree.  I continued my career, and my loving wife moved everywhere the gov't asked me to go.  We made 10 moves in 22 yrs.... but the family was MOST IMPORTANT and we went as a unit.  Just before I got out I got an advanced engineering degree.  I got injured at the very end of my career and cannot work using that advanced degre- however, I do work.  I have moved out of the area I grew up in, just because my back yard (that Mom & dad had) is now the property of 16 estates.  We got nothing as mom sold it for the debts owed on it to a developer.  ANyway, today I am considered in my area as well off... I need no help from my gov't because I made it that way.  Our gov't would ove to have you indebted to them, as it gives the ruling dictator power.  BREAK FREE.....  Demand something better!  NOT Gov't- but better. YOU do not know how bad gov't medicine is.... and YOU refure to listen to the rightwing commercials that try to show you.. IT IS TERRIBLE.  When costs outweigh gains they give you ZERO!  For this country to ever truly be great again is going to require something this generation does not have......  It is going to require people like steve to be willing to give up for the good of the country, to be accountable and responsible for himself and his family.  I am sorry but anyone who is saying Uncle sam help me- is not any of those things.  That is what Friends and family are for... to pull you through the hard times, and ease the pain.  It is not my job, or responsibility to cover any portion of your needs... HOWEVER, if I knew you Steve I assure you as a friend I help my friends...  Obama de Robin Hood needs to stop..... He is a LIAR of the utmost.... Some have told me that we made a huge mstake electing him....  I have heard the jokes about him going away... but if you really want to stop all these lies... SHOOT the guy programming the teleprompter..... LOL cause without the prompter we get more Uhhs and Ahhs from Barak than we did for George W.     
    Posted by wwsf4ever[/QUOTE]



    wwsf4ever,

    What's up my friend? Thanks for the kind words. Past transgressions are in the past and are all forgotten. Please accept my friendship on these boards (handshake).

    It seems that we are on the same side of this issue as I don't think that Obama will do nothing but bring down this country with his liberal ideology and policies and Nationalized Health Care will be one of the CROWN JEWELS in the slippery slope of the downfall of this country under his reign. I've read your stories and was horrified that things like of what you wrote could actually happen in this country. It is truly sad that military personnel, like yourself, cannot get the top tier health care that you truly deserve in this country. Again, thank you for the service you provided this country. Yet, Obama, Pelosi, Reed and the rest of the liberal Democrats want to jam this unacceptable Universal Health Care down America's throats and expect us to like it while themselves and other government officals get the top of the line care WE ALL DESERVE. How hypocritical they are.

    I can tell you of similar stories like the ones you posted from some friends I have in Canada. It is just horrifying that "cost overrides care" in a lot of cases there and that doctors are rationed how many patients they can take care of in a certain timeline. Therefore, reducing the effectiveness, efficiency and progress in patients health. I've heard of patients waiting long periods of time for lifesaving care. I've heard of patients being denied procedures due to bureaucratic red tape. It is just sad what the citizens of Canada have to deal with. Just hopefully we, in America, won't be dealt the same fate as those in Canada. However, right now, it doesn't look to good for America.

    Be warned America and be very afraid. Nationalized Health Care will most likely be passed in this country under this OBAMANATION of a President. Rationed care and bureaucrats instead of doctors making decisions for what medical care and treatment are best for you will be the norm if Nationalized Health Care is passed. Don't be fooled by the lies and deception of this President and his liberal Democrat minions will try to push upon you to get this passed.

    Now do we need an overhaul of the system? Absolutely!!! Do we need to look into better solutions to the problems plaguing the system? Definitely!!! Does something have to be done? No doubt!!! However, look at V.A. care our veterans get, research the Canadian system, research the United Kingdom system and come to the conclusions that Nationalizing Health Care in this country isn't the answer. Now I don't have the answers but if we seriously start the discussion in this country and look at the "red flags" in the system then we might begin to get the answers we need to "fix the system correctly" without burdening the American Taxpayers further then they are already burdened under Obama's reign of terror to our economic system in America.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from TarheelChief. Show TarheelChief's posts

    Re: Do we need universal Healthcare

    Prfe-existing condition is a phrase commonly used by insurance companies.
    Does anyone realize this violates the Hippocratic Oath? How can you first do no harm,if you cannot treat  a person?
    Has anyone done a study on malpractice insurance?
    How many cases will be brought against the US government who employs the doctors under universal health care? How will an attorney state the insurance company has deep pockets,and not end up with a new phrase,the taxpayers will pay for it?
    How will the government respond to a doctor who has more than 3 or four cases against him? Will they respond as the insurance companies do and the states and send the doctor to another state?
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from GreginMedford. Show GreginMedford's posts

    Re: Do we need universal Healthcare

    Prfe-existing condition is a phrase commonly used by insurance companies.
    Does anyone realize this violates the Hippocratic Oath? How can you first do no harm,if you cannot treat  a person?
    ----------------------

    Insurance underwriters don't take the Hippocratic Oath
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Xaphius. Show Xaphius's posts

    Re: Do we need universal Healthcare

    In Response to Re: Do we need universal Healthcare:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Do we need universal Healthcare : Nope they will not take their toys and go home, they just will NOT put so much money into the R&D if the gov't is going to STEAL the proceeds of the investment.   Therefore, they will not push as hard to break a new drug on the market, as there will be NO REASON to do so. I understand that you do not believe it, but that does not mean it is not true.... Look what happened in other SOCIAL Medicine countries.... seems I haven't heard of a cure for anything coming from those countries that have the boom of universal SCAM CARE.
    Posted by wwsf4ever[/QUOTE]

    Well, you're free to believe it, but I think it's nonsense.   They'll still be making a fortune - just a smaller fortune.  And if some quit, others will gladly fill their shoes... and according to an article I read a couple of years ago, we're already on the decline in terms of R&D in this country....the future, lies in Asia, and countries who are offering better grants and facilities for research.

    This is just unsubstantiated fear mongering.



     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    Re: Do we need universal Healthcare

    Paranoid Xaphier fears the Patriot Act and thinks the CIA and FBI is all powerful, killing JFK, RFK and MLK, and deliberately causing 9/11...he fears the evil government is out to get us...

    Yet somehow he thinks the idea that this same government confiscating 1/7 of the entire economy,  is just swell...

    Maybe he's hoping for medicinal marijuana, dispensed for free !
     

Share