Obamacare = New Healthcare Science?

cherryrama
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 12:14 pm

Obamacare = New Healthcare Science?

Post by cherryrama »

After digesting a complete overview of Obamacare and reading extensively the various analysis of the essence of Obamacare, I can't help but think they must be pushing some new healthcare science - a big experiment on the American people?

The following article really opens my eyes to the essence of what Obama and his Democrats are pushing, so instead of writing about it myself, I am quoting it here for discussion:

Obamacare no; targeted reforms, yes

By Stuart Barton

President, American Seniors Association



It is appropriate that the American people and their elected representatives in Congress have time in coming weeks to study and vigorously debate the various radical healthcare bills supported by President Barack Obama.

The American Seniors Association, which represents hundreds of thousands of members nationwide, has several major concerns. First, any government-run plan is bound to limit patient-doctor choice. Second, the House bill includes an employer mandate that would kill jobs and lower wages. Indeed, the current House legislation attacks baby boomers and seniors -- in fact, every American-- by underwriting the $1.6 trillion healthcare price tag with new taxes and by cutting $500 billion out of Medicare over the next 10 years.

Particularly incredible is a section of the House bill mandating that a senior citizen must go to counseling every five years with a government “medical expert” in order to basically learn how to prepare to die. The president pooh-poohs criticism of this counseling clause, saying it is exaggerated. But Oregon is already denying some cancer patients care that could extend their lives, and instead offers them physician-assisted suicide. Critics who feared this would happen were also initially ridiculed.

A former New York lieutenant governor, Dr. Betsy McCaughey, lays out this assault on seniors by noting that it began with the stimulus bill passed in February. She writes:

“Slipped into the bill was substantial funding for comparative effectiveness research, which is generally code for limiting care based on a patient’s age. Economists are familiar with the formula, where the cost of treatment is divided by the number of years (called QUALYs, or quality-adjusted life years) that the patient is likely to benefit.” When comparative effectiveness research appeared in that legislation, Rep. Charles Boustany, R-La., a heart surgeon, joined other medical experts in warning that it would lead to “denying seniors and the disabled lifesaving care.”

It is a myth that living longer burdens society. Dr. Herbert Pardes, CEO of the New York Presbyterian Medical Center, cites Medicare data that a patient who dies at age 67 spends three times as much on health care at the end of life as a patient who lives to 90. So is one idea behind this current House legislation to let baby boomers and seniors die more quickly so the government doesn’t have to care for them in old age? If that is a plan you believe in, then you must be a sadomasochist.

Medicare, even though it has imperfections and waste that must be addressed, still provides good value for those living into old age. Every current version of Obamacare legislation would end that good life.

Camille Paglia, a liberal Democrat writer, eviscerates Obamacare perhaps more shrilly than any conservative pundit to date. Consider:

“You can keep your doctor; you can keep your insurance, if you’re happy with it, Obama keeps assuring us in soothing, lullaby tones. Oh, really? And what if my doctor is not the one appointed by the new government medical boards for ruling on my access to tests and specialists? And what if my insurance company goes belly up because of undercutting by its government-bankrolled competitor? Face it: virtually all nationalized health systems, neither nourished nor updated by profit-driven private investment, eventually leads to rationing.

Paglia’s specific criticism of Obama, which ASA shares, is withering. “Frankly,” she writes, “the president gives little sense of direct knowledge of medical protocols; it’s as if his views are a tissue of hearsay and scatter-shot worst-case scenarios.”

Yes, there should be healthcare reform. But our organization believes it should be targeted legislative reform involving waste, fraud and profiteering in the healthcare and insurance industries. There are reasonable, bipartisan healthcare solutions – but expensive government bureaucratic controls, reducing access to medical treatments and counseling seniors about shortening their lives are most certainly not among them.

................

“President Obama must think the American people are idiots if he thinks the healthcare rationing, restrictions and regulations being debated in Congress will save money and result in better preventative medicine,” says Stuart Barton, president of AmericanSeniors.org.



“The president told the AARP meeting that opponents are “making people scared.” ”Well, they ought to be scared at current proposals,” Barton said. “The Congressional Budget Office estimates the plan’s cost over 10 years would be $1.2 to $1.8 trillion. That’s absurd in a recession, let alone good times.”

The ASA has three major concerns:

1) a government-run plan would limit patient- doctor choice

2) there would be an employer mandate that would kill jobs and lower wages and 3) the current legislation being debated attacks baby boomer and seniors by cutting $500 billion out of Medicare over the next 10 years.



“On page 425 of the bill, a person must go to counseling every five years to basically learn how to die,” Barton says. “As I read this and hear about no preventative care, it dawned on me that Obama’s plan is to let all these baby boomers die quicker so we don’t have to care for them in old age.”

...................
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38570
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Obamacare = New Healthcare Science?

Post by spot »

And you're who, cherryrama? Someone with an agenda who signed up here to push it?

The difference between text recycling and spam is getting ever thinner. It's text recycling when the members at least know the poster who posted it.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
cherryrama
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 12:14 pm

Obamacare = New Healthcare Science?

Post by cherryrama »

Spot,

I am just some one who sees that my views on certain subject has been nicely expressed by an article I found and thought I would share it with others. I do that sometimes and have never been accused of ‘text recycling’.

For you to accuse me of ‘spamming’ you must have such a fixed agenda that you simply won’t allow different view points – to you different views point is ‘spamming’.

Why don’t you present your own argument or text-recycle something that expresses your view? I won’t mind at all if you 'text-recycle'.
hoppy
Posts: 4561
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 8:58 am

Obamacare = New Healthcare Science?

Post by hoppy »

I share your views on this health care scam being forced on US citizens. It seems most Americans want to live and die their way, not Obama's way. We don't give a rat's butt what other countries do for health care.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38570
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Obamacare = New Healthcare Science?

Post by spot »

cherryrama;1249969 wrote: Why don’t you present your own argument or text-recycle something that expresses your view? I won’t mind at all if you 'text-recycle'.
It's probably the sight of someone joining just to push a particular opinion down my throat that I object to, especially when it's one he didn't write himself.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
hoppy
Posts: 4561
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 8:58 am

Obamacare = New Healthcare Science?

