Healthcare, another opinion...

[HogWild-USMC]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/david-millward/6027945/Daniel-Hannan-is-wrong-about-the-NHS-America-has-it-much-worse.html

The whole article:

I have little doubt that Fox TV and the American right are lapping up Daniel Hannan's attack on the evils of "socialised" health care we enjoy in Britain. But I do wonder what experience he has actually had of what is on offer in the USA. I have - albeit indirectly - believe me it was not nice.

A few years ago we had the transatlantic call we had always feared, my mother-in-law had been involved in a car accident and what followed was a nightmare.

Blinded by bright sunlight she had driven into the back of a trailer, writing off the car and shattering her knee at the same time. The fact that the hospital was dealing with a 78-year-old widow living on her own did not seem to register with those entrusted with her care.

Clearly physically unable to cope, my mother-in-law was turfed out and left to fend for herself - swiftly followed by a bill for the knee brace. What followed were months of form filling and haggling with insurers who were determined to pay out as little as they could get away with.

There were all sorts of ruses, from trying to persuade her to accept half the money she was entitled to or inventing non-existent clauses on the policy to reduce liability.

A few years later she had a heart attack and the final months of her life gave us a further insight into the bureaucratic nightmare which surrounds the American insurance-based system.

After she died we visited the doctor who had cared for her, and listened to the kindly Sri-Lankan as he poured his heart out. The rudimentary Medicare system placed limits on how often he was allowed to visit patients in hospital, even when they were seriously ill. He bent the system by officially visiting one and then swinging by the rest just to make sure they were OK.

At the very start of our Magical Mystery Tour of the American health system were were advised to hire a lawyer to deal with the paperwork. Little did we know how difficult it would be.

This may be the sort of system which Mr Hannan wants, but I don't and - I suspect - nor do many Americans.

Now I won't bother to try to discredit this. Word for word, it may very well be true. So let's say it's true.

Our system has problems. Whose doesn't? They all do of course, and someone always has a horror story. So let's talk about a horror story. Remember the child in Iraq that was doused in gasoline and set on fire?

Where was that boy sent? England? No, even though according to this news article the boy would have been taken care of just fine with no trouble. France? No, that have enough islamists thank you very much. Germany? Nope, not there either. Saudi Arabia? Arguably the richest county on the plant.... nope.

That boy was sent to America for treatment. Why? I won't even speculate. You can decide for yourselves why he was sent to America, I'll just give a little help:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/12/youssif.arrives/index.html

Why, oh why fly a burned kid half around the world for medical care when there is much BETTER and FREE care just a few hours away?

Could it be that none of the closer countries would help a child in need? Could it be that the parents of this child couldn't pay?

Or...

Could it be that the only DOCTOR on the planet that said "bring that child to me so I can care for him" was in the United States, and when it's over there is NO BILL TO PAY!

:hog:

[HogWild-USMC]

Another article that makes sharp critisism's of the U.S. healthcare system and staunchly defends the England healthcare system. I could have skipped posting this, but information is power, and you guy's are my friends. Be sure to read the whole article, I'm just going to cover a few points.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/the-brutal-truth-about-americarsquos-healthcare-1772580.html

The LA Forum, the arena that once hosted sell-out Madonna concerts, has been transformed – for eight days only – into a vast field hospital. In America, the offer of free healthcare is so rare, that news of the magical medical kingdom spread rapidly and long lines of prospective patients snaked around the venue for the chance of getting everyday treatments that many British people take for granted.

What is not told, this is being paid for by others not getting the treatment. Plus, this is downtown Los Angeles. In California. You know, the state government that is handing out IOU's instead of paying their bills. The state with the HIGHEST TAX RATE IN THE UNITED STATES. California citizens live in a state where the cost of living is atronomical (they even have special gasoline that costs more than anywhere else in the country). Hospitals in California lose 5 billion a year from emergency room visits that are not paid. And let's not forget illegal immigrants. Does LA have the largest population of illegal immigrants? I don't know, but they are surely in the top 3.

Maybe, just maybe, if California controlled their spending, didn't tax their citizens so much, and enforced immigration laws, then possibly they wouldn't be in this situation? It's been a long time since I've been to LA, but it was a dump then, I can't imagine how bad it is now.

Christine Smith arrived at 3am in the hope of seeing a dentist for the first time since she turned 18. That was almost eight years ago. Her need is obvious and pressing: 17 of her teeth are rotten; some have large visible holes in them. She is living in constant pain and has been unable to eat solid food for several years.

"I had a gastric bypass in 2002, but it went wrong, and stomach acid began rotting my teeth. I've had several jobs since, but none with medical insurance, so I've not been able to see a dentist to get it fixed," she told The Independent. "I've not been able to chew food for as long as I can remember. I've been living on soup, and noodles, and blending meals in a food mixer. I'm in constant pain. Normally, it would cost $5,000 to fix it. So if I have to wait a week to get treated for free, I'll do it. This will change my life."

Gastric bypass causes rotten teeth? I'm not a doctor, so I won't even speculate. Even though I think it's part of the problem right now it's legal to do, there is a recourse for this woman. She could have sued her surgeon for malpractice since, according to her, screwed up her operation. Why didn't she do that? She would have no problem finding a lawyer who wouldn't charge her unless he collected damages.

