if our healthcare could compete across state lines, prices would go down. prices are high for a reason. too many people wanting control! I have an HMO and i love it, but i live where everyone pretty much has insurance through their work, and it's not much but it's something. I still think that people who once could afford insurance can't anymore because we are too busy covering everyone's asses that doesn't have healthcare. that not the taxpayers problem.
Yes, it's much better to work all your life and save your money so that in the end you can give all away to doctors in the 'chance' that they might save you for a few years of poverty.
The health care system in Canada is really good. I speak from personal experience. My grandmother has had cancer three times and the health care system has pulled her through each time.
I believe in universal healthcare but there should be exclusions; for example, if you've ever been convicted of a felony then you don't get any coverage. Plus, the government needs to invest more money in medical scholarships and better facilities so we have adequate manpower and resources.
Look at the figures that compare the U.S healthcare with other countries. The U.S system fails when you look at the figures in many ways. Highest GDP than any other country, Highest infant mortality rates, life expectancy one of the lowest (even when compared to some 3rd world countries). Moreover, from 2000-2004 costs rose steeply-four times as fast as wages. Do not succumb to media propaganda on CNN, about the fears of healthcare for all, look at the #'s- Democracy or Polyarchy?
Obama is such a statist. It's unbelievable. He seems to think only gov't can fix everything and that the free market is totally corrupt. At his ASU speech, he spent minutes bashing business and businessmen, and then a few days later at some town hall, he says "i like the free market" or "I love capitalism." HA! No, you don't. You're a big-gov't statist through and through.
I mean, even in the stimulus debate, Barack actually said "only gov't" can fix the economic problems. lol
The solution is not to give the entire system to the gov't. That would be a disaster. The solution is to deregulate and give consumers BACK their power in the market. Consumer power is diluted by insurance companies, HMOs, gov't interference. But there are plenty of free market or hybrid systems that work well, such as Germany, Japan, Switzerland and Singapore. We don't NEED to get socialized medicine! It will be a disaster. Many socialized systems now allow some private insurance, too.
And for those who advocate a "public option", wake the fuck up. We already have a so-called public option called MEDICAID! Sure, there are problems with eligibility requirements and whatnot that keep some poor people off, but we can fix that. We don't need some NEW added layer of bureaucracy to the already overregulated healthcare system.
You know why healthcare is so expensive?? It's b/c too much gov't interference. It's not "natural" to the healthcare market, for god sakes.
Healthcare was much less expensive and more affordable before gov't got involved in a huge way in the 1960s! Look it up. Back then, we spent only 5% of our GDP on healthcare. Now we spend 3 times that much. Of course, I'm sure the amount our gov't spends is equal to the amount OTHER nationalized systems spend, so it's not really fair to compare our system to theirs and say "well, they spend less." Well, yeah, b/c only gov't pays for healthcare. But we also have private insurance and such.
Insurance and government regulation were introduced into the healthcare market because it does not produce good results when left to grow wild. The healthcare market is a textbook example of a market prone to problems. Take a look at "Perfect Competion" at the wikipedia site to see why.
Lady, wake up! Every system "rations" to some extent. At least ours isn't bound by artificial limits because the government won't cover everything. Only certain things. So those who are poor would still have to pay if they get a rare disease or have to use some new traetment the idiot gov't monopoly decides not to cover. Besides, who are you to eliminate my freedom of choice in the healthcare system for your ridiculous gov't monopoly? Is that MORAL? I think not
Why wasn't this articulate, accurate woman invited to the "Health Summit"? Single Payer - the low-cost, high quality option for national health care - is in a media blackout, even by PBS' Frontline. After the excellent "Sick Around the World", "Sick Around America" drew irrational conclusions from their own data! Corporate sponsors, maybe? Unlike those with fair national hc plans, we are being financially ruined by the insurance companies, HMOs & for-profit hospital corps that pick our pockets.
It's not "low cost" by any means. There's no such thing as a free lunch. do you even do your research? Long waiting lines, less drugs covered, you name it. Sure, coverage is free, but NHC comes with devastating effects. And I'm so sick and tired of this ridiculous term "single-payer." It's NOT! It's collective payer. It's a collectivist monopoly designed to take away choice and individual liberty from patients. It is a DISASTER everywhere it works. It sacrifices quality for cost.
It is good thinking and telling by this woman. Yeah, that's what you get when you have a republican government (even now it seems to be democratic). And it happens in many countries but it does't need to be this way. It works better in Canada or take a look at Sweden. Whatever, it's getting worse since people are getting more and more stripped of freedom, power and wealth. Bright new future. Who wants to bring children in this world?
Most western countries with National Health Care systems have low birth rates (much lower than USA) and there is no way their government will be able to afford them in this century. In Europe not even immigration will counterbalance the fast ageing of population. Eurostat office predicts that in 2060 almost one third of citizens in European Union will be 65 or older.
@xaviqaz 1): this a complete diffrent point you are talking about. This discussion is about Health Care not about population. But let me go into it a little: I am a woman in Europe. My grandmother had 8 children and she hated it. My mother had 2 children and had to work since we both were 6 weeks old despite the fact that a baby needs to be breastfed for at least a year to develop properly. Like the most Europeans we live in tiny appartments like a shoe box. No space, fresh air or nature around.