Post by hoppy »

spot;1249976 wrote: It's probably the sight of someone joining just to push a particular opinion down my throat that I object to, especially when it's one he didn't write himself.


Yeah, everybody is out to spit in your tea, spotster.
cherryrama
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 12:14 pm

Obamacare = New Healthcare Science?

Post by cherryrama »

spot;1249976 wrote: It's probably the sight of someone joining just to push a particular opinion down my throat that I object to, especially when it's one he didn't write himself.


No one can shove opinion down anyone's throat. I guess you must be offended that your leader is doing exactly that - shoving so-called 'healthcare reform' down your throat? Is that why you are so outraged?

You are free to debate. Since when is it not ok to share excellent well-written thoughts by others?

Come on, give it a shot. Present your arguments or reasons, or re-cycle others' arguments. We are all ears.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38570
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Obamacare = New Healthcare Science?

Post by spot »

cherryrama;1250004 wrote: No one can shove opinion down anyone's throat. I guess you must be offended that your leader is doing exactly that - shoving so-called 'healthcare reform' down your throat? Is that why you are so outraged?

You are free to debate. Since when is it not ok to share excellent well-written thoughts by others?

Come on, give it a shot. Present your arguments or reasons, or re-cycle others' arguments. We are all ears.


Don't look at me. It's your country, not mine. I already live in a country where no citizen lacks health cover. If the US doesn't collectively want it then carry on without it.

If I find you wandering from forum to forum posting the same agenda-based text, cherryrama, I'll mention it. Disapprovingly. I've not bothered to look yet.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
cherryrama
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 12:14 pm

Obamacare = New Healthcare Science?

Post by cherryrama »

Spot from wherever but not USA?

Same old tactic: accusation or threat.

Where is the real debate?

Debates are welcome. Accusations and threats not so much.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38570
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Obamacare = New Healthcare Science?

Post by spot »

cherryrama;1250038 wrote: Spot from wherever but not USA?

Same old tactic: accusation or threat.

Where is the real debate?

Debates are welcome. Accusations and threats not so much.


I've made no accusation. I've made no threat. I've said turning up on a site with a pre-built agenda, knowing nobody here and not caring to find out, not joining in but laying out your stall, showing no interest in the membership, is like a huckster rolling into town aiming to make his profit and then move on.

We don't know you. Try an intro thread, try talking to us first. It's a community, not an audience.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
Lon
Posts: 9476
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 11:38 pm

Obamacare = New Healthcare Science?

Post by Lon »

Cherryama----------your very first post on this forum might have been better received if it had been more of an introduction. We have had many that just pop in and post something contentious and then just disappear.
hoppy
Posts: 4561
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 8:58 am

Obamacare = New Healthcare Science?

Post by hoppy »

I believe you rattled their cages, cherryama. :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl
cherryrama
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 12:14 pm

Obamacare = New Healthcare Science?

Post by cherryrama »

Our nation is at a cross road. Just like many Americans, I am concerned about something that will affect everyone's future and lives in USA. As a concerned citizen, can't I discuss with my fellow Americans what concerns us? The entire country is one big community. It is still a free country. You seem to be awfully territorial with 'your' community. Do I need to go through an initiation period before I can talk? Are you saying I need to get permission on what to talk about?

You keep talking about my agenda? What is your agenda? Police people's thoughts?

I participate in many forums. Never has anyone in any any forums been so not open to discussions. People get to know each other gradually through discussions. As long as people remain civil and not slanderous to each other, no subject is off limit This is a 'health and drug' thread, right? Obamacare is health related, at least they say so. What exactly is this 'community' for anyway? To socialize only? No discussions allowed?

Since you harp on agenda. Let me take a wild guess at your agenda: to divert and distract, to keep people off the topic that you don't like. You are at every thread doing your best to steer people away from anything not to your liking. You never discuss anything, just throw a oneliner to diffuse the subject.

If I disappear it will be because you make it impossible for people to conduct a meaningful discussion. Why bother when all I can do is reply to your distraction and diversion.

If your next reply is not an honest debate on Obamacare - tell people why you like it, why you think it is good for America, why I am so wrong....(you are free to re-cycle text!) I will not waste my time going back and forth with you over the same thing over and over again.
User avatar
Lon
Posts: 9476
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 11:38 pm

Obamacare = New Healthcare Science?

Post by Lon »

OK----------I am 75 years old and on Medicare plus an excellent supplement. In the past 20 years my wife and I have cost insurers and Medicare close to one million dollars. I am totally happy with my present insured status and see no way that the Obamacare will make it better, if anything, it would make it worse both from a cost standpoint as well as service and convenience standpoint. While I have empathy for those less fortunate than I, I'm afraid that for them to be covered adequately means that I would have to be less adequately covered. I am not willing to support any health care plan that would give us (wife) less than what we presently have. Now having said that----l recognise and understand that there is a major problem of uninsured and under insured in the U.S. as well as major problems of gross inefficiency within Medicare as well as private insurance. I personally would be willing to pay a bit more via taxes to help rectify the problem, however, at this point, I see no proposed plan that would bring this about. I have no solution to the problem.

Forum Garden has been a fun forum for me but it is difficult to have an on going serious discussion on topics of major importance, save for very few members. There are other forums that are less frivolous.
cherryrama
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 12:14 pm

Obamacare = New Healthcare Science?

Post by cherryrama »

Lon,

Thank you for your honest, personal 'take' on this Obamacare thing. If only everyone just expresses honestly their opinions within the context of their own experiences, we can have some meaningful dialogue about things that are important to us all. There is no absolute right or wrong. But there is always room for honest discussions.

I do think that the current system is not perfect. The people who cannot afford health insurance can use assistance from the society aided or guided by genuine government efforts to alleviate the problem(s).

Problems arise when the government's planned 'solution' is not based on realistic assessment of the situations/system. Healthcare reform is a big deal, one that cannot be rushed through without thorough debates. There are many good ideas and suggestions out there (just search on the Internet) based on proven records, e.g. Texas has 'reforms' that work. Massachusetts has tried some kind of single-payer health system that results in higher costs and less access and big budget over-run. Hawaii's attempt failed within a few short months. Lessons can be learned there.