Along the hall, Liz Cruise was one of scores of people waiting for a free eye exam. She works for a major supermarket chain but can't afford the $200 a month that would be deducted from her salary for insurance. "It's a simple choice: pay my rent, or pay my healthcare. What am I supposed to do?" she asked. "I'm one of the working poor: people who do work but can't afford healthcare and are ineligible for any free healthcare or assistance. I can't remember the last time I saw a doctor."

You live in the highest tax rate and cost of living state in the Union. That's your problem. Plus there is another lesson here, since most of you who will read this are pretty young. Invest in your own future. Go to college and get a education. There are no college grads working at a supermarket that can only afford rent or healthcare. Join the military and learn a trade. Do ANYTHING than just graduate high school.

Although the Americans spend more on medicine than any nation on earth, there are an estimated 50 million with no health insurance at all. Many of those who have jobs can't afford coverage, and even those with standard policies often find it doesn't cover commonplace procedures. California's unemployed – who rely on Medicaid – had their dental care axed last month.

Speaking of California and the idea of fiscal repsonsibility.....

Doctors, dentists and therapists volunteer their time, and resources to the organisation. To many US medical professionals, it offers a rare opportunity to plug into the public service ethos on which their trade was supposedly founded. "People come here who haven't seen a doctor for years. And we're able to say 'Hey, you have this, you have this, you have this'," said Dr Vincent Anthony, a kidney specialist volunteering five days of his team's time. "It's hard work, but incredibly rewarding. Healthcare needs reform, obviously. There are so many people falling through the cracks, who don't get care. That's why so many are here."

Yes, there are too many who fall through the cracks. It is a problem for the U.S. But what's the answer? Personal responsibility or taking from the have's and giving to the have not's?

I remember the last full time job I had before I became a career Marine. I was working for a company that was contracted to clean our town IBM building. I was not a employee of IBM, I just worked for a company that cleaned the building 5 nights a week. I was minimum wage, 18 years old, and working with people that were 2 or 3 times my age. It was honest work and I am not demeaning anyone with this point. Those people were working for a living and for that should be respected, which I do. The other side of that notion, we got paid on Friday nights, back then banks weren't open on Saturday's. My fellow employee's told me which liquor stores I could go to and cash my check if I bought a 12 pack of beer, it didn't matter I was underage at the time.

It didn't take me long to decide I wanted something better for myself. I couldn't stand the idea of going to college (a monumental mistake on my part at the time, I was good at school I just hated it that much at the time, if only I could do it all over). So I joined the Marines, and stuck with it. Now I'm one of the independent "have's" because I made an investment in my future. There were sacrifices involved, I missed 5 of the first 8 Christmas' my daughter had, and missed 9 of 18 by the time she finished high school because I was deployed during Christmas. But it was worth it. Come December, my daughter will be the first on my mother's side of the family to graduate college with a Bachelor's degree. She won't be working at a supermarket.

Personal responsibility. Take charge of you own life. It is a bad plan to rely on the charity of others. Independence is a much safer bet.

[Durka-Dan]

I think our health care system does not need an overhaul. I think there are more pressing matters like energy, middle east/N. Korea, and the economy. Personally I think the health care issue was raised to draw attention away from those matters to boost public opinion polls and get everyone's mind off the economy.

I agree with you Hog that every system is going to have its ups and downs, there just simply is no way to please everyone. I'm not for a health care overhaul because of the before mentioned reasons and because it draws resources away from other areas. We don't need to be looking at fixing something that is not broken when we just spent a trillion dollars trying to fix the economy.

However, I have to weigh in on the issue here. My beef is with the people who are representing both sides. For example the death panel thing was ridiculous. In a time where Americans are on the fence about these issues we don't need either side running around telling everyone lies or "stories" that are not true or twist the truth.

So back to the original point I was intending to make, posting a story about little billy or dear old grandmother is not going to change anyone's opinion on the matter. Those stories are usually hearsay and twisted to make some point. If you want to really get someone's attention and change some minds then stick to factual information and current things.

For example, there are a couple drafts of a health care reform bill going through congress right now. It would be far more interesting to see those and for people to debate on those points than to read a story on how dear ol' aunt Beth had a hard time at the clinic the other day.

[HogWild-USMC]

For example, there are a couple drafts of a health care reform bill going through congress right now. It would be far more interesting to see those and for people to debate on those points

Great point Durka, and I mean that with not snarky intent. But there is a problem:

http://www.pantagraph.com/news/local/article_092c062a-8832-11de-913c-001cc4c03286.html

U.S. Democrat Sen. Dick Durbin defended his decision Thursday to not participate in town hall meetings regarding health care reform, saying the outbursts that have marred others are "not constructive."

So here we have a United States Senator saying that Admendment I of the United States Bill of Rights is not constructive:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


One of my Senators is Missing In Action too, Senator Kay Hagen. Refusing to meet with constituents who voted for her. Yes there is e-mail. I have sent 3 and gotten 3 form replies thanking for my input, and nothing else, no follow up, no nothing. She's ignoring me, I know it.

