Well first of all, that's not even true. Where do you get that info?
Compare the mortality rates of men with prostate cancer between the US and Great Britain. Or the breast cancer rates. We have much higher survival rates here.
But, even if what you said were true, there are a myriad of other issues involved that prevent me from agreeing with socialized medicine.
Look at any of the WHO or UN reports on such matters. Yes, international groups do keep statistics on these things, and yes, people in most other First-World nations with nationalized health-care systems do live longer. That may or may not be due to the system itself, it may have more to do with how much ours sucks at the moment -- but nobody's willing to admit that maybe our system is in the shitter and needs SOME kind of change. I hope both parties start trying to be productive...
this is only the beginning of their plans to take away all our freedoms. This healthcare bill should all be a sign to us that if we don't act soon we will all be slaves to the fashist dictatorship that is America.
Okay, I can understand maybe not liking to socialize things, sure... that being said, how does offering people healthcare take away *any*-body's rights? The right to go bankrupt over one medical procedure? Yeah... I think that's a "right" most people would be pretty cool to ditch, to be honest. Or the right to not be able to afford something? Again... try a better argument, don't just repeat Rush's Rx-induced-insani-speech please... For that matter, no Olberman either from the left
Because they aren't "offering". It's mandatory for everyone. If/when the system becomes insolvent, then what? Raising taxes? Rationing care? How do we turn back if/when that happens? Why should my parents, who have worked hard and paid taxes for like 45 years, have to be subject to rationed care so that 12 million non-tax paying illegals get free care? Why should tax payers have to pay for abortion?
Is the answer really only either do nothing or complete government take-over?
Honestly, I don't think anybody means for taxpayers to pay for abortions (which is kind of a silly argument as it is - the bill will be amended just to pass prohibiting that). Rationing I don't really see happening, that's a scare from Soviet style governments.
I think more countries have attempted this for us to take ideas from so that should be a non-issue (sidenote: we already do this in the modern insurance industry)
Not to be nitpicking, but examples? I still say, if nothing else we can use the issues with other systems as lessons we get to learn without having to experience them directly.
The women in Great Britain who were denied pap smears. Which is a simple, routine procedure here, was denied to them. There was an article in the WSJ back in July.
"Speaking to the American Medical Association last month, President Obama waxed enthusiastic about countries that "spend less" than the U.S. on health care. He's right that many countries do, but what he doesn't want to explain is how they ration care to do it."
I don't think the abortion issue is silly at all. For tax payers to be forced to pay for something that goes against their moral and religious standards is a serious issue.
One of the problems with passing legislation like this is that once it's passed, it won't matter what is included or excluded because they can change things through rules and regulations. Wish I could post links here.
That's a wholly subjective way of looking at it there -- I mean, I, as a single childless person, don't appreciate a lot of my taxes going to subsidize others' children, or marriage. Under the same understanding as the abortion question above, why should I be forced to pay my tax dollars to subsidize others' choice to breed/marry?
(Now that was more Devil's advocate than anything) Abortion will nonetheless most likely be blocked, that is why I was saying it is a "silly issue" to argue about.
To boot, rationing is something we already do -- Have you ever had to do deal with insurance companies before, or have you been lucky enough to stay healthy?
Insurance companies are out to make a profit, I'm pretty solidly in the camp that some things should be kept nonprofit -- medicine, education, the military and a few other things are so basic that I don't think profiteering is healthy or even ethical. Profit-making leads to the abuses we see in the system today.
I have dealt with insurance companies. Many times. My dad recently had prostate cancer and very quickly got the surgery he needed and is mostly recovered. Would he have gotten that surgery as quickly or at all under this healthcare plan?
Assuming that the government is altruistic is crazy to me.
To be honest: I'm not assuming any of that, I simply have seen the current system fail miserably in a great many instances and wish to see it reformed.
I think I've said before that I'm open to all ideas that can improve our system - I really wish the "opposition" side of this "debate" would bother to offer some. No, tax-cuts and promising no regulation isn't the way to go - that worked wonderfully for banks, after all.
I think people have offered solutions. Tort reform being one. Getting employers out of providing insurance. It has ended up costing more through employers and driven competition way down. If people shopped for insurance like they do for their car, prices would drop. Allow people to buy insurance across state lines. I know people smarter than I am have more solutions.
Thank you for talking to me peacefully. We need to be able to do this!
Tort reform is needed, I grew up in the great state of many many many lawyers (California) and lawsuits over everything, so tort reform seems a no-brainer to me.
That being said, taking the onus off of employers would mean either somehow individuals would have to fund the dif, or the govt would -- but with the govt trough being offered, I'm very wary how high private insurers would hike rates.
