Healthcare
- Thread starter Al Wohlstrom
- Start date
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
:thumbsup: I'm with you too Dom.
Jack Houpe
GT40s Supporter
I guess I am not the only person in the USA with a lack of intelligence. Seems that quite a few people have voiced opinions of the Obama page 425, just watch the news at night and read at the news papers. One thing politicians are good at is covering up what their intent is to get the vote, this is were fools follow. Trust a politician? You really have to have a lack of intelligence to do that. (both Dem and Rep)
Attachments
Guys,
Thanks for all the support. I try to be balanced in my approach, but sooner or later one has to take a stand and declare where he / she stands.
If you read the two Telegraph articles,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...atients-missing-out-British-expert-warns.html
Gordon and Sarah Brown join US pro-NHS Twitter campaign - Telegraph
Praises are sung by Hawking, Brown etc about the treatment of the young. Naturally, the young will be treated well. They would have had better treatment in the states.
I read in the Times about 10 days ago that women over 55 with breast cancer don't get the same treatment as a woman of 25. Sorry I can't be more specific.
What concerns me after reading Al's post on page 4 of the GP who read the bill, and commented, I compared 6 points in Al's post to the proposed bill. I couldn't see the GPs point from the way it was written. I think to fully understand why he said what he did one must look at:
- the people writing the bill (the democrats and their public policy)
- what is their public policy and philosophy (do they want to buy votes?)
- what have they said to the public about it all (do they understand its costs? and moral implications?)
- what is their record for delivering the truth with regards to budgets
- do they understand the consequences
I don't trust the Rainbow Coalition to give me what I want. If you were here in the UK during the last parliamentary election, and you heard the arrogance of the British Labour party, you certainly would not want that in the US of A. And guess what, we got it !!!
Thanks for all the support. I try to be balanced in my approach, but sooner or later one has to take a stand and declare where he / she stands.
If you read the two Telegraph articles,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...atients-missing-out-British-expert-warns.html
Gordon and Sarah Brown join US pro-NHS Twitter campaign - Telegraph
Praises are sung by Hawking, Brown etc about the treatment of the young. Naturally, the young will be treated well. They would have had better treatment in the states.
I read in the Times about 10 days ago that women over 55 with breast cancer don't get the same treatment as a woman of 25. Sorry I can't be more specific.
What concerns me after reading Al's post on page 4 of the GP who read the bill, and commented, I compared 6 points in Al's post to the proposed bill. I couldn't see the GPs point from the way it was written. I think to fully understand why he said what he did one must look at:
- the people writing the bill (the democrats and their public policy)
- what is their public policy and philosophy (do they want to buy votes?)
- what have they said to the public about it all (do they understand its costs? and moral implications?)
- what is their record for delivering the truth with regards to budgets
- do they understand the consequences
I don't trust the Rainbow Coalition to give me what I want. If you were here in the UK during the last parliamentary election, and you heard the arrogance of the British Labour party, you certainly would not want that in the US of A. And guess what, we got it !!!
To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce
the growth in health care spending, and for other purposes.
This is first thing that is said on the health bill, I wonder what the hell is "and for other purposes."
Somehow this thread seems to lose its way, along the way, and gets bogged down in side issues. Politicians will come and go. Legislation once enacted in ANY form is there to stay. There is some evidence that the Dems will allow some changes in the bill to satisfy even the Repubs. Sort of like buying a bare Christmas tree. It doesn't look the way you want it to until all the balls, tinsel and lights are added after its in the house. The Dems will give whatever they can to get the legislation passed. Then whenever thay try to add the tinsel, and the Repubs squeal, they will say that they(the Repubs) are just trying to limit your healthcare.
The other plan is to pass the legislation and set it up like medicare, with the money put out, cloaked in "the usual and customary fees" which will be reduced over time as medicare has been due to shortfalls in the amount of money available. The money that was in medicare was raided by President Johnson in the 60s and put into the general fund, with a "promise" to return it. Due to this pilfering, medicare is virtually bankrupt. They will not deny your surgery regardless of your health or preexisting problems, but will hold out to pay only 15% or so, and you will have to ante up the other 85%, knowing good and well that most will not be able to afford the 85%. Thus saving the government the 15%.