I only have two options available that won't land me in jail:

1. Vote.
2. Inform those around me.

I do them both. Do we need to do something about healthcare? Yes we do. Should it break the economy of the country to do it? This is where you have to ask the question of "what's best for the greater good". Obama came from a single mother who was raised by his grandparents and is now President. I'm a high school graduate from Kentucky who joined the Marines and did some college when I was there and only have an Associates degree and I'm doing fine.

The only thing holding down those who feel they are being held down is the willingness to accept what they are given, instead of working for something better. I was there at one point of my life, I chose to work for something better and freaking glad I did. So will be those who choose the same path.

[Durka-Dan]

The only thing holding down those who feel they are being held down is the willingness to accept what they are given, instead of working for something better. I was there at one point of my life, I chose to work for something better and freaking glad I did. So will be those who choose the same path.

I agree that there are those in society who will sign up for handouts rather than work. Heck it might even be a majority of those in those positions are lazy. I'm a firm believer that welfare is one of America's biggest crutches. We should be beefing up our school systems and promoting progress and education rather than treating the problem with handouts. Mind you I am still aware of the tragic incidents where people really do need that money, the situations where, I think, welfare was originally targeted at solving.

It kind of comes down to the same question along the lines of would you rather imprison 10 people with there being a chance of one of them being innocent? Or do you take the good with the bad and (switching tracks again) feed all 10 hungry families even though most of them could fend for themselves.

[HogWild-USMC]

It kind of comes down to the same question along the lines of would you rather imprison 10 people with there being a chance of one of them being innocent? Or do you take the good with the bad and (switching tracks again) feed all 10 hungry families even though most of them could fend for themselves.

That question is already answered, we live in a Republic, not a democracy. Allow me to explain.

A Republic respects the rights of the INDIVIDUAL. You, I, and even Charles Manson have the same inaliable rights as citizens of the country. We have other rights to, such as those that give us the right to a fair trial and to be judged by our peers (a jury). Innocent until proven guilty is another. I'll stop there just to be brief.

The best way to describe a Democracy is a fox, a wolf, and a duck voting on what's for dinner. Democracy doesn't respect the "duck's" rights, and if majority rules his life will be forever altered due to being out voted. Who would want to live in such a society?

In America, you have the right to be lazy, poor, or anything else you choose to be. But that doesn't give you the right to other people's property (money).

[HogWild-USMC]

Let me throw some more fuel on this discussion:

http://freep.com/article/20090820/BUSINESS06/908200420/1319/

Canadians visit U.S. to get health care
Deal lets many go to Michigan hospitals
BY PATRICIA ANSTETT
FREE PRESS MEDICAL WRITER

Hospitals in border cities, including Detroit, are forging lucrative arrangements with Canadian health agencies to provide care not widely available across the border.

Agreements between Detroit hospitals and the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care for heart, imaging tests, bariatric and other services provide access to some services not immediately available in the province, said ministry spokesman David Jensen.

Interesting. Bad news Whompsta, you are paying for fellow citizens to get care in Michigan. But it get's better.

The agreements show how a country with a national care system -- a proposal not part of the health care changes under discussion in Congress -- copes with demand for care with U.S. partnerships, rather than building new facilities.

So the citizens of Canada are paying for healthcare out of every paycheck in the form of taxes, and there's not enough hospitals in Canada to treat all the citizens? I'll say it, this is what happens when the government runs stuff, there is never enough to go around.

Michael Vujovich, 61, of Windsor was taken to Detroit's Henry Ford Hospital for an angioplasty procedure after he went to a Windsor hospital in April. Vujovich said the U.S. backup doesn't show a gap in Canada's system, but shows how it works.

"I go to the hospital in Windsor and two hours later, I'm done having angioplasty in Detroit," he said. His $38,000 bill was covered by the Ontario health ministry.

Good for him, glad he got the medical treatment he needed at the time he needed it. What is not reported, or even asked, how long would he have to wait for an angioplasty if a Canadian hospital did it? We know it only takes 2 hours in the evil and greedy American capitalistic hospital system. So how long does it take in Canada?

Here's a clue:

Canada, for example, has waiting times for bariatric procedures to combat obesity that can stretch to more than five years, according to a June report in the Canadian Journal of Surgery.

5 years for a medical procedure? WWII only lasted 4 years. Just sayin...

But there is more:

Dany Mercado, a leukemia patient from Kitchener, Ontario, is cancer-free after getting a bone marrow transplant at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute in Detroit.

Told by Canadian doctors in 2007 he couldn't have the procedure there, Mercado's family and doctor appealed to Ontario health officials, who agreed to let him have the transplant in Detroit in January 2008.

The Karmanos Institute is one of several Detroit health facilities that care for Canadians needing services not widely available in Canada.

I bolded and underlined the really important parts. Let me point them out:

1. Leukemia patient. A curable disease in a lot of cases. This case too.

2. After his parents paid into a healthcare system all of their lives, when it's time for their son to get some serious treatment, the answer is "NO"? But they have an appeal process, so people have a second chance to beg for their lives. Great system.