I´m european too and i hope that americans will not set up a universal national healthcare system. If they do they will regret sooner or later. In fact a few decades ago they had a much more affordable system with much less public speding (10% instead of current 50%) and it worked wonderfully. Government regulations have made it worse and worse, and replaced doctor-patient direct relationship for subsidized big corporations. I know quite well how it works.
@xaviqaz 2): An average man can not afford to feed a family. All women I know, and I mean all of them, who are older than 40 and with children said in a true moment, they would never have them again for various reasons. Most educated women do not want more than one child. Why do Brasilians burn their rain forest down (and I don't mean cooperate greed)? They need to feed their children! Despite the propaganda: The earth doesn' t have enough resources to feed more people...
Nations whose women have only 1 child have NO future, and their (our) Welfare public system will inevitably collapse because of ageing. That´s the case of Germany and many other european countries, not America. America is one of the few western countries that achieves replacement level of fertility (2.1 children per woman). Even fertility among whites americans is much higher (1.9) than european (1.4)
@xaviqaz: Dude, you don't get it. If women don't wanna have more children for obvious reasons, what will you do about it? Is this a pissing contest which nation inhabitats the earth in the future? Why is it so bad when a population just fades out naturally? Stop waving the national flag! It's more at stake here. By the way, of course the problem of a Public Health Care System is the middleman.
This woman is very well spoken. If only ALL Americans were this intelligent and informed we might realize how pathetic and backward our healthcare system really is.
My experience is that my mother - who had lung cancer - was able to move from one ins co to another with very little trouble. You seem to be repeating a false urban legend or simply have no experience.
Why does everyone in America have unbiased access to school teachers, police and fire fighters? We should just get rid of this public assistance, and make it private. We are using their TIME and only the people that can afford their time and services should receive their help. Why don't you try using your brain sometime?
In a single payer system you have monolithic rationing - one bureaucracy makes all the decisions. Today's system has an almost unlimited number of bureaucracies making decisions. If you don't like the decision you can go elsewhere. With a single payer system there will be no place to go. Is that what people want? I don't!
Well; you'll have your black market services. There will always be those who can opt out. Now if you are a compassionate doctor and went into the business to help people, this won't be a problem. If you're there to get rich, I don't want you for a doctor anyway.
Naivete. If you do not like the decision (ie, your health insurance provider denies you coverage), then you can NOT "go elsewhere." No insurance company will pick you up because you now have a documented "pre-existing condition."
The point is that you can go around the insurance provider and pay for health treatment yourself. And you have a choice of health providers with different track records of payment, coverage, etc. In a single payer system you cannot go around the system. Once you are refused you simply cannot get treatment. That's why so many Brits and Canadians show up in US hospitals.
I believe most people are already faced with one big bureaucracy -- that being the one insurance company provided by their employer. If you are lucky enough to be in a big enough group to have more choices you are lucky, but your luxury comes at a cost to the rest of us.
I don't have high quality insurance, and I can still choose my doctor. I know lets just have the tax payers provide health care for the poor who are lazy and don't want to work. ..... Stupid woman needs to shut the hell up.
That's the fundamental difference between "barbaric capitalism" and democratic socialism. We like to think that healthcare is a basic human right that everyone should have, and Americans seem to think that if you don't make lots of money you don't deserve that. Maybe freedom of speech should be allowed only for rich people too? Lazy people don't deserve that.
How can 'healthcare' ever be a human right? Healthcare requires someone to work to provide it. Do you have the right to someone else's time? Essentially that is slavery on a small scale. ACCESS to healthcare can be a right, ie no one can be refused.
Do you think people have the right to food? shelter? Education? All these things are provided when someone else puts in the time (farming, building, teaching etc.) The Fire and Police are an essential service. Nobody questions our right to those kind of protections.
Amen to that. If we're going to give everyone free healthcare we should be giving everyone free food and shelter too... Those are even more critical to sustain life.
No see bigterguy what you need to understand is that these people want hard working Americans to pay for those who don't want to work. I saw it all the time in new york, all these lower income families who admit they collect welfare, yet they have satellite television dishes on their homes. I grew up without cable or satellite, why?.... because my parents PAID THEIR OWN BILLS!
I think you and I are saying the same thing. Some folks want others to pay for their lifestyles. And they believe that certain niceties in life are their 'right', without having to work for it.
Our system requires everyone to be given the chance to obtain goods and services from others without prejudice, but it does, and should, not require those goods and services to be provided for free. That would be socialism/collectivism, which always ALWAYS declines into tyranny. Read history.
I don't think anyone is asking for things to be provided "Free" everyone will still get paid.
What youre really trying to say here I think, is that you don't believe it is the responsibility of the taxpayer to help insure that all U.S. citizens get the care they need if they can't aford it, or help lower costs for Business so it can give more that just a 15 cent raise to their workers.
what about the ppl that would like to have insurance and would pay but are denied or their insurance doesn't allow them to have a costly procedure that they need?