To dismantle the entire healthcare system that is working, at a prohibitive cost of trillions, based on some models that have proven not to work, just to insure a few millions people, and we are to trust that the government will miraculously, this time around, work magic to lower costs and improve access/quality for many more people? We don't have to be math. geniuses to figure that it doesn't add up.

If you have read the bill (whatever was out there previously, before the final bill that will be a much worse merged version of all the House versions with all the senate versions) you see how bureaucratic it is, how many mandates and controls and panels and taxes and fees and penalties there are! Everything will be controlled by bureaucrats! Doctors, patients, medical facilities, medical equipments, prescription drugs, lab tests, medical procedures......your private medical records will be maintained by your government, your bank account info will be at their hands, illegal aliens will be insured, abortion is covered at taxpayers' expenses, labor unions and ACORN like org will be in charge.......it is all in the bill!

Is that healthcare reform?

Like you, Lon, I believe all Americans who can afford it will be willing to pay a bit more taxes to help those less fortunate, but to ask hard-working productive people to turn over their healthcare decisions/choices and money to a government with proven poor track records to create yet another great big entitlement program ? Who won't worry?

We are just a few years from medicare. Just our luck: half a trillion will be cut from Medicare to pay for Obamacare. Medicare that is already nearing bankruptcy! Does that make sense? If obamacare passes, we are lucky if we get an aspirin to keep the pain down, because soc security will probably be bankrupt by then, Medicare benefits cut, Obamacare long lines........ That for working my entire life, saving and taking care of ourselves and our families, paying taxes and obeying our government's every rule and regulation ..........

Thank you again Lon for speaking up. That's what a forum is for. No thought police please.
cherryrama
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 12:14 pm

Obamacare = New Healthcare Science?

Post by cherryrama »

Hoppy,

Thank you for your support.

Looks like I don't have to disappear!

When I have more time I will talk again.
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Obamacare = New Healthcare Science?

Post by gmc »

cherryrama;1250114 wrote: Our nation is at a cross road. Just like many Americans, I am concerned about something that will affect everyone's future and lives in USA.



If your next reply is not an honest debate on Obamacare - tell people why you like it, why you think it is good for America, why I am so wrong....(you are free to re-cycle text!) I will not waste my time going back and forth with you over the same thing over and over again.


I don't speak for spot or anyone else for that matter but generally from our point of view you are now having a debate that we had in the UK and europe over fifty years ago. Over here that people want universal healthcare is a given and those opposed to it are viewed as right wing and those who call for it to be privatised as right wing bastards.

Left wing is in favour of the people having power and right wing is pro establishment and repressive. The framers of your constitution were left wing radicals in their day. power to the people and all that. It's difficult to remember that right and left have very different connotations on either side of the Atlantic. We have a right and left in politics you seem to have right and even more right with a nutty right wing fringe as well. I suspect spot forgets that american right and left are different from the rest of the world-like American football you lost the plot somewhere and got your game confused and right wing you see as perfectly normal. :sneaky:Actually it's quite tempting to wind americans up sometimes but I'd better leave it at that.

Don't be fooled by rogue conservative MEP's on American television they are very much on the fringe of politics. It's a long way from being perfect and things go wrong and sometimes the service is poor but on the whole people don't want to change it they want the faults sorted. But the basic concept of universal healthcare is one that politicians threaten at their peril.

You see it in broad terms as government taking away the decisions from ordinary people, we see your debate on tv sometime and on innumerable occasions on american series someone can't get treatment because they have no insurance or going bankrupt to pay medical bills in a way that suggests it is a fact of life. We wonder why on earth you put up with such a situation where someone can be left without treatment or delay going to a doctor or dentist because they are worried about the cost. It's fascinating because it's almost alien.

You worry about the govt taking away the right to make decisions about healthcare from you and deciding what treatment you receive but see nothing wrong with letting a clerk in an insurance company do it instead. That seems daft.

You see it in terms of govt making decisions for you we see it in terms of us telling the govt you will do this or you will be voted out of office.

In other words we look at the problem from a completely different world view and the basic assumptions are very different we just can't understand your viewpoint on an instinctive level any more than you can make sense of ours. It gets annoying when the NHS is criticised by americans trying to scaremonger people in to not having universal healthcare. You really have to sort it out your own way. If you can be bothered watch what happens if the tories threaten to touch the NHS. Labour might get back in if they do:-5:-5 and if the tories do get in the UK will disintegrate as the scots vote SNP en masse.

posted by lon.

While I have empathy for those less fortunate than I, I'm afraid that for them to be covered adequately means that I would have to be less adequately covered. I am not willing to support any health care plan that would give us (wife) less than what we presently have.


The way I look at it is of necessary I can get to see specialists or receive any treatment necessary without having to worry about the cost. The only criteria will be do I need to be referred to one. The treatment will be given if necessary. I don't see why you would have less under universal healthcare but I don't actually understand your system in the first place. I suppose it depends how you do it.
User avatar
Lon
Posts: 9476
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 11:38 pm

Obamacare = New Healthcare Science?

Post by Lon »

posted by GMC



"The way I look at it is of necessary I can get to see specialists or receive any treatment necessary without having to worry about the cost. The only criteria will be do I need to be referred to one. The treatment will be given if necessary. I don't see why you would have less under universal healthcare but I don't actually understand your system in the first place. I suppose it depends how you do it."



For many of us it's not Universal Health Care that disturbs us, it's the present proposed plans that have been put forth and the lack of confidence that we have in our government to efficiently administer such plans. Given their sorry administration and fiduciary responsibility of our Social Security System and Postal Serivce are we really to assume that they will run a NHS any better? IF ALL OF OUR SENATORS AND CONGRESSMAN WOULD AGREE TO BE INSURED UNDER THE SAME PLAN THAT THEY PROPOSE FOR WE MERE CITIZENS, I WOULD SIGN UP IN A HEARTBEAT, FOR THEN I WOULD KNOW THAT IT WOULD BE ADMINISTERED PROPERLY.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38570
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Obamacare = New Healthcare Science?

Post by spot »

cherryrama;1249775 wrote: After digesting a complete overview of Obamacare and reading extensively the various analysis of the essence of Obamacare, I can't help but think they must be pushing some new healthcare science - a big experiment on the American people?