3. What do they mean "services not widely available in Canada"? Do they mean it depends on where you live will determine the level of healthcare you get? I know there are some realities for those who really live far north. But you can get an angeoplasti in 10 hospitals in every major city of the United States, and probably within a couple of hours to boot.

Yes, our American system is expensive. No doubt. But let me phrase it like this.

If you want to race at the Indy 500, you get what you pay for. If you show up with a Nissan Sentra that costs $14,000, you are going to get lapped fast and often. But if you show up with a 1 million dollar open wheel race car, you have a chance.

[HogWild-USMC]

And here we go.....

Sorry Durka, it is a FoxNews report, because I couldn't find ANYONE ELSE reporting it.

From CNN at the time of this posting:

Latest News
3 missing after waves hit Maine located 5 min
Plane strikes 3 vehicles on California highway
Sources: CIA report alleges prisoner abuse
King: Army takes steps; wars still strain families
Is Obama too ambitious about health care?
Ticker: WH makes up ground against McCain
New photo shows healthier Fidel Castro 1 min
Battle on to contain Greece wildfires
Israel hits back over organ harvesting article
Violence overshadows start of Ramadan
Model faces caning for drinking alcohol
Former S. Korea president Kim laid to rest
Jamaican sprinter Bolt: 'I want to be a legend'
WPTV: Sea creature dubbed 'Muck Monster'
Teenage multimillionaire on how to get rich
CNNMoney: Wall Street hopes hot streak lasts
Debt collectors illegally threatened arrest
'Inglourious Basterds' No. 1 at box office
The words you love to hate
Most annoying facebookers exposed
CNN Wire: Canadian authorities: Suspect...

From MSNBC at the time of this post:

More claims of fraud in Afghan election | Video
Scotland defends Lockerbie bomber release
Millions face shrinking Social Security checks
Discovery's eclectic crew poised for space
Smoltz blows away Padres in Cardinals debut
Lotto player wins record Europe jackpot
Best bets: Return to ‘Woodstock’ 40 years later
Tarantino’s ‘Basterds’ wins box-office war | Video
Newsweek: Bargaining for American prisoners
Newsweek: Grace before dying in prison
Phils’ rare feat caps Pedro’s win in N.Y. return

Now to the point of this post. From FoxNews it's reported for the FIRST TIME IN THE HISTORY OF SOCIAL SECURITY the checks won't get a Cost Of Living Adjustment:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/23/social-security-payments-shrink-time-generation/

WASHINGTON -- Millions of older people face shrinking Social Security checks next year, the first time in a generation that payments would not rise.

The trustees who oversee Social Security are projecting there won't be a cost of living adjustment (COLA) for the next two years. That hasn't happened since automatic increases were adopted in 1975.

By law, Social Security benefits cannot go down. Nevertheless, monthly payments would drop for millions of people in the Medicare prescription drug program because the premiums, which often are deducted from Social Security payments, are scheduled to go up slightly.

Now Social Security is not a government grant. If you work legally inside the U.S. you contribute to S.S. every check. I have been for 36 years. But again an example of what happens when the government runs things. When there is not enough to go around, then some do without! Budgetry restraints requires such actions. Any government plan on healthcare will be on a budget. Do the math......

But how did Social Security get into such a mess? Government intervention.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/socialsecurity/changes.asp

Lyndon Johnson, Democrat President took the money out of the private fund and made the money available to government to spend as part of the national budget. Up to this point, Social Secuirty had a huge surplus of money.

The Democratic Party is the side that decided to start taxing you for money that was already contributed, and then taxed you again when you started drawing Social Security. The deciding vote was Vice President Al Gore as President of the Senate. He's a Democrat.

Who decided to give Social Security benefits to illegal immigrants (who never paid into the system)? Jimmy Carter. He is a Democrat too.

So now, we have a Democrat White House and a Democrat Congress telling us all to "trust us, we are looking out for you".

They may well be, as long as it's within budget. Remember this, not a single CongressPerson, Senator, or other elected official supporting universal healthcare has promised to use it for themselves and their families.

Why? If it's so good, why not? That is a very reasonable question to ask.

[Durka-Dan]

The current health care bill is for the uninsured poor people out there who cannot afford private insurance.

Now if I was poor and had to decide between a possibly under funded health care plan or no insurance at all then the decision is easy. Will my care depend on the ability of the plan to be funded adequately? Yes. Would I rather have no care? No.

[HogWild-USMC]

OK Durka. I covered this in another thread, let's see if you can explain it to me.

According to our government, we have 47 milllion American's that are not insured. Poor and desperate people in need of help.

So let's insure them. Say we budget 47 million dollars out of the current national budget. A miniscule amount where our budget is concerned. Hell, I won't even complain about it. So the total bill to cover all American's currently uninsured would be 47 million dollars a year out of our current national budget.

So why do we need billions of dollars a year for healthcare? The 47 million dollars a year to buy insurance policies for all those currently un-insured is sure to run way under budget and be a huge success.

Why don't we do that? Why do we need to spend billions we don't have?

[Bandit99]

Read my reply in the other thread and you have your answer as to why "WE" as in the government is proposing this plan and why your 47 million dollar plan wont. It is not about the plan. It is all about the money.