... proprty rights require lawyers, clerks and courts ... free speech rights often require police to keep the peace ... where are you going with this?
Thats not the point, the point is the constitution gives Americans the right for freedom of speech. Not health care. No one should be forced to PAY for someone elses health care. I dont come to your house and ask for you to pay my electric bill because I cant afford it. No I work hard and pay my own damn bills.
dude, I know lets be merciful and just kill off the poor who are lazy and dont want to work, then they wouldnt have to suffer through their disease, besides they dont pay that much in taxes anyway.
Yeah that's nice. You can choose any doctor you want and what ever care he recommends you receive the for profit HMO will fight you tooth and nail until your either bankrupt or dead. Happens all the time, just wait until you need to use your health insurance to see how worthless it has become. She is right by the way.
xylin3 re not so many lazy people... I could not agree more. Unfortunately, a lot of people would rather not take the risk that they might help those few who do fit that description. In avoiding that, all the deserving people get the shaft. If we help 95 people and 5 losers abuse the system, is that not a success?
Sure. Look at just about any law, or program and show me where there is no abuse. It's just an opportunity to bash it. doesnt matter the actual substance.
I was speaking to a guy who wants to actually use the "lobbyists/Teabagging" axis to attack things like abortion (using diaper and formula companies, etc). it looks like this will go on and on and on as long as some corporate interest is behind them.)
The United States was founded with the declaration that all men have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Founders recognized that all men have a moral right to be free from the coercion of others, as long as they allow others the same freedom. They believed that rights do not impose a positive obligation on others, but only the negative obligation to restrain from the initiation of force.
Yes, and The Founders lived in a time of the Internet, Modern Medicine, Modern Industry, Air Pollution, Water Pollution, automatic weapons, and Nuclear Missiles. No? They had no clue about these things? Say it ain't so!
Look, use reason and evidence for your arguments. "Appeal to Authority" in the form of "The Founder Fallacy" is not an argument.
That's why we have a Constitution - it explicitly states what powers the federal government has, and if new powers need to be given then an amendment needs to be passed. No exceptions. End of story.
Granted. However, it is up to the STATES to deny the Federal government its undue powers, not INDIVIDUALS. We are a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy or Anarchy. If the states acquiesce, then it is Constitutional. End o' story.
Having said that, I could easily see a UHC system that is administered directly by the states themselves, similar to Canada, where UHC is administered provincially, which guidelines coming from the Feds.
It's called free trade. Doctors need to make money - that's why they're doctors. You wanna put a cap on the money a doctor can make? Too bad. I'd prefer to move closer to capitalist America than socialist America.
"Free Trade" usually means reducing barriers to international commerce. I think you meant to say "free market". Insurance and government regulation were introduced into the healthcare market because it does not produce good results when left to grow wild. The healthcare market is a textbook example of a market prone to problems. Take a look at "Perfect Competion" at the wikipedia site to see why.
Obama has said that if he could start from scratch that is the type of system he would prefer. He goes on to say that he does not think that it is a realistic option politically. So, he promotes this compromise of a reformed system that includes a public option. (This being roughly paraphrased from his speeches / remarks as I understand them.)
My parents had a PPO. My mom got liver cancer, she had transplants, biopsies, chemo, radio, alternative.....nothing helped.....everything was approved with some of the best doctor....died 8 years after diagnosis....
Sorry to hear about your parents, but it's not only the payment system for health care that is broken, its also the treatment. There are much better treatments for cancer then bathing in radiation. But that's one of the only AMA treatments for cancer. Have you ever seen or heard of a doctor getting cancer and going through chemo?..Probably not because a smart doctor knows that's not how u cure cancer, let alone treat.
Yes i've heard of a doctor get cancer and go through chemo. She was a brilliant doctor and professor and went through chemo, lost her hair and is now doing very well and professing again at the university. So i have to say you are wrong sir.
In her recent editorial, Betsy McCaughey describes Daschle's attitude towards the elderly in his book:
He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept hopeless diagnoses and forgo experimental treatments, and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
To the lady talking: Thank Hillary Clinton for the rationing and the HMOs.True competition was there before HMOs and it worked. HMOs basically have a captive population and ration care.Before the Health Reform by Hillary, patient got what he/she needed (may be for profit) without restrictions. HMOs keep more money for themselves if they spend less on patient care...see? Control of healthcare by a single/few groups does not work. Let medicine be the people's choice and it will get better.
HMOs were created by The Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973, when Hillary Clinton was like 26. Whatever her faults, you can't blame her for the existence of HMOs.
Thanks for your retarded comment anyway, it further proves to me that conservatives don't know crap about health care.
People are so intelligent. This woman speaks the truth.
Profit is actually driving people OUT of healthcare. 100s of doctors and ancillary persons are leaving each year due to increased demand that we violate the ethics of our provision by refusing care to all but the "wealth"-endowed who can afford the care - it's in direct violation of national and international ethics for healthcare providers.
There is no one in Canada on a waiting list for health care? Your statistics are basically correct...as far as they go. Further examination will show that the quality of US physicians is much higher. Doctors are not leaving the US to practice in Canada. And yes, the government in Canada has had policies which limit the number of doctors trained in Canada. There is not an unlimited government budget.
