Mrs Bill Clintons Health policy

"So, Mr Boris, did you willingly go into that area, with all the dust & particulate matter? You did, well, I'm sorry, but we just can't afford to treat people who volunteer for siciude missions. Good day & good luck."

Mr. Boris: "But what about that guy? All he does is sit in the projects and sell dope and make babies and draw checks for it?"

Gubmint healthcare fairy: "Low risk. No stress level to speak of. Obviously won't be filing workman's comp claims. Takes free condoms, thereby guaranteeing our grant will be renewed. Of course, no one said he actually has to USE them...but I digress. We need to get him in here so we can diagnose his hangnail and qualify him for lifetime disability benefits, because it's cheaper to keep him up than someone on an iron lung ya know. *gum pop* Now if you'd be so kind as to go on back to work so we can prevent delaying these fine folks so they can catch the free bus ride back home..."
 
I would like to suggest to everyone that they go to Ebay and look up a seller named Fox129 and buy one of his German 5 mark coins and keep it close. Around the perimeter is engraved ..."The Public Good Before Self Interest".
 
What your missing/unaware of is that gov't controlled healthcare will be even quicker than private sector at limiting procedures. The private sector has a stopgap limitation..which is written into the policy & can be seen & changed. Gov't actually limits those that are unlikely to recover. Or are "willing participants", ie smokers/drinkers/old.

"So, Mr Boris, did you willingly go into that area, with all the dust & particulate matter? You did, well, I'm sorry, but we just can't afford to treat people who volunteer for siciude missions. Good day & good luck."

Where's your evidence for this? Seems like pure fantasy speculation to me.

Are you really somehow convinced that the 9/11 workers who lack coverage now would still not be covered under a universal healthcare?
 
Are there really that many uninsured 9/11 workers that they qualify as a national interest? Surely the city of NY would be better served to look after their own, rather than look to an Oklahoma farmer's tax buck, no?
 
Mr. Boris: "But what about that guy? All he does is sit in the projects and sell dope and make babies and draw checks for it?"

Damn, you just got to laugh at generalizing everyone who lacks healthcare as lazy pot-smoking project dwellers. I suppose making ridiculous generalizations keeps you from having to put much thought into things.
 
Are there really that many uninsured 9/11 workers that they qualify as a national interest?

Any number would seem a national interest to me. There's many thousands with related health problems. It's a large scale example of how the system fails. There's many examples nationwide on smaller scales.
 
Spike, let me tell you a story. It's a story about a guy in a country with Medicare. Just to let you know what sort of pandora's box you're dealing with. I just paid the annual registration for my 3 cars. 3 cars, one person. On each car, I was charged a $30 fee to support mass transit (which I obviously don't use). That's $30, per car. One person. On top of that, I'm charged $119 per car in No fault insurance. That's non negotiable. That's per car. One person. On top of that, I'm taxed on that non negotiable insurance. Sold to me by the gov't. BTW, did I mention that, by law, I'm obliged to have another, external insurance policy. The one on my registration is just to cover uninsured fuckers. They would be breaking the law, but they're covered ... out of my pocket. On top of that, I'm charged a $4 per car fee for processing. And an additional $3 PER CAR should I have the unmigated gall to present myself in person at the DMV to pay it. Oh, and we can't forget the $104 actual registration fee. That's $257, per car (one person). The actual registration cost is $104.

I'd love to give you a similar breakdown for Medicare, but the gov't doesn't allow Joe Q. Public to view those figures. But I can't see them being any different. You're gonna have more than 50% gov't money grab in any 'enforced contributions'. Mark my words.
 
Are there really that many uninsured 9/11 workers that they qualify as a national interest? Surely the city of NY would be better served to look after their own, rather than look to an Oklahoma farmer's tax buck, no?

[spikethink] NO!! We MUST redistribute wealth! The unwilling to work needs your money! All of it! How DARE you try and save some of the money you earn for yourSELF??! NonononoNO, we MUST take it from you. We know how to spend it better than you do! Look at the deal we get on toilet seats! Look how well the gubmint managed their assets in New Orleans. I mean, we HAD the ice, and we paid dearly to keep it cold. The very notion that anyone could possibly spend their own money better than the gubmint can spend it FOR them is preposterous, and believing it makes you naive, stupid, unrefined, and a buncha other stuff.

Oops..almost forgot to end the post with a senseless, misdirecting question...ummm.....Michael Moore! No wait, that's not a question. Umm...oh yeah! How can this not be Bush's fault? Isn't he teh debul? [/spikethink]
 
Where's your evidence for this? Seems like pure fantasy speculation to me.
Read this
Once gov't has you by the short & curlies, who's gonna stop them from denying coverage?

Are you really somehow convinced that the 9/11 workers who lack coverage now would still not be covered under a universal healthcare?

Yes. Universal isn't. It will be delegated & lessened until we are one of the peon countries & there is no reason to enter into medicine nor any reason to R&D new drugs.

The day that those who can afford it stop coming to America for treatment is the day I bel;ive we have problems. Right now, the problem we have is welfare queens & illegals destroying our system by overtaxing it. Which, ironically, is proof that we have universal health coverage today & it does hurt the system.
 
[spikethink] NO!! We MUST redistribute wealth! The unwilling to work needs your money! All of it! How DARE you try and save some of the money you earn for yourSELF??! NonononoNO, we MUST take it from you. We know how to spend it better than you do! Look at the deal we get on toilet seats! Look how well the gubmint managed their assets in New Orleans. I mean, we HAD the ice, and we paid dearly to keep it cold. The very notion that anyone could possibly spend their own money better than the gubmint can spend it FOR them is preposterous, and believing it makes you naive, stupid, unrefined, and a buncha other stuff.