[Durka-Dan]

Because you can't sign checks and hand them to people and expect them to go out and spend it on health care. So you need people to setup and regulate these things. Well they need oversight, pay, offices, and so on.

I agree that the funding issue is shady and because of that it will not be passed by congress in its current state. I think that when they come back from their break that congress will either need to make some drastic changes or kill it. I am not for Universal Health Care AT THIS POINT. We have just spent a shit ton of money on trying to fix the economy and I don't think this is something that needs to be addressed right now. Universal Health Care (for the poor) is definitely needed and should be put on the To-Do list, but asking people to fund a large program like this after such a huge expense on the economy is unreasonable.

However, your points on how Universal Health Care are never about things like that. They are always about how somebody is going to decide if you live or die or some whacked out Rush Limbaugh horse shit like that.

[Red0ctobeR]

Dude Barrack Obama said it HIMSELF how people will have to make lifestyle changes to be insured.

Does that make sense that we have to change to be insured? Just to be INSURED

[Silent-Krysis]

Everything I've read has clearly stated those who already pay for the health insurance will not have to switch, change, etc. Their premiums should lower, but that's a good thing. Only those making more then $250,000 a year would be taxed, to budget the expenses. And I'd also support additional taxes on Alcohol, Tobacco, and maybe even soda.

[HogWild-USMC]

Because you can't sign checks and hand them to people and expect them to go out and spend it on health care.

Translation: You need the U.S. government to be the parent to you that you never had....

No thanks.

And I'd also support additional taxes on Alcohol, Tobacco, and maybe even soda.

What about a special tax on video game consoles, video games, and computers that are now causing the obesity explosion of our youth today?

[Durka-Dan]

Translation: You need the U.S. government to be the parent to you that you never had....

The hell? Do you really think you can hand poor people checks and expect them to spend it on health care?

[HogWild-USMC]

The hell? Do you really think you can hand poor people checks and expect them to spend it on health care?

Obviously you never read what I said. I said buy them insurance, not give them a check. But we both know this is not about healthcare. It's about power and money, more for the government of both.

But it's nice to see you admit that enabling the poor to stay poor (welfare, housing, free lunches) does not work in this country. Shocka. There are actually people out there that desire the money of other peoples effort and if they don't have to work themselves then all the better....:shh:

[Durka-Dan]

Obviously you never read what I said. I said buy them insurance, not give them a check. But we both know this is not about healthcare. It's about power and money, more for the government of both.

But it's nice to see you admit that enabling the poor to stay poor (welfare, housing, free lunches) does not work in this country. Shocka. There are actually people out there that desire the money of other peoples effort and if they don't have to work themselves then all the better....:shh:

Ah ha! I see where you are failing to understand why this costs so much now. Just who do you expect the government to buy the insurance from? Some random health insurance company? You can't do that because you will kill the private sector in that market and no insurance company will be able to compete with that one. Plus your insured poor will now be under the regulations and review of that company instead of the government which should be in charge of all things when it comes to your tax dollars and how they are spent. Would you prefer a private company deciding how your tax dollars are spent or the government?

That is why it costs so much, because in essence, the government is creating a health insurance company with all the review boards and regulations that come with it and probably even more. If we do it this way than that is what has to be done. You can't hand over that many clients to a private company and have the government pay that company forever and expect other private companies to keep up. That would effectively kill the health insurance industry which is exactly what they don't want to do.

[HogWild-USMC]

I would expect the U.S. government to fair share purchase insurance policies from all U.S. insurance company's. Everyone gets a fair share piece of the action, or as much as they can handle if they can't handle a whole fair share.

Just like the government currently does with cars and the U.S. Big 3 (GM, Chrysler, and Ford). The governemnt has been buying cars for government use like that for a very long time. It seems to work.

This is a power and money grab by the U.S. government. That's why it's 1,300 pages long and no politician who supports it wants facts about it known. Like this little fact. I may have covered this before, so will be brief.

In the current House Resolution, the government would be granted access to all of your bank accounts, so they can collect from citizens as they see fit. Right now, to sieze one's assets in this country, you need a court order. If this turd passes, some beauracrat will decide what he wants to do inside your bank accounts.

:hog:

[Durka-Dan]

I would expect the U.S. government to fair share purchase insurance policies from all U.S. insurance company's. Everyone gets a fair share piece of the action, or as much as they can handle if they can't handle a whole fair share.

Just like the government currently does with cars and the U.S. Big 3 (GM, Chrysler, and Ford). The governemnt has been buying cars for government use like that for a very long time. It seems to work.

This is a power and money grab by the U.S. government. That's why it's 1,300 pages long and no politician who supports it wants facts about it known. Like this little fact. I may have covered this before, so will be brief.

In the current House Resolution, the government would be granted access to all of your bank accounts, so they can collect from citizens as they see fit. Right now, to sieze one's assets in this country, you need a court order. If this turd passes, some beauracrat will decide what he wants to do inside your bank accounts.