Jsc, thanks, but I already knew that many Canadian physicians come here (physician pay is much higher here). I was asking about evidence that "the quality of US physicians is much higher." Another journal article would be much appreciated.
You may be right. I couldn't find ANY articles that say "the quality of US physicians is much higher". Silly me. Perhaps Canada is better than I thought. Perhaps the government-run health care system in Canada will inspire the rest of the world to embrace more and bigger government. Perhaps this will be the dawn of a new socialism that actually works.............naaaahhhhhhh.
Well, you seem like a reasonable fellow, and I doubt you would insult the physicians of an entire country without any evidence at all. So even if no scholarly journal will support that claim, is there a newspaper article that will back you up? A magazine article? Anything I could read? Thanks again.
You are right and I was wrong. I got sloppy and equated the percentage of "specialists" (that percentage is much higher in the US) with "quality". I now freely admit that just because someone is a "specialist" that does not necessarily equate to "higher quality" than "general practitioner".
Yeah, we do have a lot of specialists. IMHO, it keeps waiting times for elective procedures down, but the supplier-induced demand probably makes our system more costly as well. Thanks for getting back to me.
All health care involves rationing, it's called triage.
And if everyone gets everything they want from healthcare, there won't be any money left over for anything else. "rationing" just means we can't afford (for example) to give everyone with heart disease a heart transplant. duh...
Right. Every country rations health care. But when it is done by price (in a free market) there are strong incentives to increase the number of health care givers. People work hard to become doctors, nurses. et. Compare that with Canada where the government has been severely LIMITING the number of people who can go to med school in order to keep costs down.
Physicians per 1000 population, 2005: Canada 2.2, UK 2.4, U.S. 2.4, France 3.4, Germany 3.4. And by the way, those other countries are more successful at keeping costs down.
You can see the full video on Barak's website. He did not make a specific response. This was an open forum in which he was seeking input for his healthcare policy project. We'll see his response, I suppose, when he comes out with policy statement / plan.
if our healthcare could compete across state lines, prices would go down. prices are high for a reason. too many people wanting control! I have an HMO and i love it, but i live where everyone pretty much has insurance through their work, and it's not much but it's something. I still think that people who once could afford insurance can't anymore because we are too busy covering everyone's asses that doesn't have healthcare. that not the taxpayers problem.
crow370ownz 1 year ago
Yes, it's much better to work all your life and save your money so that in the end you can give all away to doctors in the 'chance' that they might save you for a few years of poverty.
your reward for a life of work and saving....
nice.
xylin3 2 years ago
This old lady clearly articulates her point. Why can't the nut jobs at the "Town Hall meetings" do the same?
tommylehman 2 years ago
They sure do ration alot more in Canada then our private insurance companies in America.
A government run system would be a huge mistake in America just imagine people like Miss Piggy Nancy getting her hands on our health care system.
We would be paying upwards of 70% in taxes no thanks.
The free market is the only way!
johnnorvaisas 2 years ago
The health care system in Canada is really good. I speak from personal experience. My grandmother has had cancer three times and the health care system has pulled her through each time.
And we don't pay 70% taxes.
landothedead 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I believe in universal healthcare but there should be exclusions; for example, if you've ever been convicted of a felony then you don't get any coverage. Plus, the government needs to invest more money in medical scholarships and better facilities so we have adequate manpower and resources.
fooschnikens 2 years ago
Look at the figures that compare the U.S healthcare with other countries. The U.S system fails when you look at the figures in many ways. Highest GDP than any other country, Highest infant mortality rates, life expectancy one of the lowest (even when compared to some 3rd world countries). Moreover, from 2000-2004 costs rose steeply-four times as fast as wages. Do not succumb to media propaganda on CNN, about the fears of healthcare for all, look at the #'s- Democracy or Polyarchy?
Steele3434 2 years ago 2
Obama is such a statist. It's unbelievable. He seems to think only gov't can fix everything and that the free market is totally corrupt. At his ASU speech, he spent minutes bashing business and businessmen, and then a few days later at some town hall, he says "i like the free market" or "I love capitalism." HA! No, you don't. You're a big-gov't statist through and through.
I mean, even in the stimulus debate, Barack actually said "only gov't" can fix the economic problems. lol
whoo689 2 years ago
I need help looking for the quote where he said "only gov't" can fix the economic problems."
can you help me ?
xylin3 2 years ago
The solution is not to give the entire system to the gov't. That would be a disaster. The solution is to deregulate and give consumers BACK their power in the market. Consumer power is diluted by insurance companies, HMOs, gov't interference. But there are plenty of free market or hybrid systems that work well, such as Germany, Japan, Switzerland and Singapore. We don't NEED to get socialized medicine! It will be a disaster. Many socialized systems now allow some private insurance, too.
whoo689 2 years ago
And for those who advocate a "public option", wake the fuck up. We already have a so-called public option called MEDICAID! Sure, there are problems with eligibility requirements and whatnot that keep some poor people off, but we can fix that. We don't need some NEW added layer of bureaucracy to the already overregulated healthcare system.