{SNPthink]All the people without healthcare are lazy pot smoking project dwellers just like all Irish are Leprechauns and all people from the south are toothless overall wearin' cousin fuckers!!!!!!! Forget that the US health system is ranked 37th in the world behind a bunch with that commie healthcare.!.! I isn't no fan of facts and just liken to make my own durn reality!!! Idn't facts those durn magic thingers that sends paper to an office?!?!?

Oops almost forgot to end the post with a senseless unresearched decalaration. Ummnnn the Union shall fall! Oh wait......Umnnnn, it's all Lincolns fault!!!!! Errr.......Get 'er dun![/SNPthink]
 
Read this
Once gov't has you by the short & curlies, who's gonna stop them from denying coverage?

You're article doesn't address being denied coverage at all. It does reference the World Health Organization which ranks us 37th. How many ranked better than us have universal?

Yes. Universal isn't. It will be delegated & lessened until we are one of the peon countries & there is no reason to enter into medicine nor any reason to R&D new drugs.

Right, just like there's no reason to enter into medicine in any of those countries that outrank us.
 
Forget that the US health system is ranked 37th in the world behind a bunch with that commie healthcare

The 5 categories
Responsiveness (US gets top honors)
Fairness of financial contribution
Overall Level of Health(didn't declare the best places)
Distribution of Health in the Populations
Distribution of Financing


So, in order to get a good grade in 3/5 categoiries, you must redistribute wealth.
 
Dimensions of performance? Anyone have any idea what that actually means? I bet everyone thinks they do, but I doubt anyone actually does.

Spike, try this for size. In Mtl ... third largest city in Canada, has a waiting time of up to over a year for an MRI. I can drive south to Platsburg and get one done within 2 days. That's not a statistic, that's what my neighbour dealt with. Stats you can find here in the Canadian medical association journal.


That's the last I have to say on the issue. Spike, you're so focused on the silver lining of the cloud in front of you, that you can't see the hurricane it's bringing with it.
 
Spike, try this for size. In Mtl ... third largest city in Canada, has a waiting time of up to over a year for an MRI. I can drive south to Platsburg and get one done within 2 days.

Well geez, if the wait time for an MRI is longer in Mtl than it is in Platsburg that must prove that all universal health care sucks. :rolleyes:

Spike, you're so focused on the silver lining of the cloud in front of you, that you can't see the hurricane it's bringing with it.

No, actually I'm focused on facts that show the US system to be highly inefficient and lagging behind over 30 other countries. Since Canada's is ranked just slightly higher it would probably be better to shoot for higher up the list.

Looks like Germany leads the world as far as wait times goes.

American Wait Times

Here's a fun puzzle. Fill in the blanks in the statement below:

In his talk, __________ conceded that "the ___ healthcare system is not timely." He cited "recent statistics from the Institution of Healthcare Improvement… that people are waiting an average of about 70 days to try to see a provider. And in many circumstances people initially diagnosed with cancer are waiting over a month."

If you said "Troy Brennan, CEO of Aetna," and "United States," you'd be right! If you said Canada, or Britain, you'd be wrong. The article goes on:

A Commonwealth Fund study of six highly industrialized countries, the U.S., and five nations with national health systems, Britain, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, found waiting times were worse in the U.S. than in all the other countries except Canada. And, most of the Canadian data so widely reported by the U.S. media is out of date, and misleading, according to PNHP and CNA/NNOC.

In Canada, there are no waits for emergency surgeries, and the median time for non-emergency elective surgery has been dropping as a result of public pressure and increased funding so that it is now equal to or better than the U.S. in most areas, the organizations say. Statistics Canada's latest figures show that median wait times for elective surgery in Canada is now three weeks.

"There are significant differences between the U.S. and Canada, too," said Burger. "In Canada, no one is denied care because of cost, because their treatment or test was not 'pre-approved' or because they have a pre-existing condition."

A recent Business Week article arrived at similar conclusion:

oth data and anecdotes show that the American people are already waiting as long or longer than patients living with universal health-care systems. Take Susan M., a 54-year-old human resources executive in New York City. She faithfully makes an appointment for a mammogram every April, knowing the wait will be at least six weeks. She went in for her routine screening at the end of May, then had another because the first wasn't clear. That second X-ray showed an abnormality, and the doctor wanted to perform a needle biopsy, an outpatient procedure. His first available date: mid-August.

The article continues on" "If you find a suspicious-looking mole and want to see a dermatologist, you can expect an average wait of 38 days in the U.S., and up to 73 days if you live in Boston, according to researchers at the University of California at San Francisco who studied the matter. Got a knee injury? A 2004 survey by medical recruitment firm Merritt, Hawkins & Associates found the average time needed to see an orthopedic surgeon ranges from 8 days in Atlanta to 43 days in Los Angeles. Nationwide, the average is 17 days."

One important note on our system's wait times is that, unlike in other countries, we don't collect the data. "There is no systemized collection of data on wait times in the U.S," says Business Week. "That makes it difficult to draw comparisons with countries that have national health systems, where wait times are not only tracked but made public." That's a side benefit of the universal systems, which due to their coherence and incentives, are actually quite transparent. That allows not only for an accurate assessment of the problems, but the effective deployment of resources to treat them.

And by the way, want to know which country has the lowest wait times in international comparisons? Hint: It's where sauerkraut comes from.


http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=07&year=2007&base_name=american_wait_times
 
Back
Top