Enough of this ranting though. Here are some more GOOD examples put forth by the filthy rich. John Macke is the founder and now CEO of Whole Foods. He has come out with the Whole Foods alternative to Obamacare.
Eight things we can do to improve health care without adding to the deficit
These were published in the Wall Street Journal today.
John Mackey: The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare - WSJ.com
He starts it off with a quote:
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out
of other people's money."
—Margaret Thatcher
I think all regardless of your country of origin or political leanings can't find fault with what he proposes. Why do I say that, well click on the link and read it for yourselves. I think most if not all will agree that it is basicly common sense, and easily gotten without a lot of squabling.
Bill
The other plan is to pass the legislation and set it up like medicare, with the money put out, cloaked in "the usual and customary fees" which will be reduced over time as medicare has been due to shortfalls in the amount of money available. The money that was in medicare was raided by President Johnson in the 60s and put into the general fund, with a "promise" to return it. Due to this pilfering, medicare is virtually bankrupt. They will not deny your surgery regardless of your health or preexisting problems, but will hold out to pay only 15% or so, and you will have to ante up the other 85%, knowing good and well that most will not be able to afford the 85%. Thus saving the government the 15%.
Enough of this ranting though. Here are some more GOOD examples put forth by the filthy rich. John Macke is the founder and now CEO of Whole Foods. He has come out with the Whole Foods alternative to Obamacare.
Eight things we can do to improve health care without adding to the deficit
These were published in the Wall Street Journal today.
John Mackey: The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare - WSJ.com
He starts it off with a quote:
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out
of other people's money."
—Margaret Thatcher
I think all regardless of your country of origin or political leanings can't find fault with what he proposes. Why do I say that, well click on the link and read it for yourselves. I think most if not all will agree that it is basicly common sense, and easily gotten without a lot of squabling.
Bill
"Rather than increase government spending and control, we need to address the root causes of poor health. This begins with the realization that every American adult is responsible for his or her own health."
This paragraph from the article really says it all, and extrapolated, I think it is the fundamental difference between the Liberal and Conservative viewpoints. In a word, "responsibility". As free adults, we have the freedom to choose, good or bad. Conservatives may feel compassion, but any help they may be inclined to offer (to someone who has chosen poorly) is considered charity. You choose your bed, you get to lie in it. If I feel sorry for you, I can "choose" to help you. The Liberal approach mandates that help; State enforced charity. The government should decide what help those who have made bad choices should get, and then requires everyone (or at least those who pay taxes, as in "the rich") to subsidize it. Gathering votes is a happy byproduct; and where does the helping/vote buying/ stay in power at any cost end? A flat screen in every hovel? At whose expense?
I can't see where these two viewpoints can ever be reconciled, because both sides (other than the politicians) sincerely believe they're right. One side feels good about doing good for those less fortunate, the other side says you have to earn your good.
I can see both sides. My problem arises when those who 'need' help demand it as a right, or worse, others who feel they have the "moral authority" to demand I help! NO ONE has a "right" to the fruits of my hard work. If you want to donate, good for you, but don't you tell me I am required to do what YOU think is right, or 'what's good for me'!
My wife and I tutor at at inner city school, and kids who don't have lunch money have cell phones and $100 sneakers. We feed them their big meal for the day, lunch. While we help, and sponsor a few good students (that we decided were deserving), I don't feel responsible for them. We do the same for the homeless. I don't feel responsible for them either. They choose their lifestyle. They don't have any 'right' to my time or my contributions! The bottom line, I decide how, where and when I help. I do not need, want or accept someone else telling me what I 'must' do!