The problem with dealing with direct questions from strangers is the amount of work it takes constructing a reply to someone I can guarantee isn't going to be the least interested in its content. Discussing it with people here that I know, even though they disagree with me entirely, is a lot easier because we each know the other's background to some extent.

So. Obamacare. It's too small a topic to start there, we need to step back slightly. It's a calamity for the people of America that John McCain isn't the current President, with Sarah Palin as backup. It's a tragedy of worldwide proportions that Barack Obama won the Presidential election. It gives American Republicans the get-out for their eight years of ruination. They should have been obliged to clean up their own mess. Pushing that mess onto the hired help's plate so they can end up saying what a pitiful waste he made of the Bush White House's wonderful foreign situation and the rip-roaring economy means they'll be able to get back into the White House some time in the next thirty years. Having Obama there as a temporary plus doesn't make up for that lack of accountability. Republicanism should have taken its various policies to their logical conclusion and choked to death on its own vomit.

So, having dealt with that bit, go back one step further and consider health care in general and the condition of the USA in particular. Then we can finally look at Obamacare.

This is my first strand of thought. In any society there will be a gradient of income after tax, from those with least to those with most. The income after tax might be from drawn down wealth, or interest on capital, or wages from hiring their labor, or benefits from the government, charitable gifts, loans to be repaid, the proceeds of crime. Wherever it comes from you can grade the population by it at a given moment. You either grade them as individuals or you grade them as family units, depending on which makes more sense for the analysis you're performing. In the case of health care it's probably the family unit.

Different people draw the line between essential committed expenditure and disposable income at different levels but we can at least, without drawing the line, say the line is meaningful. On the essential committed expenditure side there might be housing of some minimum standard, food of some minimum quality, maybe the education of the family unit's children from some lower to some higher age.

Regardless of how wealthy the country is there may be a proportion of resident family units whose income after tax is insufficient to cover that essential committed expenditure. In a socialist country that proportion might be expected to be lower than in a capitalist free market economy. That's because a capitalist free market economy is unlikely to have as many guaranteed benefits from the government, since economic compulsion of the workforce is a central plank of capitalist free market economies. It might make up for that by a higher level of charitable gifts and for any given pair of countries my statement might be turn out to be false. My argument is, though, that the number of countries where that proportion is zero will be insignificant. Most countries will have a measurable proportion, though the gathering of their national statistics to find out what it is can be bloody hard work.

Secondly, there is the matter of superiority. Is there some reasonable basis by which one can decide which superior family units should be above the line and which inferior ones below it? Even in the freest of capitalist market economies some events might be considered unacceptable. It might be thought that an eight year old child, for example, should be schooled regardless of the ability of the family unit to buy it schooling and so the government might guarantee the funding for children in that position. In order not to create a poverty trap that same guarantee might be extended to all children of that age who choose to attend the schools covered within the guarantee. That's not the only possible option; the guarantee might not extend beyond the indigent and might be financed solely by charitable gift, perhaps. That would rely on a charity board ruling on which family unit was indigent and which wasn't. Societies on both sides of the Atlantic have been there and done that in their day, in the interest of capitalist free market efficiency.

Then there are those for whom no employer is prepared to offer work either through recession or through unemployability by reason of mental or physical illness resulting from sickness or old age. Some of these unemployed may draw down wealth, spend interest on capital, take loans to be repaid or receive guaranteed benefits from the government or from a pension or insurance fund. The entire group seems, on the face of it, too large to rely on charitable gifting as a final possible fall-back. Is it acceptable for any portion of this category to be considered inferior?

Capitalist free market economies value family units, to a greater or lesser extent, by their capacity to generate wealth. The more wealth they generate the higher they're placed on the gradient. This is because the Capitalist free market economy regards that generated wealth as belonging to that family unit. Socialist countries, on the other hand, regard that generated wealth as the property of the State and the amount of generated wealth has nothing to do with the guaranteed benefits from the government on which the family unit lives. Some intermediate countries, mixing socialism with free market principles, will leave some proportion of that generated wealth with the family unit as a part of their income after tax while still allocating them benefits from the government.

That linkage, between an ability to generate wealth and ownership of that wealth, defines superiority in Capitalist free market economies.

My third strand of thought introduces health care. There will be a small subset of people so wealthy that regardless of the cost of their health care they can cover it from their own income and savings. Setting these aside, the only way a given family unit knows it can guarantee treatment regardless of the nature of the illness is through insurance. In those countries which politically choose not to allow any citizen to be left medically untreated, both for chronic and acute illness, life-threatening or otherwise, that insurance is compulsory and universal and no citizen is left uncovered. My original definition of income after tax included government benefits. That universal compulsory insurance comes from income after tax, with the government adding sufficient benefit to guarantee the payment regardless of gross income. That's how it can be universal.

If there were a country where all resident family units had enough income after tax to cover all their essential committed expenditure including health care insurance then that country might reasonably leave the matter of whether to buy insurance or not to the family unit itself, and not make it universal. For all other countries which politically choose to allow some citizens to be left untreated if their family unit fails to cover its essential committed expenditure, some citizens will lack insurance for reasons other than their own deliberate choice.

That's the ethical choice facing any country. Is any citizen to be left untreated as a warning to the others of what happens if they don't buy insurance and then fall too ill to afford treatment? Is any citizen to be left untreated if they actually can't cover their essential committed expenditure and their non-universal insurance consequently lapses?

America, viewed on that gradient I started with, is populated by people most of whom live within mere months of financial collapse. I don't regard that as a particularly healthy way to run a country. ForumGarden has had posts, over the years, from members who've fallen into that position of lapsed insurance and sudden and repeated expensive illness. They're instructive.

Anyway. Obamacare. Does it provide universal cover to all citizens? I haven't a clue. It's not my country.

Does it dictate medical procedures to be followed for people continuing to hold, as they do currently, private medical insurance? I'm told it does. I'm told the reason behind that is to cap the proportion of GDP spent on health care. I think that's a mistake, I think private medical insurance should be left untouched. Once a cheaper universal cover provides an umbrella for all citizens I'd bet that most citizens would heave a sigh of relief and scrap their private cover. In the UK private insurance is held by around 10% of people. It's their choice, that's how many want to choose it. Americans might end up around the same proportion. For government to interfere in the terms of private medical insurance is a major mistake, one which the UK fell into this year regarding access to transplant organs. It should be left to market forces.