I am honestly amazed that those ideas aren't the ones being discussed first.
I've been looking into buying insurance privately and have found it to be $100 cheaper a month than what we get through the company with comparable benefits. Check it out! I was amazed.
How's that deductible, though? Or the exclusions? For that matter, is there a cap in coverage? Limit to almost no prescription coverage (or at the very least ridiculous co-pays)? Or do they hide those specifics by saying "X number of generics! Y number of brands! all included!" until you run into it...
I'll admit, I'm probably just cynical and that is why I don't trust most of the "cheaper alternatives." In the end, they *usually* end up not being. Congrats if yours is an exception, tho
I'm not sure about it being deductible. I need to check into more. When you buy through a company, you pay more because some people have more expensive needs than others so you end up shouldering that cost. What I found out so far, is that it was very comparable. I need to do more research.
I also appreciate the civil discussion, instead of simply hurling insults which is what I've seen in most of these discussions.
If only our leaders would attempt this maybe something useful would happen. I'm getting increasingly worried that all of this is going to be for naught however, and that the giant Cartel-like corporations have already made some sweetheart deals that will ravage us for generations to come.
Insurance premiums as they stand now are a tax directly applied to those of us that have insurance, and we are already paying for those without -- in a very expensive and inefficient manner.
Now I'm young enough I don't really need insurance that often. I am intelligent enough to realize that sh!t happens, and there is the chance I'll need it so I pay for it.
I also wish for a more thorough debate, and an end to this "do it this way" vs "NO" as the two options. Seems childish to me, really
People living in countries with socialized medicine live longer than us, have lower rates of disease than us and their care costs LESS than ours.
What about that doesn't sound better to you people?
BrianTotse 2 years ago
Well first of all, that's not even true. Where do you get that info?
Compare the mortality rates of men with prostate cancer between the US and Great Britain. Or the breast cancer rates. We have much higher survival rates here.
But, even if what you said were true, there are a myriad of other issues involved that prevent me from agreeing with socialized medicine.
Cincinnati912Project 2 years ago
Look at any of the WHO or UN reports on such matters. Yes, international groups do keep statistics on these things, and yes, people in most other First-World nations with nationalized health-care systems do live longer. That may or may not be due to the system itself, it may have more to do with how much ours sucks at the moment -- but nobody's willing to admit that maybe our system is in the shitter and needs SOME kind of change. I hope both parties start trying to be productive...
TheDraekia 2 years ago
There is no doubt that there needs to be changes. But are the only two choices complete government take-over or nothing?
Cincinnati912Project 2 years ago
cleveland rocks
rara71 2 years ago
this is only the beginning of their plans to take away all our freedoms. This healthcare bill should all be a sign to us that if we don't act soon we will all be slaves to the fashist dictatorship that is America.
polak66678 2 years ago
Okay, I can understand maybe not liking to socialize things, sure... that being said, how does offering people healthcare take away *any*-body's rights? The right to go bankrupt over one medical procedure? Yeah... I think that's a "right" most people would be pretty cool to ditch, to be honest. Or the right to not be able to afford something? Again... try a better argument, don't just repeat Rush's Rx-induced-insani-speech please... For that matter, no Olberman either from the left
TheDraekia 2 years ago
Because they aren't "offering". It's mandatory for everyone. If/when the system becomes insolvent, then what? Raising taxes? Rationing care? How do we turn back if/when that happens? Why should my parents, who have worked hard and paid taxes for like 45 years, have to be subject to rationed care so that 12 million non-tax paying illegals get free care? Why should tax payers have to pay for abortion?
Is the answer really only either do nothing or complete government take-over?
Cincinnati912Project 2 years ago
Honestly, I don't think anybody means for taxpayers to pay for abortions (which is kind of a silly argument as it is - the bill will be amended just to pass prohibiting that). Rationing I don't really see happening, that's a scare from Soviet style governments.
I think more countries have attempted this for us to take ideas from so that should be a non-issue (sidenote: we already do this in the modern insurance industry)
TheDraekia 2 years ago
Rationing is already happening in other countries with socialized medicine.
Cincinnati912Project 2 years ago
Not to be nitpicking, but examples? I still say, if nothing else we can use the issues with other systems as lessons we get to learn without having to experience them directly.
TheDraekia 2 years ago
The women in Great Britain who were denied pap smears. Which is a simple, routine procedure here, was denied to them. There was an article in the WSJ back in July.
"Speaking to the American Medical Association last month, President Obama waxed enthusiastic about countries that "spend less" than the U.S. on health care. He's right that many countries do, but what he doesn't want to explain is how they ration care to do it."