:hog:

Well buying cars and buying health insurance are two very different things. Each company has their own review panel who can deny people certain treatments. That and poor people's health tends to be worse than wealthier people because they can't afford healthier foods and usually do not take great care of themselves. This can turn out to be very costly for the insurers. If you give some people this plan and some people that plan you will find that some are receiving better or worse care than others due to the companies being different. I would think they should just shut up and get their free health care and be thankful for it, but I can see this being a major problem if that were the plan.

For the part about the bill allowing politicians to fiddle with your account I'd like to see your source on that. Not that I don't believe, I just want to read it myself.

[HogWild-USMC]

Well buying cars and buying health insurance are two very different things. Each company has their own review panel who can deny people certain treatments. That and poor people's health tends to be worse than wealthier people because they can't afford healthier foods and usually do not take great care of themselves. This can turn out to be very costly for the insurers. If you give some people this plan and some people that plan you will find that some are receiving better or worse care than others due to the companies being different. I would think they should just shut up and get their free health care and be thankful for it, but I can see this being a major problem if that were the plan.

I read that and wonder if you understand english.... or just not reading what I wrote. My whole point is, has been, and will always be:

Why does it take 10 billion dollars to insure 47 million people for 10 years?

Of course the answer is money and power. More of both for the government.

We could take much less than 47 million dollars a year and insure all those without insurance, we could do it tomorrow, and call it a national charity. Even though I as a independent and self sustaining American I would disagree with such a policy on a personal level, we could take that money out of foreign aid and spend it here in the states and that would make it easier to swallow. But that does not increase the government's control over all of our lives. And that's the point of this attempt at universal healthcare (or as Obama likes to call it "single payer").

For the part about the bill allowing politicians to fiddle with your account I'd like to see your source on that. Not that I don't believe, I just want to read it myself.

For someone who get's their news from CSPAN, I thought you would already be aware of this. Congressman Boehner read it on the House floor, on CSPAN.

http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

Page 57, Line 17. Directly from the House Bill it's self. :shh:

But there's more, end of life planning the government has in mind for us start on page 425 and going to page 430.

[Durka-Dan]

I read that and wonder if you understand english.... or just not reading what I wrote.

I already answered this about 4 or so posts ago. Short answer: Because the government must setup a health insurance company so to speak and that costs a lot of money. If you want a more in depth answer, go re-read my post. The number is an estimate and I can't tell you where they pulled all their estimates from. But simply not knowing that information isn't reason enough to jump to conspiracy theories about government corruption. You are being illogical about all of this. Everything is explained. Re-read it.

Page 57, Line 17.

No. The section you are referring to in no way hints at anything close to what you are claiming:

In the current House Resolution, the government would be granted access to all of your bank accounts, so they can collect from citizens as they see fit. Right now, to sieze one's assets in this country, you need a court order. If this turd passes, some beauracrat will decide what he wants to do inside your bank accounts.

The section you are referring to is provided so others may see through your bullshit:
17 ‘(2) GOALS FOR FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRA
18 TIVE TRANSACTIONS.—The goals for standards
19 under paragraph (1) are that such standards shall—
20 ‘‘(A) be unique with no conflicting or re
21 dundant standards;
22 ‘‘(B) be authoritative, permitting no addi
23 tions or constraints for electronic transactions,
24 including companion guides;
1 ‘‘(C) be comprehensive, efficient and ro
2 bust, requiring minimal augmentation by paper
3 transactions or clarification by further commu
4 nications;
5 ‘‘(D) enable the real-time (or near real
6 time) determination of an individual’s financial
7 responsibility at the point of service and, to the
8 extent possible, prior to service, including
9 whether the individual is eligible for a specific
10 service with a specific physician at a specific fa
11 cility, which may include utilization of a ma
12 chine-readable health plan beneficiary identi
13 fication card;
14 ‘‘(E) enable, where feasible, near real-time
15 adjudication of claims;
16 ‘‘(F) provide for timely acknowledgment,
17 response, and status reporting applicable to any
18 electronic transaction deemed appropriate by
19 the Secretary;
20 ‘‘(G) describe all data elements (such as
21 reason and remark codes) in unambiguous
22 terms, not permit optional fields, require that
23 data elements be either required or conditioned
24 upon set values in other fields, and prohibit ad
25 ditional conditions; and
1 ‘‘(H) harmonize all common data elements
2 across administrative and clinical transaction
3 standards.

The section in bold is the only reference to individual's accounts and it seems like it is a preventative measure to deter those who can pay for their own insurance from abusing the system since this plan is for the poor only. Even in its worst translation it in no way makes notes of seizing of assets.

[HogWild-USMC]

LOL....

Actually it's the second line 17 on that page. I should have been more specific.

What are they going to electronically transfer? Your couch?

It doesn't say "we can just electronically transfer from the poor", because we know how many bank accounts the poor have..... It would be a federal law, which means it applies to all of us.

But you bring up a point I overlooked.

enable the real-time (or near real
6 time) determination of an individual’s financial
7 responsibility at the point of service and, to the
8 extent possible, prior to service, including
9 whether the individual is eligible for a specific
10 service with a specific physician at a specific fa
11 cility, which may include utilization of a ma
12 chine-readable health plan beneficiary identi
13 fication card;

Take notice of the bolded and underlined parts.