As for the specific issues of winding back aspects of Medicare, one of your quotes was "a patient who dies at age 67 spends three times as much on health care at the end of life as a patient who lives to 90". I can well believe it, that makes sense. I have another one though. About half the national cost of all medical treatment, not just treatment for seniors but half the whole national expenditure on everyone - it's a UK fact but it doubtless has an equivalence in the US - covers treatment in the final year of life. Who, precisely, is it that wants that final year of life? It's likely to be the most painful, degrading, scary, feared year of anyone's life and it's unavoidable because euthanasia isn't on the menu, it's not socially acceptable to attend your wake before feeling too awful and then being switched off in full possession of what faculties you might have acquired over the years. That's most of the cost of Medicare and I, for one, think it's money spent to no good purpose.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Obamacare = New Healthcare Science?

Post by gmc »

posted by lon

For many of us it's not Universal Health Care that disturbs us, it's the present proposed plans that have been put forth and the lack of confidence that we have in our government to efficiently administer such plans. Given their sorry administration and fiduciary responsibility of our Social Security System and Postal Serivce are we really to assume that they will run a NHS any better? IF ALL OF OUR SENATORS AND CONGRESSMAN WOULD AGREE TO BE INSURED UNDER THE SAME PLAN THAT THEY PROPOSE FOR WE MERE CITIZENS, I WOULD SIGN UP IN A HEARTBEAT, FOR THEN I WOULD KNOW THAT IT WOULD BE ADMINISTERED PROPERLY


We have problems with our NHS caused to attempts at too much centralised control-new labour are control freaks-meeting target takes over from providing care yet any organisation needs some way to measure performance but things like education and healthcare don't let themselves to tick box goal setting. I don't see how you could do it with centralised control in a country the size of the states.

Seems to me though you need first to come to grips with whether you accept the concept of no payment at the point of use in the first place. I've paid in to the NHS all my life and hardly ever used it so on one level I have paid for everybody else's care including some who have never worked or paid taxes or people who have caused their own health problems-smokers, drunkards, drug users fat people and the like. On the other hand if I need it it's there for me which to me is a priceless peace of mind. I wouldn't tolerate someone trying to take it away.

What about people who are disabled and can't work or who work part time and don't earn enough to pay taxes how do they get cover in the states?
cherryrama
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 12:14 pm

Obamacare = New Healthcare Science?

Post by cherryrama »

Lon, my sentiment exactly. We know what the lawmakers are doing and we don't like it.

GMC,

Thank you for your thoughts and sentiment. We are happy for you that you have a national healthcare system that you love. I don't know what it is like in your country so I have no comment. You need not worry about USA. I think we know our own government better than people from other countries. We are a Contitutional Republic and we want to keep it that way. When the government is out of line we put our feet down.

You don't have to agree with us or understand why we are doing what. I am sure We the people know what we are doing and it is not just political right or left, morally right or wrong. What matters is the principles that this country is founded on, and healthcare is for humans not just resource allocation and artificial valuation of human lives.

It is obvious that our 'lawmakers' are trying to transform our country into something of their own 'vision' drastically different from our founding principles, and re-defining healthcare into a non-human event full of panels, controls, regulations, restrictions, mandate, taxes, fees, penalties, all of which are designed to take away our choices and freedom to make our own healthcare decision.
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Obamacare = New Healthcare Science?

Post by gmc »

cherryrama;1250550 wrote: Lon, my sentiment exactly. We know what the lawmakers are doing and we don't like it.

GMC,

Thank you for your thoughts and sentiment. We are happy for you that you have a national healthcare system that you love. I don't know what it is like in your country so I have no comment. You need not worry about USA. I think we know our own government better than people from other countries. We are a Contitutional Republic and we want to keep it that way. When the government is out of line we put our feet down.

You don't have to agree with us or understand why we are doing what. I am sure We the people know what we are doing and it is not just political right or left, morally right or wrong. What matters is the principles that this country is founded on, and healthcare is for humans not just resource allocation and artificial valuation of human lives.

It is obvious that our 'lawmakers' are trying to transform our country into something of their own 'vision' drastically different from our founding principles, and re-defining healthcare into a non-human event full of panels, controls, regulations, restrictions, mandate, taxes, fees, penalties, all of which are designed to take away our choices and freedom to make our own healthcare decision.


That's what lawmakers always do is it not? Politics is all about who gets to make the laws. What the people want they should get and will no matter who or what gets in the way all that happens is that things get delayed. Seems to me as an outsider there is a real groundswell of ordinary people that are fed up and want change. Looks like you are having fun with this issue.

At least your politicians have a vision at least you can like or hate them. All ours seem to see is a trough in which to stick their noses and have all the vision of a dead cat in a dark cave. It's hard to dislike a moron they are just annoying. maggie thatcher was good that way you could really hate her.
cherryrama
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 12:14 pm

Obamacare = New Healthcare Science?

Post by cherryrama »

GMC,

Fun is not the word to describe this, more like 'heart-breaking'!

We are all yelling: We have had enough and we are not going to take it any more!
cherryrama
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 12:14 pm

Obamacare = New Healthcare Science?

Post by cherryrama »

"You worry about the govt taking away the right to make decisions about healthcare from you and deciding what treatment you receive but see nothing wrong with letting a clerk in an insurance company do it instead. That seems daft. "

Oh it is wrong for the insurance co. to do that! Yes, insurance co. are doing some of that now, but consumers always have the rights to appeal, and even get the attention of the 'court of public opinions'. And if government will allow the opening up of the market, let competition drive down the costs and improve quality, insurance co won't be able to monopolize and it will be a win-win situation for all. BUT NO, government WON'T do that!

Under Obamacare, government has the ultimate authority in everything. We have no way to appeal! They even dictate that the new taxes be called fees or penalties! AND obamacare is only good enough for us little people, not for congress, certainly not for Obama who 'will do what is best for his family!'



"You see it in terms of govt making decisions for you we see it in terms of us telling the govt you will do this or you will be voted out of office."