You know why healthcare is so expensive?? It's b/c too much gov't interference. It's not "natural" to the healthcare market, for god sakes.
whoo689 2 years ago
Healthcare was much less expensive and more affordable before gov't got involved in a huge way in the 1960s! Look it up. Back then, we spent only 5% of our GDP on healthcare. Now we spend 3 times that much. Of course, I'm sure the amount our gov't spends is equal to the amount OTHER nationalized systems spend, so it's not really fair to compare our system to theirs and say "well, they spend less." Well, yeah, b/c only gov't pays for healthcare. But we also have private insurance and such.
whoo689 2 years ago
Insurance and government regulation were introduced into the healthcare market because it does not produce good results when left to grow wild. The healthcare market is a textbook example of a market prone to problems. Take a look at "Perfect Competion" at the wikipedia site to see why.
LambdaFox 2 years ago
Lady, wake up! Every system "rations" to some extent. At least ours isn't bound by artificial limits because the government won't cover everything. Only certain things. So those who are poor would still have to pay if they get a rare disease or have to use some new traetment the idiot gov't monopoly decides not to cover. Besides, who are you to eliminate my freedom of choice in the healthcare system for your ridiculous gov't monopoly? Is that MORAL? I think not
whoo689 2 years ago
Why wasn't this articulate, accurate woman invited to the "Health Summit"? Single Payer - the low-cost, high quality option for national health care - is in a media blackout, even by PBS' Frontline. After the excellent "Sick Around the World", "Sick Around America" drew irrational conclusions from their own data! Corporate sponsors, maybe? Unlike those with fair national hc plans, we are being financially ruined by the insurance companies, HMOs & for-profit hospital corps that pick our pockets.
SupportWeThePeopleKB 2 years ago 3
It's not "low cost" by any means. There's no such thing as a free lunch. do you even do your research? Long waiting lines, less drugs covered, you name it. Sure, coverage is free, but NHC comes with devastating effects. And I'm so sick and tired of this ridiculous term "single-payer." It's NOT! It's collective payer. It's a collectivist monopoly designed to take away choice and individual liberty from patients. It is a DISASTER everywhere it works. It sacrifices quality for cost.
whoo689 2 years ago
It is good thinking and telling by this woman. Yeah, that's what you get when you have a republican government (even now it seems to be democratic). And it happens in many countries but it does't need to be this way. It works better in Canada or take a look at Sweden. Whatever, it's getting worse since people are getting more and more stripped of freedom, power and wealth. Bright new future. Who wants to bring children in this world?
2supremea 3 years ago
Most western countries with National Health Care systems have low birth rates (much lower than USA) and there is no way their government will be able to afford them in this century. In Europe not even immigration will counterbalance the fast ageing of population. Eurostat office predicts that in 2060 almost one third of citizens in European Union will be 65 or older.
xaviqaz 3 years ago
@xaviqaz 1): this a complete diffrent point you are talking about. This discussion is about Health Care not about population. But let me go into it a little: I am a woman in Europe. My grandmother had 8 children and she hated it. My mother had 2 children and had to work since we both were 6 weeks old despite the fact that a baby needs to be breastfed for at least a year to develop properly. Like the most Europeans we live in tiny appartments like a shoe box. No space, fresh air or nature around.
2supremea 3 years ago
I´m european too and i hope that americans will not set up a universal national healthcare system. If they do they will regret sooner or later. In fact a few decades ago they had a much more affordable system with much less public speding (10% instead of current 50%) and it worked wonderfully. Government regulations have made it worse and worse, and replaced doctor-patient direct relationship for subsidized big corporations. I know quite well how it works.
xaviqaz 3 years ago
@xaviqaz 2): An average man can not afford to feed a family. All women I know, and I mean all of them, who are older than 40 and with children said in a true moment, they would never have them again for various reasons. Most educated women do not want more than one child. Why do Brasilians burn their rain forest down (and I don't mean cooperate greed)? They need to feed their children! Despite the propaganda: The earth doesn' t have enough resources to feed more people...
2supremea 3 years ago
Nations whose women have only 1 child have NO future, and their (our) Welfare public system will inevitably collapse because of ageing. That´s the case of Germany and many other european countries, not America. America is one of the few western countries that achieves replacement level of fertility (2.1 children per woman). Even fertility among whites americans is much higher (1.9) than european (1.4)
xaviqaz 3 years ago
@xaviqaz: Dude, you don't get it. If women don't wanna have more children for obvious reasons, what will you do about it? Is this a pissing contest which nation inhabitats the earth in the future? Why is it so bad when a population just fades out naturally? Stop waving the national flag! It's more at stake here. By the way, of course the problem of a Public Health Care System is the middleman.
2supremea 3 years ago
This woman is very well spoken. If only ALL Americans were this intelligent and informed we might realize how pathetic and backward our healthcare system really is.
acb13222 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
no, obama is def a nigger.