They need to check if a person is eligible. Why? There must be restrictions as to the level of health care one can get when paid for by the government. If everyone is covered, why the need to check? They are going to get a nifty ID card, show it and get healed.... right?

No, it's a government program so it must be complicated and the government needs electronic transfer capabilities of something...... a couch or a TV, anything but money.

Is that really your arguement?

[Durka-Dan]

Mindless paranoid fucking garbage rant

Your lack of understanding leaves me speechless.

GOALS FOR FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRANSACTIONS.

An administrative transaction can be done electronically. Such as checking something in a patients electronic record. But your right, that's probably not what they mean, it probably means they are going to steal your money.

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0805/failure-of-logic-fail-demotivational-poster-1209989155.jpg

[Durka-Dan]

the government needs electronic transfer capabilities of something...... a couch or a TV, anything but money.

:rofl: Right, only money can be sent through wires. Not patient record information or anything.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_xj0h9Pm9zyg/SSc7VyOF06I/AAAAAAAABRw/KeStQC2bDUo/s400/stupidity%2Binternet.jpg

[HogWild-USMC]

Quote:
Originally Posted by HogWild_101st
Mindless paranoid fucking garbage rant

Your lack of understanding leaves me speechless.


Your fabricating fake quotes from me leaves me speechless.

Have you not an ounce of integrity?

Listen up people, take a good hard look. This is what liberals do. They won't tell the truth because their truth will freak you the hell out. It's happening now in the U.S. The more people learn about Obama's true agenda, the lower his approval numbers go. He is now down to 46% on Rasmussen and 42% on Zogby.

Who are you going to trust? Obama and Pelosi. Or your own eyes?

[Durka-Dan]

Your like a scared little girl when it comes to opposing views, aren't you? It's cute.

It's impossible to have a conversation with you because you make things up as we go along.

It's like I'm going to explain that Obama had awesome approval ratings in the beginning and his ratings dropping is like a common happening for all presidents, but your redneck ass backwards republican fear mongering self is going to leap to some other issue now.

Where we going next, hog? Did Obama sneeze in the direction of the American flag? Was that fly that he killed a symbol of Obama swatting out freedom in America?

[HogWild-USMC]

**sigh**

Back to name calling already? OK, I want to play too.

You are making up quotes out of thin air and attaching my name to it and posting it if as it was true. Is calling you a "liar" too strong?

You asked for my reference on the governments future ability to reach into our bank accounts, because you thought for sure I going was use something from Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, or other ultra conservative web site or news source. I know it stumped your liberal mind when I referenced the current House of Representative Resolution, so you had to say something, ANYTHING to discredit it me. So you say that's not what the bill say's and that I am fear mongering.

Scared? I'm right here on this issue right now, the one you asked me to address. I'm not running from anything, especially an ill informed liberal who talks over his head and lies to cover his poor grasp of the subject matter.

Durka, you remind me of a baby cow, constantly following around it's mother waiting for it's next chance to suckle on it's mother's tit. You don't offer any information on your own to support your point of view, you just wait for me to post something and try to discredit it. Even when I use the House Resolution as a reference to explain what the government has intentions of doing. It's not like I am making this stuff up, if I was it would easy to discredit it. But all you can do is ridicule and call names.

So what does that make you? "Desperate" is what I think.


:hog:

[Durka-Dan]

I'm not liberal. My voter card says Republican across the top. You are just so right winged that anybody and everybody looks like a liberal to you.

I have responded to all your points and proved every single on of them wrong. So I'll go ahead and declare myself the "winner" of this thread. Move along. Next subject please.

[HogWild-USMC]

:confused:



:J



L:)

[HogWild-USMC]

Related to this subject.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Health-care-reform-means-more-power-for-the-IRS-56781377.html

But if the plan envisioned by President Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats is enacted, the primary federal bureaucracy responsible for implementing and enforcing national health care will be an old and familiar one: the Internal Revenue Service. Under the Democrats' health care proposals, the already powerful — and already feared — IRS would wield even more power and extend its reach even farther into the lives of ordinary Americans, and the presidentially-appointed head of the new health care bureaucracy would have access to confidential IRS information about millions of individual taxpayers.

Oh goody....

Under the various proposals now on the table, the IRS would become the main agency for determining who has an "acceptable" health insurance plan; for finding and punishing those who don't have such a plan; for subsidizing individual health insurance costs through the issuance of a tax credits; and for enforcing the rules on those who attempt to opt out, abuse, or game the system. A substantial portion of H.R. 3200, the House health care bill, is devoted to amending the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in order to give the IRS the authority to perform these new duties.

A good portion of Obama's cabinet ran circles around the IRS for years, so how competent can the IRS be?

The Democrats' plan would require all Americans to have "acceptable" insurance coverage (the legislation includes long and complex definitions of "acceptable") and would designate the IRS as the agency charged with enforcing that requirement. On your yearly 1040 tax return, you would be required to attest that you have "acceptable" coverage. Of course, you might be lying, or simply confused about whether or not you are covered, so the IRS would need a way to check your claim for accuracy. Under current plans, insurers would be required to submit to the IRS something like the 1099 form in which taxpayers report outside income. The IRS would then check the information it receives from the insurers against what you have submitted on your tax form.