Actually we are doing both: we are telling them you will do this or you will be voted out, AND, you government are NOT making decisions for us!
cherryrama
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 12:14 pm

Obamacare = New Healthcare Science?

Post by cherryrama »

‘It's a calamity for the people of America that John McCain isn't the current President, with Sarah Palin as backup. It's a tragedy of worldwide proportions that Barack Obama won the Presidential election. It gives American Republicans the get-out for their eight years of ruination. They should have been obliged to clean up their own mess. Pushing that mess onto the hired help's plate so they can end up saying what a pitiful waste he made of the Bush White House's wonderful foreign situation and the rip-roaring economy means they'll be able to get back into the White House some time in the next thirty years. Having Obama there as a temporary plus doesn't make up for that lack of accountability. Republicanism should have taken its various policies to their logical conclusion and choked to death on its own vomit.’

What can I say? Typical reply from you guys: after 10 months, with all the obvious disastrous results from your dear leader’s Stimulus bill’ et al, historically high unemployment, economy going down down down, ringing up a historical deficit that is more than all previous administrations combined ….all you can do is still pointing your fingers at the previous leader and the other party, and, resort to labeling and blindly insisting that people are only resentful of your leader because of who he is and not because of what he represents (anti US constitution).

In any society there will be a gradient of income after tax, from those with least to those with most.

You cannot possibly think that Americans are not taking care of the less advantaged! Americans are the most generous and charitable and you know it.

It is the government that is messing things up! They have removed incentives for charity so they can lay their hands on more taxes, then lay the blame right back on the people for not helping the poor (which is not true – Americans always help out no matter how government makes it hard for them).

Even USA has quite a few progressive to the point of socialistic systems/programs to redistribute wealth to help the less advantaged. Stealthily or drastically, the government has installed a progressive tax system, soc sec , Medicare etc. to redistribute income, against the founding principles of our founders and constitution. Now government is trying to ramp though the biggest entitlement program to transform our Constitutional Republic into something more like the rest of the world.

Why must government be the one to take from one group to give to the other group? Why is government better at taking care of people than people taking care of themselves? There are many private programs and org helping the less fortunate in USA. Hospitals take care of people insured or not (the insured pick up the tab.) Surcharges everywhere to help people pay for electricity, phones etc. The currently uninsured can be helped by utilizing or expanding the existing resources much more efficiently, easily and much less costly than dismantling the entire working system at a prohibitive cost at a time when we already have trillions in deficits and economy is down in the dump……..In a word, government, if seriously concerned about the uninsured, help the uninsured! Don’t’ rob the insured under the disguise of curbing healthcare costs (some curbing – cost of this obamacare is 1 -2 trillions!) with a nationwide great big entitlement program that guarantees chaos and destruction of the good system we have!

Name one country that redistributes everything according to the government’s own ‘utopian’ ideology that has produced a prosperous and happy people? You can’t! USA with its unique Constitution has been the envy of the world,. But no, the jealous socialists, and whatever cannot stand it and have been working for many years to undermine the US Constitution and to destroy the Republic.

Enough said.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38570
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Obamacare = New Healthcare Science?

Post by spot »

You walked past the comparison between universal healthcare and universal education, cherryrama. Would you like to drop a paragraph into the thread saying whether taxation should cover any or all of the cost of education and if so why?
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
Lon
Posts: 9476
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 11:38 pm

Obamacare = New Healthcare Science?

Post by Lon »

Cherrryama said---"‘It's a calamity for the people of America that John McCain isn't the current President, with Sarah Palin as backup."

Surely you jest? We may somewhat agree on the health issue, but sure part on the above.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38570
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Obamacare = New Healthcare Science?

Post by spot »

Lon;1250927 wrote: Cherrryama said---"‘It's a calamity for the people of America that John McCain isn't the current President, with Sarah Palin as backup."

Surely you jest? We may somewhat agree on the health issue, but sure part on the above.


No, cherryrama is a newbie and has no idea how to quote properly on a vBulletin board, that's all. He's just inventing his own quote-reponse style instead of helping keep the site tidy. It was me that said what you quoted, not cherryrama. If you read the paragraph in which I said it you'll see why I think it's true.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
Lon
Posts: 9476
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 11:38 pm

Obamacare = New Healthcare Science?

Post by Lon »

spot;1250944 wrote: No, cherryrama is a newbie and has no idea how to quote properly on a vBulletin board, that's all. He's just inventing his own quote-reponse style instead of helping keep the site tidy. It was me that said what you quoted, not cherryrama. If you read the paragraph in which I said it you'll see why I think it's true.


Whoops!! Sorry bout that. McCain/Palin? We would probably have troops in Iceland.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38570
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Obamacare = New Healthcare Science?

Post by spot »

Lon;1250958 wrote: Whoops!! Sorry bout that. McCain/Palin? We would probably have troops in Iceland.


Maybe so, but at least the bastards would crash and burn without any excuses instead of being let off the hook.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
cherryrama
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 12:14 pm

Obamacare = New Healthcare Science?

Post by cherryrama »

spot;1250944 wrote: No, cherryrama is a newbie and has no idea how to quote properly on a vBulletin board, that's all. He's just inventing his own quote-reponse style instead of helping keep the site tidy. It was me that said what you quoted, not cherryrama. If you read the paragraph in which I said it you'll see why I think it's true.


Gee, how hard it is to 'quote'? I just want to save some space by not quoting your entire post. Now you are a 'neat' police? OK, Neat police, from now on I will keep the site neat and 'quote' properly



Lon, sorry for the confusion.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38570
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Obamacare = New Healthcare Science?

Post by spot »

cherryrama;1251480 wrote: Gee, how hard it is to 'quote'? I just want to save some space by not quoting your entire post. Now you are a 'neat' police? OK, Neat police, from now on I will keep the site neat and 'quote' properly



Lon, sorry for the confusion.


You walked past the comparison between universal healthcare and universal education, cherryrama. Would you like to drop a paragraph into the thread saying whether taxation should cover any or all of the cost of education and if so why?