Neuroelectronic 3 years ago
"a person who is economically, politically, or socially disenfranchised"
really ??
xylin3 2 years ago
Where is Obama's reply?!
dylang88 3 years ago
My experience is that my mother - who had lung cancer - was able to move from one ins co to another with very little trouble. You seem to be repeating a false urban legend or simply have no experience.
bigterguy 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Obama is a nigger
Neuroelectronic 3 years ago
I hope that makes you feel better about yourself. Way to contribute intelligently.
datdamonfoo 3 years ago
Old people are old.
interfl0p 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey bigterguy...
Why does everyone in America have unbiased access to school teachers, police and fire fighters? We should just get rid of this public assistance, and make it private. We are using their TIME and only the people that can afford their time and services should receive their help. Why don't you try using your brain sometime?
sdhirajgmail 3 years ago
Comment removed
sdhirajgmail 3 years ago
In a single payer system you have monolithic rationing - one bureaucracy makes all the decisions. Today's system has an almost unlimited number of bureaucracies making decisions. If you don't like the decision you can go elsewhere. With a single payer system there will be no place to go. Is that what people want? I don't!
bigterguy 3 years ago
Comment removed
sdhirajgmail 3 years ago
Well; you'll have your black market services. There will always be those who can opt out. Now if you are a compassionate doctor and went into the business to help people, this won't be a problem. If you're there to get rich, I don't want you for a doctor anyway.
Licmycat 3 years ago 2
Naivete. If you do not like the decision (ie, your health insurance provider denies you coverage), then you can NOT "go elsewhere." No insurance company will pick you up because you now have a documented "pre-existing condition."
eXcommunicate1979 3 years ago
The point is that you can go around the insurance provider and pay for health treatment yourself. And you have a choice of health providers with different track records of payment, coverage, etc. In a single payer system you cannot go around the system. Once you are refused you simply cannot get treatment. That's why so many Brits and Canadians show up in US hospitals.
bigterguy 3 years ago
I believe most people are already faced with one big bureaucracy -- that being the one insurance company provided by their employer. If you are lucky enough to be in a big enough group to have more choices you are lucky, but your luxury comes at a cost to the rest of us.
LambdaFox 2 years ago
lotta bravery to speak your mind in a situation like that, major props
CypherSystem 3 years ago
the margins for these companies is out of control
ChemicalEngineerUCSB 3 years ago
Insurance companies also need to be regulated and strick oversight. They are some of our worst crooks.
Licmycat 3 years ago
Medicare is a rip-off unless you have a terminal disease.
Licmycat 3 years ago
I don't have high quality insurance, and I can still choose my doctor. I know lets just have the tax payers provide health care for the poor who are lazy and don't want to work. ..... Stupid woman needs to shut the hell up.
l1nuxun1l 3 years ago
Work for an HMO?
Licmycat 3 years ago
That's the fundamental difference between "barbaric capitalism" and democratic socialism. We like to think that healthcare is a basic human right that everyone should have, and Americans seem to think that if you don't make lots of money you don't deserve that. Maybe freedom of speech should be allowed only for rich people too? Lazy people don't deserve that.
nawitus 3 years ago 2
How can 'healthcare' ever be a human right? Healthcare requires someone to work to provide it. Do you have the right to someone else's time? Essentially that is slavery on a small scale. ACCESS to healthcare can be a right, ie no one can be refused.
bigterguy 3 years ago
Comment removed
sdhirajgmail 3 years ago
Do you think people have the right to food? shelter? Education? All these things are provided when someone else puts in the time (farming, building, teaching etc.) The Fire and Police are an essential service. Nobody questions our right to those kind of protections.
shadush 3 years ago
you're being pedantic.
uethello 3 years ago
Amen to that. If we're going to give everyone free healthcare we should be giving everyone free food and shelter too... Those are even more critical to sustain life.
jnmunsey 3 years ago
No see bigterguy what you need to understand is that these people want hard working Americans to pay for those who don't want to work. I saw it all the time in new york, all these lower income families who admit they collect welfare, yet they have satellite television dishes on their homes. I grew up without cable or satellite, why?.... because my parents PAID THEIR OWN BILLS!
l1nuxun1l 3 years ago
I think you and I are saying the same thing. Some folks want others to pay for their lifestyles. And they believe that certain niceties in life are their 'right', without having to work for it.
Our system requires everyone to be given the chance to obtain goods and services from others without prejudice, but it does, and should, not require those goods and services to be provided for free. That would be socialism/collectivism, which always ALWAYS declines into tyranny. Read history.
bigterguy 3 years ago
I don't think anyone is asking for things to be provided "Free" everyone will still get paid.
What youre really trying to say here I think, is that you don't believe it is the responsibility of the taxpayer to help insure that all U.S. citizens get the care they need if they can't aford it, or help lower costs for Business so it can give more that just a 15 cent raise to their workers.
Awesome thing to say BTW...
xylin3 2 years ago
what about the ppl that would like to have insurance and would pay but are denied or their insurance doesn't allow them to have a costly procedure that they need?
sapier 3 years ago
... proprty rights require lawyers, clerks and courts ... free speech rights often require police to keep the peace ... where are you going with this?
LambdaFox 2 years ago
Which lazy people? The rich ones or the poor ones?
