Believing the lie, drink that koolaid!

GF has health problems that are keeping her from working, can't get a private plan because of her pre-existing conditions and we're looking at $1,300/month for ONE of her medications. She needs a public option just like so many other people in this country.

Hmmm...I don't know if $1,300 a month is very practical. Right now as we speak, Obama has his cronies writing a draft version of the book of the dead. They are studing what health care is "practical" for the government to offer. What will you do if they decide that the GF's meds aren't practical? Will you take "comfort" option that Obama talks about?

Keep in mind that there will be no private insurance option since the health care bill in the house will not allow private insurers to write new policies after Notional Health Care becomes law. As a pharmaceutical company, do you think they will even make the meds any more? Remember, the government won't allow the drug for the welfare folks and the private insurers can't offer it to new customers. If no one can have the medicine, the company will quit producing it. Now you don't even have the option of buying it with your own money.

Maybe RJ will cook you up a batch free of charge. He seems to think this stuff is as easy as meth to make and should be offered for free.
 
If insurance companies are so good at managing people's health, then why are there so many uninsured and under-insured people in the US?

If you really want an answer, I'll give it to you (yes I know it was a rhetorical question). Let's start with the 46 million uninsured that gets thrown around, shall we?

First, subtract the 12 million criminal immigrants that are included in this figure. They get their health care as frequent fliers at the ER. They also know the magic words like "chest pain" to get to the head of the line for their head cold while you bleed in the waiting room and then get charged double so the hospital can cover their cost too. That brings us to 34 Million.

Of that, about half are inbetween jobs and are only uninsured for a few months. Not exactly dire straights.

Most of the other half turned down their health insurance at work because they are young and healthy and they want beer money instead. That's freedom of choice in my book. Your choice, your consequences.

For everyone else, there is medicaide.
 
Is it to the benefit of the government for the citizens to have access to affordable healthcare?
Why are we worrying about benefitting government? Isn't it their job to benefit us?

I assume you meant it is mutually beneficial to all citizens to have a strong economy. We have one. One so strong that, in the event of emergency, everybody in the USA is able to receive emergency medical care.

I believe the USofA can come up with a far superior plan than any of these countries.

Agreed....but the question remains, with all the nations that steal from their citizens, why hasn't one of them fixed this problem? Why do their best & brightest come to our country with its piss poor medical care to recieve treatment instead of going to, say, Finland? If government care is so wonderful, stay home to get that liver transplant.


They manage by approving or denying what they will pay for.
HMO = "Health Maintenance Organization" with is a type of MCO or "managed care organization".

The beginning of the end was the HMO. PPO's, or cash, kept people from taxing the medical system. They went when there was a problem, not when they had a hangnail.

The point is: the current healthcare situation is broken... it needs to be fixed. HOW do you fix it?

By keeping the government & getting the layers out of it. Healthcare is not a right.
 
Obama warns against health delay

Mr Obama said he was confident healthcare reform would pass this year

US President Barack Obama has called on Congress not to delay the passage of healthcare reform.

"Now is not the time to slow down" reform efforts, he insisted.

His call comes after a group of Senate moderates asked for more time to consider reform proposals, in a bid to achieve a bipartisan consensus.

Mr Obama has made it his priority to overhaul the US healthcare system, and expand coverage to the 47 million Americans without health insurance.

Unprecedented consensus

A number of different reform proposals are currently being published by various congressional committees.

On Wednesday, the Senate health committee became the first congressional panel to vote to approve a healthcare reform bill.

The Senate Finance Committee is also working on a bill, and three House of Representatives committees have published a joint proposal.

Eventually, if lawmakers can agree, a bill combining elements of all of the proposals will be put to a vote in both chambers and be sent to Mr Obama for approval.


HEALTHCARE IN THE US
46 million uninsured, 25 million under-insured
Healthcare costs represent 16% of GDP, almost twice OECD average
Reform plans would require all Americans to get insurance
Some propose public insurance option to compete with private insurers

"In the past few weeks we have forged a level of consensus [on healthcare reform] never before seen in this country," Mr Obama said in a statement at the White House.

And he expressed confidence that healthcare reform would be achieved by the end of the year.

"We are going to get this done. We will reform health care. it will happen this year. I'm absolutely convinced of that."

But Mr Obama's remarks came after a group of six senators - three Republicans, two Democrats and one Independent - published a letter in which they spoke out against "timelines which prevent us from achieving the best result."

"We believe that taking additional time to achieve a bipartisan result is critical," wrote senators Ben Nelson, Ron Wyden, Mary Landrieu, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and Joe Lieberman.

All of the plans under consideration would require Americans to take out insurance, and would bar insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.

The House committees' joint bill and the Senate health committee bills would also create a new, publicly run health plan, which they hope would compete with private insurers and drive down prices.

The Senate finance committee bill is not expected to include a "public option", but would instead set up non-profit medical co-operatives to compete with private insurers.

source
 
Hurry, if you don't pass this bill, we'll be bankrupt in a week.

Can someone please fill me in on exactly, what is wrong with our healthcare system? What is broken? I just don't see it.
 
Excuse me?

I am considering your repeated tactic of making up crap and presenting it as if it were true as lying.

Agreed....but the question remains, with all the nations that steal from their citizens, why hasn't one of them fixed this problem? Why do their best & brightest come to our country with its piss poor medical care to recieve treatment instead of going to, say, Finland? If government care is so wonderful, stay home to get that liver transplant.

As has been pointing out numerous times 30+ countries with some form of national health care beat our system. Many people from the US actually travel to other countries for health care which has also been pointed out.

Seems like all of your arguments on this topic have already been debunked.
 
What would be good is that if instead of making shit up and stating it as fact you would start to bring some proof.
 
What would be good is that if instead of making shit up and stating it as fact you would start to bring some proof.

Psst!! Catchup!!

I've heard that the saying:

"the burden to prove guilt lies with the accuser"

is all the rage these days. :shrug:
 
Instead of fixing old cancer patients, they give 'em morphine & wish 'em luck.

That is not true.

"Results: At diagnosis, synchronous metastatic disease was more frequent in patients over 75 years old (52% versus 39%; P <0.001). Physicians indicated that treatment was based on age and on a subjective evaluation of the patient's general status. Sixty-eight per cent of younger patients and only 31% of older ones received chemotherapy (P <0.001). In the older group drug doses were lower than those usually recommended in three-quarters of cases. Only 10% of physicians considered that they under-treat patients using the FEC 50 regimen. Over 75 years of age, hormone therapy was offered to most patients, including 8% with hormone-independent tumors. Geriatric covariates were never considered. Geriatricians rarely, if ever, played a role in the therapeutic decision."

http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/17/2/211

Also bypass surgeries and high priced prescriptions are certainly available in countries with government run care. In fact a whole industry has been created where tons of Americans buy their expensive prescriptions of Canada or Mexico because they can get them cheaper there.

So how about you quit making things up?
 
Over 75 years of age, hormone therapy was offered to most patients

Did 100% of the government patients recieve full treatment that would have been accessible to non-government programs?
 
No sir. I've heard first hand accounts of that. You story didn't quell that.

still waiting.
 
No I actually proved you wrong. "Instead of fixing old cancer patients, they give 'em morphine & wish 'em luck." Proved completely false by the the link. You can clearly see that elderly cancer patients do receive a variety of treatments.

Also bypass surgeries and high priced prescriptions are certainly available in countries with government run care. In fact a whole industry has been created where tons of Americans buy their expensive prescriptions of Canada or Mexico because they can get them cheaper there.
 
Back
Top