I see it as a fairly central aspect of the choice that needs making. Either you see education (at some core level) as universal or you don't. If you do, do you support the use of taxation to make some provision toward that universal service or don't you? Reasons would be especially good rather than just a bit of opinion, we've a lot of opinion in the thread but precious little reason so far. Reason, as opposed to opinion, is what might change minds.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
cherryrama
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 12:14 pm

Obamacare = New Healthcare Science?

Post by cherryrama »

gmc;1250547 wrote: posted by lon

What about people who are disabled and can't work or who work part time and don't earn enough to pay taxes how do they get cover in the states?


There is mandatory 'disability insurance' at your work place.

If you work part-time, most likely you don't have to pay tax. If you get laid off, you can continue your insurance through 'COBRA' at your own expense. Yes, it is expensive and it is hard when you are unemployed. However, all hospitals take care of the sick/wounded (except Michelle Obama's hospital) whether you have insurance or not. Pharmaceutical co. also provide aids to those who can't afford prescription drugs. .....

There is room for improvement in the current healthcare system, but government is not the answer, especially this Obamacare plan which

1. is prohibitively costly (1 to 2 trillions when we are already trillions in the hole!)

2. only makes insurance and healthcare costs go up for the average family adding to everyone's burdens while only covering some of the currently uninsured.

3. will be a bureaucratic nightmare controlled by the labor unions, the corrupt government officials.....

________________________________

Spot, forget about government! Everything starts at the family, the community, the churches and other religious org..... people helping people!

Government's 'help' has created a great big mess - welfare state, nanny state concept/practices have destroyed the family units, encouraged dependency mentality.

Just like the best gift parents can give their children is 'Independence" (train them to be independent), the best gift a government can give its people is: independence, self-sufficiency, personal responsibility, NOT taking it from others to give to them !

As for the chronically 'can't take-care-of-themselves', charity, churches, people always come to their rescue.

There will be less chronically 'can't take-care-of-themselves' people if government partners with people to help them learn to be independent, instead of taking from one group to give to the other group!

The more people can take care of themselves the better the society can function.

When the 'government' insists in redistributing wealth, or healthcare or whatever, which is against human nature and penalizes good behaviour while rewarding undesirable behaviour, the number of 'poor' increases and the cycle repeats - more government 'help', more 'poor', more 'poor', more 'government help'.....................
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38570
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Obamacare = New Healthcare Science?

Post by spot »

cherryrama;1251491 wrote: Spot, forget about government! Everything starts at the family, the community, the churches and other religious org..... people helping people!

Government's 'help' has created a great big mess - welfare state, nanny state concept/practices have destroyed the family units, encouraged dependency mentality.

Just like the best gift parents can give their children is 'Independence" (train them to be independent), the best gift a government can give its people is: independence, self-sufficiency, personal responsibility, NOT taking it from others to give to them !

As for the chronically 'can't take-care-of-themselves', charity, churches, people always come to their rescue.

There will be less chronically 'can't take-care-of-themselves' people if government partners with people to help them learn to be independent, instead of taking from one group to give to the other group!

The more people can take care of themselves the better the society can function.

When the 'government' insists in redistributing wealth, or healthcare or whatever, which is against human nature and penalizes good behaviour while rewarding undesirable behaviour, the number of 'poor' increases and the cycle repeats - more government 'help', more 'poor', more 'poor', more 'government help'.....................So would you like to drop a paragraph into the thread saying whether taxation should cover any or all of the cost of education and if so why? Or is that paragraph you saying no, taxation shouldn't carry any of the cost of education and the fact that it currently does in the USA is just socialist creep?

Would you want to turn the clock back and reset education costs in the USA to be completely outside of the tax burden?



As for the chronically 'can't take-care-of-themselves', charity, churches, people always come to their rescue.That's demonstrably untrue just looking at existing aspects of US society. For example, the US (though the government's very careful not to measure or publish any national statistics on the subject!) has somewhere between one and three million people sleeping rough (by which I mean sleeping, through economic necessity as opposed to choice, either outdoors, or in tents, or in cars, or in derelict or inappropriate buildings like train or bus stations in which they have no right to sleep) on any given night, in addition to another 0.5 to 1 million sleeping in subsidized hostels. The comparable figure in England and Wales, with a sixth of the US population, is between 500 and 800 sleeping rough on any given night. The practical difference a social safety net makes often astonishes people. The inadequacy of "charity, churches, people" as a safety net when compared to government programs is blatant.

I'd be grateful for a response to those specific questions on universal education though. It would give me a far better idea of what common ground we might share. I'm all in favor of finding common ground where it exists.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38570
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Obamacare = New Healthcare Science?

Post by spot »

Or you might prefer to explain in what way universal healthcare differs from universal core-years education, in that the one doesn't currently apply to all citizens while the other does. If the two don't differ I'd be grateful for an answer to my question on whether, in your opinion, universal core-years education in the USA should be abandoned.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Obamacare = New Healthcare Science?

Post by gmc »

posted by cherryrama

When the 'government' insists in redistributing wealth, or healthcare or whatever, which is against human nature and penalizes good behaviour while rewarding undesirable behaviour, the number of 'poor' increases and the cycle repeats - more government 'help', more 'poor', more 'poor', more 'government help'.....................


When you allow a few to accumulate all the wealth at the expense of everybody else and you create a tremendous gulf between the have and the have nots then sooner or later the have nots get fed up and exert themselves. In a democracy that comes through the ballot box before the it was often bloody revolution (see european history).

Those who preach it's survival of the fittest and the poor are poor because it is their fault and society should do nothing about it are often surprised when the poor turn round and bite pack. Pack psychology-the top dog only remains so when it can persuade the rest to accept their leadership. Once that acceptance has gone they get ripped to bits.

The government is elected by the people, once the people decide they want things to change nothing is going to stop it. Seems to me as an outsider america has reached that point-your present establishment has lost all credibility, the rich let their wealth trickle down as a concept is inane and always was. They kind of have you brainwashed in to believing any kind of social reform is not the function of government-except it is if that is what people want and who is going to tell them otherwise?

I've come to the conclusion I can't understand american politics on these issues-you really do have a strange way of looking at things. It's interesting though as it kind of makes me re-think some of my cherished assumptions about how we do things. At the moment your democracy is looking a lot healthcare than ours we can't really get at the morons that have got us in to the mess we are in. Maybe we need to go back to throwing stones at politicians. :thinking:
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38570
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Obamacare = New Healthcare Science?