Licmycat 3 years ago
Thats not the point, the point is the constitution gives Americans the right for freedom of speech. Not health care. No one should be forced to PAY for someone elses health care. I dont come to your house and ask for you to pay my electric bill because I cant afford it. No I work hard and pay my own damn bills.
l1nuxun1l 3 years ago
dude, I know lets be merciful and just kill off the poor who are lazy and dont want to work, then they wouldnt have to suffer through their disease, besides they dont pay that much in taxes anyway.
CypherSystem 3 years ago
Comment removed
danh2os 3 years ago
Comment removed
danh2os 3 years ago
Yeah that's nice. You can choose any doctor you want and what ever care he recommends you receive the for profit HMO will fight you tooth and nail until your either bankrupt or dead. Happens all the time, just wait until you need to use your health insurance to see how worthless it has become. She is right by the way.
artieart 3 years ago
You know there aren't really all that many people in this country that are "lazy and don't want to work"
xylin3 2 years ago
xylin3 re not so many lazy people... I could not agree more. Unfortunately, a lot of people would rather not take the risk that they might help those few who do fit that description. In avoiding that, all the deserving people get the shaft. If we help 95 people and 5 losers abuse the system, is that not a success?
LambdaFox 2 years ago
Sure. Look at just about any law, or program and show me where there is no abuse. It's just an opportunity to bash it. doesnt matter the actual substance.
I was speaking to a guy who wants to actually use the "lobbyists/Teabagging" axis to attack things like abortion (using diaper and formula companies, etc). it looks like this will go on and on and on as long as some corporate interest is behind them.)
It's getting ridiculous.
xylin3 2 years ago
The guy behind her has really weird hair.
sanitarium09 3 years ago
The United States was founded with the declaration that all men have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Founders recognized that all men have a moral right to be free from the coercion of others, as long as they allow others the same freedom. They believed that rights do not impose a positive obligation on others, but only the negative obligation to restrain from the initiation of force.
HeroicLife 3 years ago
Yes, and The Founders lived in a time of the Internet, Modern Medicine, Modern Industry, Air Pollution, Water Pollution, automatic weapons, and Nuclear Missiles. No? They had no clue about these things? Say it ain't so!
Look, use reason and evidence for your arguments. "Appeal to Authority" in the form of "The Founder Fallacy" is not an argument.
eXcommunicate1979 3 years ago
That's why we have a Constitution - it explicitly states what powers the federal government has, and if new powers need to be given then an amendment needs to be passed. No exceptions. End of story.
jnmunsey 3 years ago
Granted. However, it is up to the STATES to deny the Federal government its undue powers, not INDIVIDUALS. We are a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy or Anarchy. If the states acquiesce, then it is Constitutional. End o' story.
Having said that, I could easily see a UHC system that is administered directly by the states themselves, similar to Canada, where UHC is administered provincially, which guidelines coming from the Feds.
eXcommunicate1979 3 years ago
I don't see what all the hubub is about, Canada, Australia, England etc - all have free healthcare for everyone
and it works.
teqland 3 years ago 3
Don't want to be in an HMO? Don't.
"It should be between the person and the system"
The system? It's called a hospital, and a doctor.
It's called free trade. Doctors need to make money - that's why they're doctors. You wanna put a cap on the money a doctor can make? Too bad. I'd prefer to move closer to capitalist America than socialist America.
crazydavidsmith 3 years ago
Doctors make out quite well in Canada, thanks.
eXcommunicate1979 3 years ago
"Free Trade" usually means reducing barriers to international commerce. I think you meant to say "free market". Insurance and government regulation were introduced into the healthcare market because it does not produce good results when left to grow wild. The healthcare market is a textbook example of a market prone to problems. Take a look at "Perfect Competion" at the wikipedia site to see why.
LambdaFox 2 years ago
What's the response of Obama?
Splintmat 3 years ago 2
Obama has said that if he could start from scratch that is the type of system he would prefer. He goes on to say that he does not think that it is a realistic option politically. So, he promotes this compromise of a reformed system that includes a public option. (This being roughly paraphrased from his speeches / remarks as I understand them.)
LambdaFox 2 years ago
"Mute that woman's mic!" -Healthcare industry
linagee 3 years ago 6
My parents had a PPO. My mom got liver cancer, she had transplants, biopsies, chemo, radio, alternative.....nothing helped.....everything was approved with some of the best doctor....died 8 years after diagnosis....
shdwsclan2 3 years ago
Maybe all that care got her 8 years. Maybe she would have died in the first year after discovering the liver cancer without the care she got?
linagee 3 years ago
Sorry to hear about your parents, but it's not only the payment system for health care that is broken, its also the treatment. There are much better treatments for cancer then bathing in radiation. But that's one of the only AMA treatments for cancer. Have you ever seen or heard of a doctor getting cancer and going through chemo?..Probably not because a smart doctor knows that's not how u cure cancer, let alone treat.
rustymetal 3 years ago
Yes i've heard of a doctor get cancer and go through chemo. She was a brilliant doctor and professor and went through chemo, lost her hair and is now doing very well and professing again at the university. So i have to say you are wrong sir.
sonet900 3 years ago
Google: Bloomberg + Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan: Betsy McCaughey
WeAreChangeBrisbane 3 years ago
Betsy McCaughey? LMAO... She's on the payroll of Big Pharma. Her opinion means jack dick (plus her article was just factually wrong).
eXcommunicate1979 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
And of Tom Daschle's quotes????