If it all matches up, you're fine. If it doesn't, you will hear from the IRS. And if you don't have "acceptable" coverage, you will be subject to substantial fines — fines that will be administered by the IRS.

No worries here. Your information is sure to be secure in the safe hands of the IRS. I just love getting fined by the IRS, it's what makes me get up in the morning.....

Under some versions of health reform now circulating on Capitol Hill, the IRS would also be intimately involved in how you pay for insurance. Everyone would be required to buy coverage. The millions of Americans who can't afford it would receive a subsidy to pay for it. Under the version of the plan currently under negotiation in the Senate Finance Committee, that subsidy would come through the IRS in the form of a refundable tax credit. Under the House plan, the subsidy would come directly from the Health Choices Administration.

As if our tax code wasn't complicated enough....

In either scenario, the IRS would be the key to making the system work.

And yet I'm not filled with confidence about this....

Some versions of the bill even permit the release of confidential taxpayer information for decidedly less pressing reasons. In H.R. 3200, the IRS would be required to provide taxpayer information to the Social Security Administration for the purpose of helping Social Security officials find qualifying seniors who can then be encouraged to enroll in the prescription drug program. "There is no precedent for using taxpayer information for the purpose of identifying people to go out and advertise to them," says the House expert.

Privacy.... we don't need no stinking privacy....

Backers of the Democratic bills are betting that the handouts involved — giving people money to buy health insurance — will outweigh concerns about privacy and coercive government. Perhaps. But before Congress makes any decision on national health care, voters should know just what it will involve.

Translation = Your life being a open book for anyone who cares to take a look won't bother you since the nanny state is taking such good care of you.

I wanna puke!

[HogWild-USMC]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211950/Premature-baby-left-die-doctors-mother-gives-birth-just-days-22-week-care-limit.html

Governmental run healthcare.

Doctors left a premature baby to die because he was born two days too early, his devastated mother claimed yesterday. Sarah Capewell begged them to save her tiny son, who was born just 21 weeks and five days into her pregnancy - almost four months early. They ignored her pleas and allegedly told her they were following national guidelines that babies born before 22 weeks should not be given medical treatment.

Miss Capewell, 23, said doctors refused to even see her son Jayden, who lived for almost two hours without any medical support. She said he was breathing unaided, had a strong heartbeat and was even moving his arms and legs, but medics refused to admit him to a special care baby unit.
Miss Capewell is now fighting for a review of the medical guidelines.

Medics allegedly told her that they would have tried to save the baby if he had been born two days later, at 22 weeks. In fact, the medical guidelines for Health Service hospitals state that babies should not be given intensive care if they are born at less than 23 weeks. The guidance, drawn up by the Nuffield Council, is not compulsory but advises doctors that medical intervention for very premature children is not in the best interests of the baby, and is not 'standard practice'. James Paget Hospital in Norfolk refused to comment on the case but said it was not responsible for setting the guidelines relating to premature births. A trust spokesman said: 'Like other acute hospitals, we follow national guidance from the British Association of Perinatal Medicine regarding premature births.' Miss Capewell, who has had five miscarriages, said the guidelines had robbed She said: 'When he was born, he put out his arms and legs and pushed himself over.

A midwife said he was breathing and had a strong heartbeat, and described him as a "little fighter".

I kept asking for the doctors but the midwife said, "They won't come and help, sweetie. Make the best of the time you have with him".' She cuddled her child and took precious photos of him, but he died in her arms less than two hours after his birth. Miss Capewell, who has a five-year-old daughter Jodie, went into labour in October last year at 21 weeks and four days after suffering problems during her pregnancy. Instead, doctors told her to treat the labour as a miscarriage, not a birth, and to expect her baby to be born with serious deformities or even to be still-born.

She told how she begged one paediatrician, 'You have got to help', only for the man to respond: 'No we don't.'

As her contractions continued, a chaplain arrived at her bedside to discuss bereavement and planning a funeral, she claims. She said: 'I was sitting there, reading this leaflet about planning a funeral and thinking, this is my baby, he isn't even born yet, let alone dead.' After his death she even had to argue with hospital officials for her right to receive birth and death certificates, which meant she could give her son a proper funeral.

She was shocked to discover that another child, born in the U.S. at 21 weeks and six days into her mother's pregnancy, had survived. Amillia Taylor was born in Florida in 2006 and celebrated her second birthday last October. She is the youngest premature baby to survive. Miss Capewell said: 'I could not believe that one little girl, Amillia Taylor, is perfectly healthy after being born in Florida in 2006 at 21 weeks and six days. 'Thousands of women have experienced this. The doctors say the babies won't survive but how do they know if they are not giving them a chance?' Miss Capewell has won the support of Labour MP Tony Wright, who has backed her call for a review of the medical guidelines. He said: 'When a woman wants to give the best chance to her baby, they should surely be afforded that opportunity.'

Looks like Jayden went up against a government death panel, and lost.

Breathing baby denied medical care.

Where can I sign my family up for medical care like this? (sarcasism of course).