Post by spot »

As a recent news article relating to rough sleeping I'd like to drop Cities Tolerate Homeless Camps into the thread, while we're waiting for the OP to continue the main discussion.

In particular, the example proportion between rough sleepers and available hostel places at the moment: "In Nashville, Mr. Harris, director of the city's homeless commission, said tent cities have existed for years, but he has seen the numbers surge. He now knows of 30 encampments. While some people are chronically homeless, he said, foreclosures have forced others into the streets, as has Tennessee's 10.8% unemployment rate, the highest in 25 years. Nashville estimates that on any given day, the city has 4,000 homeless people and 765 shelter beds. About 25% of the homeless have jobs, Mr. Harris said, but can't afford housing. A nonprofit coalition of 160 churches called Room in the Inn said it received 816 requests for financial assistance to ward off evictions or electricity shutoffs in July, up from 499 in July 2008."
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Obamacare = New Healthcare Science?

Post by gmc »

spot;1253613 wrote: As a recent news article relating to rough sleeping I'd like to drop Cities Tolerate Homeless Camps into the thread, while we're waiting for the OP to continue the main discussion.

In particular, the example proportion between rough sleepers and available hostel places at the moment: "In Nashville, Mr. Harris, director of the city's homeless commission, said tent cities have existed for years, but he has seen the numbers surge. He now knows of 30 encampments. While some people are chronically homeless, he said, foreclosures have forced others into the streets, as has Tennessee's 10.8% unemployment rate, the highest in 25 years. Nashville estimates that on any given day, the city has 4,000 homeless people and 765 shelter beds. About 25% of the homeless have jobs, Mr. Harris said, but can't afford housing. A nonprofit coalition of 160 churches called Room in the Inn said it received 816 requests for financial assistance to ward off evictions or electricity shutoffs in July, up from 499 in July 2008."


Why? The UK has the highest homeless rate in europe, we are hardly in a position to be smug about it so why post this? It's hardly relevant is it unless your point is that Americans are a set of uncaring bastards that need a socialist revolution or something in which case if you posted that you would probably get a two word answer which transcends the cultural divide and is understood in many languages.

BBC NEWS | UK | Homeless families total 100,000

An extra £150m is being released to help the 500,000 homeless people.

Adam Sampson, of the charity, Shelter, said the figures were a "damning indictment" of the fourth-richest country in the world.


Our weather is crap even diehard survivalists wouldn't live in a tent all rear round why do you think we invented caravans? Mine has central heating.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38570
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Obamacare = New Healthcare Science?

Post by spot »

They're homeless but, because we live in a Socialist paradise, they're not (except for a hard-core 500-800 of them on any given night) sleeping rough. The contrast with the USA is in the proportion sleeping rough, not necessarily the proportion homeless.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Obamacare = New Healthcare Science?

Post by gmc »

spot;1253652 wrote: They're homeless but, because we live in a Socialist paradise, they're not (except for a hard-core 500-800 of them on any given night) sleeping rough. The contrast with the USA is in the proportion sleeping rough, not necessarily the proportion homeless.


We are hardly living in a socialist paradise even were such a thing possible-I assume you are being facetious and not delusional. Socialism was influential but as a viable political and economic concept has had it's day-only the most die-hard member of the socialist workers party would think otherwise.

We have adopted, for historical reasons, a view that one of the functions of government is social welfare-indeed social engineering. The US had the same debate but went off in a different direction from ours. They are now having it again.

In any case the comparison between us and the states is on the treatment of the homeless is not quite the same as a discussion on healthcare and is a bit irrelevant.

What is the point you are trying to make?
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38570
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Obamacare = New Healthcare Science?

Post by spot »

gmc;1253811 wrote: What is the point you are trying to make?My comments stemmed from responding to cherryrama's unsustainable "As for the chronically 'can't take-care-of-themselves', charity, churches, people always come to their rescue".

I started my first post on the thread with "And you're who, cherryrama? Someone with an agenda who signed up here to push it?". I think the remainder of the thread bears out my foreboding perfectly. People ought to read their way into a forum and chat a bit before grasping the tiller and deciding where the discussion has to head. It's a community, not Hyde Park.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Obamacare = New Healthcare Science?

Post by gmc »

spot;1253878 wrote: My comments stemmed from responding to cherryrama's unsustainable "As for the chronically 'can't take-care-of-themselves', charity, churches, people always come to their rescue".

I started my first post on the thread with "And you're who, cherryrama? Someone with an agenda who signed up here to push it?". I think the remainder of the thread bears out my foreboding perfectly. People ought to read their way into a forum and chat a bit before grasping the tiller and deciding where the discussion has to head. It's a community, not Hyde Park.


I don't object to the agenda anyone has so long as they don't mind being heckled and can hold their own. It is a discussion forum after all and you clearly have your own agenda as well though it seems obscure at times.

Trolls indulge in a form of intellectual masturbation and tend not to hang around seeking satisfaction elsewhere.

posted by spot

It's probably the sight of someone joining just to push a particular opinion down my throat that I object to, especially when it's one he didn't write himself.




You are not exactly loathe to do a bit of shoving yourself are you?:D
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38570
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Obamacare = New Healthcare Science?

Post by spot »

He's not come back then. Shame, that, there were unanswered questions.

All Jazeera has a discussion about it today.

Al Jazeera English - Focus - The paradox of US healthcare
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Obamacare = New Healthcare Science?

Post by K.Snyder »

Lon;1250958 wrote: Whoops!! Sorry bout that. McCain/Palin? We would probably have troops in Iceland.spot;1250986 wrote: Maybe so, but at least the bastards would crash and burn without any excuses instead of being let off the hook.


:wah:
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Obamacare = New Healthcare Science?

Post by K.Snyder »

I can't see how anyone without the ability to afford adequate health care insurance can be against public health care at the same time what in the world do people that wish to keep privatized health care fear?

How about "you" keep your private health insurance and allow the people that cannot afford health care to receive it all the while you benefit by watching your premiums go down ever so to the enjoyment of all?

Doesn't make sense! :mad: "You" don't make sense! :mad:

Return to “Health and Drug Concerns”