Puppet is what puppet does. Just like Bush.
WeAreChangeBrisbane 3 years ago
So is the Raytheon Lobbyist (Military industrial complex payroll) Obama hired when he said he wouldn't hire lobbyists.
WeAreChangeBrisbane 3 years ago
In her recent editorial, Betsy McCaughey describes Daschle's attitude towards the elderly in his book:
He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept hopeless diagnoses and forgo experimental treatments, and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.
WeAreChangeBrisbane 3 years ago
come to Europe and see what healt care really means!!!!
mihaicosmos 4 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
To the lady talking: Thank Hillary Clinton for the rationing and the HMOs.True competition was there before HMOs and it worked. HMOs basically have a captive population and ration care.Before the Health Reform by Hillary, patient got what he/she needed (may be for profit) without restrictions. HMOs keep more money for themselves if they spend less on patient care...see? Control of healthcare by a single/few groups does not work. Let medicine be the people's choice and it will get better.
lrvives 4 years ago
lrvives--
HMOs were created by The Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973, when Hillary Clinton was like 26. Whatever her faults, you can't blame her for the existence of HMOs.
Thanks for your retarded comment anyway, it further proves to me that conservatives don't know crap about health care.
Jimuardo 4 years ago 3
Why hasn't this woman been tazed?
ProtoCosmos 4 years ago 2
A fine question!
rodneyws1977 3 years ago
People are so intelligent. This woman speaks the truth.
Profit is actually driving people OUT of healthcare. 100s of doctors and ancillary persons are leaving each year due to increased demand that we violate the ethics of our provision by refusing care to all but the "wealth"-endowed who can afford the care - it's in direct violation of national and international ethics for healthcare providers.
beccadawn23 4 years ago
There is no one in Canada on a waiting list for health care? Your statistics are basically correct...as far as they go. Further examination will show that the quality of US physicians is much higher. Doctors are not leaving the US to practice in Canada. And yes, the government in Canada has had policies which limit the number of doctors trained in Canada. There is not an unlimited government budget.
jscottupton 4 years ago
Hey jscottupton, I'd love to hear your evidence that the quality of US physicians is much higher than Canadian physicians.
On another point, Germany and France also limit the number of physicians they have, and yet they still have more than we do. What gives?
Jimuardo 4 years ago
Start by searching "The Canadian contribution to the US physician workforce" on your search engine.
jscottupton 4 years ago
Jsc, thanks, but I already knew that many Canadian physicians come here (physician pay is much higher here). I was asking about evidence that "the quality of US physicians is much higher." Another journal article would be much appreciated.
Jimuardo 4 years ago 2
You may be right. I couldn't find ANY articles that say "the quality of US physicians is much higher". Silly me. Perhaps Canada is better than I thought. Perhaps the government-run health care system in Canada will inspire the rest of the world to embrace more and bigger government. Perhaps this will be the dawn of a new socialism that actually works.............naaaahhhhhhh.
jscottupton 4 years ago
Well, you seem like a reasonable fellow, and I doubt you would insult the physicians of an entire country without any evidence at all. So even if no scholarly journal will support that claim, is there a newspaper article that will back you up? A magazine article? Anything I could read? Thanks again.
Jimuardo 4 years ago
You are right and I was wrong. I got sloppy and equated the percentage of "specialists" (that percentage is much higher in the US) with "quality". I now freely admit that just because someone is a "specialist" that does not necessarily equate to "higher quality" than "general practitioner".
jscottupton 4 years ago
Yeah, we do have a lot of specialists. IMHO, it keeps waiting times for elective procedures down, but the supplier-induced demand probably makes our system more costly as well. Thanks for getting back to me.
publicgood 4 years ago
All health care involves rationing, it's called triage.
And if everyone gets everything they want from healthcare, there won't be any money left over for anything else. "rationing" just means we can't afford (for example) to give everyone with heart disease a heart transplant. duh...
ExtraGarlicNow 4 years ago
Right. Every country rations health care. But when it is done by price (in a free market) there are strong incentives to increase the number of health care givers. People work hard to become doctors, nurses. et. Compare that with Canada where the government has been severely LIMITING the number of people who can go to med school in order to keep costs down.
jscottupton 4 years ago
Physicians per 1000 population, 2005: Canada 2.2, UK 2.4, U.S. 2.4, France 3.4, Germany 3.4. And by the way, those other countries are more successful at keeping costs down.
Jimuardo 4 years ago
That old lady rocks!
bluejulian 4 years ago 2
Where is Barak's response?
cockandballz 4 years ago
You can see the full video on Barak's website. He did not make a specific response. This was an open forum in which he was seeking input for his healthcare policy project. We'll see his response, I suppose, when he comes out with policy statement / plan.
LambdaFox 4 years ago
Comment removed
WeAreChangeBrisbane 3 years ago