Cincinnati912Project 2 years ago
I don't think the abortion issue is silly at all. For tax payers to be forced to pay for something that goes against their moral and religious standards is a serious issue.
One of the problems with passing legislation like this is that once it's passed, it won't matter what is included or excluded because they can change things through rules and regulations. Wish I could post links here.
Cincinnati912Project 2 years ago
That's a wholly subjective way of looking at it there -- I mean, I, as a single childless person, don't appreciate a lot of my taxes going to subsidize others' children, or marriage. Under the same understanding as the abortion question above, why should I be forced to pay my tax dollars to subsidize others' choice to breed/marry?
(Now that was more Devil's advocate than anything) Abortion will nonetheless most likely be blocked, that is why I was saying it is a "silly issue" to argue about.
TheDraekia 2 years ago
Well I hope you're right.
Cincinnati912Project 2 years ago
To boot, rationing is something we already do -- Have you ever had to do deal with insurance companies before, or have you been lucky enough to stay healthy?
Insurance companies are out to make a profit, I'm pretty solidly in the camp that some things should be kept nonprofit -- medicine, education, the military and a few other things are so basic that I don't think profiteering is healthy or even ethical. Profit-making leads to the abuses we see in the system today.
TheDraekia 2 years ago
I have dealt with insurance companies. Many times. My dad recently had prostate cancer and very quickly got the surgery he needed and is mostly recovered. Would he have gotten that surgery as quickly or at all under this healthcare plan?
Assuming that the government is altruistic is crazy to me.
Cincinnati912Project 2 years ago
To be honest: I'm not assuming any of that, I simply have seen the current system fail miserably in a great many instances and wish to see it reformed.
I think I've said before that I'm open to all ideas that can improve our system - I really wish the "opposition" side of this "debate" would bother to offer some. No, tax-cuts and promising no regulation isn't the way to go - that worked wonderfully for banks, after all.
TheDraekia 2 years ago
I think people have offered solutions. Tort reform being one. Getting employers out of providing insurance. It has ended up costing more through employers and driven competition way down. If people shopped for insurance like they do for their car, prices would drop. Allow people to buy insurance across state lines. I know people smarter than I am have more solutions.
Thank you for talking to me peacefully. We need to be able to do this!
Cincinnati912Project 2 years ago
Tort reform is needed, I grew up in the great state of many many many lawyers (California) and lawsuits over everything, so tort reform seems a no-brainer to me.
That being said, taking the onus off of employers would mean either somehow individuals would have to fund the dif, or the govt would -- but with the govt trough being offered, I'm very wary how high private insurers would hike rates.
I am honestly amazed that those ideas aren't the ones being discussed first.
PS Charactr limits suck
TheDraekia 2 years ago
I've been looking into buying insurance privately and have found it to be $100 cheaper a month than what we get through the company with comparable benefits. Check it out! I was amazed.
Cincinnati912Project 2 years ago
How's that deductible, though? Or the exclusions? For that matter, is there a cap in coverage? Limit to almost no prescription coverage (or at the very least ridiculous co-pays)? Or do they hide those specifics by saying "X number of generics! Y number of brands! all included!" until you run into it...
I'll admit, I'm probably just cynical and that is why I don't trust most of the "cheaper alternatives." In the end, they *usually* end up not being. Congrats if yours is an exception, tho
TheDraekia 2 years ago
I'm not sure about it being deductible. I need to check into more. When you buy through a company, you pay more because some people have more expensive needs than others so you end up shouldering that cost. What I found out so far, is that it was very comparable. I need to do more research.
Cincinnati912Project 2 years ago
I also appreciate the civil discussion, instead of simply hurling insults which is what I've seen in most of these discussions.
If only our leaders would attempt this maybe something useful would happen. I'm getting increasingly worried that all of this is going to be for naught however, and that the giant Cartel-like corporations have already made some sweetheart deals that will ravage us for generations to come.
TheDraekia 2 years ago
Insurance premiums as they stand now are a tax directly applied to those of us that have insurance, and we are already paying for those without -- in a very expensive and inefficient manner.
Now I'm young enough I don't really need insurance that often. I am intelligent enough to realize that sh!t happens, and there is the chance I'll need it so I pay for it.
I also wish for a more thorough debate, and an end to this "do it this way" vs "NO" as the two options. Seems childish to me, really
TheDraekia 2 years ago
Good Job Cleveland!
fellow patriot
combat1856 2 years ago
God bless these folks that marched in Cleveland! The day was rainy and ucky but they stood firm and walked several miles to protest ObamaCare.
May we all be as strong and bold to stand up for America and American's Constitutional Freedoms and Rights!!!
Patriots Unite!!!
jorjalex 2 years ago