This paragraph from the article really says it all, and extrapolated, I think it is the fundamental difference between the Liberal and Conservative viewpoints. In a word, "responsibility". As free adults, we have the freedom to choose, good or bad. Conservatives may feel compassion, but any help they may be inclined to offer (to someone who has chosen poorly) is considered charity. You choose your bed, you get to lie in it. If I feel sorry for you, I can "choose" to help you. The Liberal approach mandates that help; State enforced charity. The government should decide what help those who have made bad choices should get, and then requires everyone (or at least those who pay taxes, as in "the rich") to subsidize it. Gathering votes is a happy byproduct; and where does the helping/vote buying/ stay in power at any cost end? A flat screen in every hovel? At whose expense?
I can't see where these two viewpoints can ever be reconciled, because both sides (other than the politicians) sincerely believe they're right. One side feels good about doing good for those less fortunate, the other side says you have to earn your good.
I can see both sides. My problem arises when those who 'need' help demand it as a right, or worse, others who feel they have the "moral authority" to demand I help! NO ONE has a "right" to the fruits of my hard work. If you want to donate, good for you, but don't you tell me I am required to do what YOU think is right, or 'what's good for me'!
My wife and I tutor at at inner city school, and kids who don't have lunch money have cell phones and $100 sneakers. We feed them their big meal for the day, lunch. While we help, and sponsor a few good students (that we decided were deserving), I don't feel responsible for them. We do the same for the homeless. I don't feel responsible for them either. They choose their lifestyle. They don't have any 'right' to my time or my contributions! The bottom line, I decide how, where and when I help. I do not need, want or accept someone else telling me what I 'must' do!
I liked the article, and I agree with most of what he says. If I had a better plan, I would put it forward.
I especially like the point of personal responsibility. If smoking, obesity and overweight conditions lead to excessive bad health conditions, then we have to step up to this. I can understand why an insurance company doesn't want to fund someone who is "supersized". No disrespect here to anyone.
It is true that where socialized medicine exists, people want private health cover to get them fixed when they can't get the job done by the local health service.
Yesterday the BBC came out in the NHS' defense.
I especially like the point of personal responsibility. If smoking, obesity and overweight conditions lead to excessive bad health conditions, then we have to step up to this. I can understand why an insurance company doesn't want to fund someone who is "supersized". No disrespect here to anyone.
It is true that where socialized medicine exists, people want private health cover to get them fixed when they can't get the job done by the local health service.
Yesterday the BBC came out in the NHS' defense.
This would be the news that you never listen to? Sounds like ABC, NBC, and CBS, all three can put a left slant on anything.
sorry to join mid way through this 
The british NHS is a exelent service, i have nothing but praise for the men a women who do this job. Yes in someareas it is streached, but private medical is avaliable, i have used this, and imho its no better or worse than the NHS where i live.
And from my experience waiting times are less than 2 months for something minor, where as a elderly neighbour who has just being diagnosed with cancer, had a specilist appointment 1 week after going to her doctor, and a week after that will be going in hospital for treatment........
for those of you who dont want it..... dont use it, go/stay private medical
The british NHS is a exelent service, i have nothing but praise for the men a women who do this job. Yes in someareas it is streached, but private medical is avaliable, i have used this, and imho its no better or worse than the NHS where i live.
And from my experience waiting times are less than 2 months for something minor, where as a elderly neighbour who has just being diagnosed with cancer, had a specilist appointment 1 week after going to her doctor, and a week after that will be going in hospital for treatment........
for those of you who dont want it..... dont use it, go/stay private medical
People that keep private plans will eventually end up on the government plan, like it or not, as soon as there is ANY kind of change in their private plan.
All depends on the belief base of the viewer!
Good different viewpoint! But seriously, would you let that guy work on you? Needs a bit of personal hygiene!
sorry to join mid way through this
The british NHS is a exelent service, i have nothing but praise for the men a women who do this job. Yes in someareas it is streached, but private medical is avaliable, i have used this, and imho its no better or worse than the NHS where i live.
And from my experience waiting times are less than 2 months for something minor, where as a elderly neighbour who has just being diagnosed with cancer, had a specilist appointment 1 week after going to her doctor, and a week after that will be going in hospital for treatment........
for those of you who dont want it..... dont use it, go/stay private medical
+1 Ivan
Similar threads
