# Interesting questions about "ObamaCare"



## ffemt8978 (Jul 28, 2009)

http://townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2009/07/28/10_questions_for_supporters_of_obamacare


----------



## PapaBear434 (Jul 29, 2009)

Rant ahead.  

Yeah, I saw this thing on Fark.com already.  You couldn't get more bias questions if it was GW Bush and **** Cheney themselves asking them.  Townhall is about two steps above "Free Republic" when it comes to their credibility.

Look, conservatives, you've already won.  The spineless Democrats backed the heck out and are voting to remove the public option from the current plan.  You know, the entire freaking POINT of the plan.  It's effectively going to force everyone to get insurance, but with nothing to pay for it outside of the prerequisite "tax cuts" the Right loves to swing like a do-all fix.  So you can stop calling it ObamaCare, you can stop pretending that you are denying coverage to people because you actually care about them, and you can stop rubbing the noses of liberals like me in it.

You won.  Greed always does in this country, it seems.  People don't vote for what's best for the country, but only for what's best for them.  

/is covered by wife's Tricare Prime via the US Navy
//the big evil government run health care seems to work well for us


----------



## JPINFV (Jul 29, 2009)

So remind me. Where in the constitution is the government impowered to run health care?

Oh, wait. It isn't there.

Rant:

Liberals. We get it. You won the presidency. That really doesn't mean that you can do anything and everything you want, especially if you want to keep control. Not everyone wants the government running their lives. Government is NOT the answer.


----------



## daedalus (Jul 29, 2009)

JPINFV said:


> So remind me. Where in the constitution is the government impowered to run health care?
> 
> Oh, wait. It isn't there.
> 
> ...



I agree with number one in FFEMT's link. I am a liberal democrat, but I think we should test the waters and reform medicare first, make it a testbed for national health coverage.

The rest of the article is basically crap that can be explained away.


----------



## firecoins (Jul 29, 2009)

daedalus said:


> I agree with number one in FFEMT's link. I am a liberal democrat, but I think we should test the waters and reform medicare first, make it a testbed for national health coverage.
> 
> The rest of the article is basically crap that can be explained away.



well medicare isn't working too well.  Medicaid isn't working too well.  Social Security isn't working too well. The Dept. of VA isn't working too well.


----------



## loadngo (Jul 29, 2009)

firecoins said:


> well medicare isn't working too well.  Medicaid isn't working too well.  Social Security isn't working too well. The Dept. of VA isn't working too well.



And the insurance companies aren't working too well.


----------



## Summit (Jul 29, 2009)

PapaBear434 said:


> /is covered by wife's Tricare Prime via the US Navy
> //the big evil government run health care seems to work well for us



Ask a doctors office how much fun it is to deal with Tricare... they'd refuse tricare patients if they could.


----------



## Summit (Jul 29, 2009)

Why have med insurance and pharma profits been through the roof while our insurance and health care costs are through the roof but care delivered has remained relatively constant?

Presently:
55% of Americans privately insured (personal or workplace)
15% of Americans uninsured
30% of Americans insured by US Government (25% of the US is Medicare and/or Medicaid... and around another 5% are covered by the Feds for other reasons)

I was surprised by how many are insured by .gov

So .gov pays very low for their share, the uninsured often don't pay or get absolutely raped, and the half of American that is privately insured get raped by high premiums and copays. The hospitals and healthcare workers get raped by having massive amounts of time and money go into billing, paperwork, and collection. Meanwhile, .gov is ripping them off. The insurance companies have massive amounts of money go to the people whose job it is to deny claims and the people who manage them.

Solutions:

1. END DIRECT TO CONSUMER PRESCRIPTION ADVERTISING BY PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES. This used to be illegal. Allowing it was a terrible mistake by the government and it happened because pharmaceutical lobbyists paid for the change to convince people to buy more drugs they usually don't need.

2. I am all about innovation creating better products and profits as well as profits motivating innovative business practices to benefit everyone. However, health insurance companies don't create anything and their business practice innovations only involve screwing their customers, charging everyone, kicking out any customer they can when they try to use the product, and denying care whenever possible simply to boost profit gains. That is the time where the government can step in and do some regulation.

3. If we created national healthcare, it would be the biggest such service on the entire planet by a factor of 5. Find me a national healthcare system out there that is not in the red. Then, look how abysmal our government care is so far and how it is hemorrhaging money, mismanaging payments, and resulting in poor care. How is making it bigger going to be better if what we have right now can not cover the approximately 30% of the population that is under government coverage (bet most of you didn't know that many people are currently covered by the government). So let's have them fix what they are doing now first.


----------



## MrBrown (Jul 29, 2009)

Let me throw my two cents into the pot.

Healthcare (as we see it) is a basic right that the Government must provide; regardless of your ability to pay for it.  Soladarity is the basic principle; if, through my tax, I can pay for somebody else who can't pay to get the treatment they need then that's basically why we do it!  Would you not expect somebody to help you if you were unable to help yourself?

If you are stupid enough to believe that by the Government running the health system it's going to mean we have to look under the bed for Communists again or that the big, bad, evil Government is going to take away all your rights and make you do what they say need beating with a very large, very heavy object because you're an idiot!

However I must partially agree; here in New Zealand the Government runs the health system and maybe it's just here, maybe not, but the system doesn't run that great.  I'll give the Conservative's a bit of fodder here.  We have systemic problems when it comes to recruiting and retaining doctors and nurses (most of our NZ trained MDs and RNs have skipped the country for better wages and better working conditions) and our waiting lists stretch around the block and over the hill.  Our last Government spent $6 billion dollars on healthcare and I don't see much improvement!

So I'm interested to know; what exactly is it about free healthcare that has y'all full of ants in your pants?  I suppose to an extent I can understand the "... but you haven't contributed anything to the pot so why should we pay?" argument but let me ask you this if that's the problem:  Does the fire department ask for money before putting your house out? Does the library ask you to pay before you can use it? Does the school district turn your kids away because you've got no income?  If you take your dog for a walk at the park does security check your name against a list to see if can use it?  .... I'm betting the answer to all these is "NO" because they are funded through a tax base (be it local, state or federal) .... so why is health-care so different??


----------



## Shishkabob (Jul 29, 2009)

This is what many liberals miss;

Most (many) of us conservatives want to help the uninsured. But it is NOT the federal goverments responsibility.   We also know that it will eventually happen:  it's a forgone conclusion that at some point there will be universal healthcare in the US. 


Governor Rick Perry here in Texas has said that if this gets passed, he'll fight the 10th admendment (states rights) all the way to the Supreme Court.


----------



## JPINFV (Jul 29, 2009)

MrBrown said:


> So I'm interested to know; what exactly is it about free healthcare that has y'all full of ants in your pants?


It's not free and the idea that it's "free" might be why you're having issues keeping physicians and nurses.


> Does the fire department ask for money before putting your house out? Does the library ask you to pay before you can use it?


It's called taxes, and yes they do. Furthermore, there are a few cases every year in rural communities with volunteer subscription based fire departments letting houses burn once they confirm that everyone is out because the owner isn't a subscriber. You don't pay, you don't get service and you can't just pay at the time you need service and not contribute in all of the years that you didn't.


> I'm betting the answer to all these is "NO" *because they are funded through a tax base (be it local, state or federal) ....* so why is health-care so different??



Exactly. Being paid by taxes means it's free is wrong. Why isn't food provided by government to all citizens based off of taxes? Water? Those are surely more of a necessity than health care yet the government doesn't provide food and charges for water based on amount used and not a flat fee.


----------



## firecoins (Jul 29, 2009)

loadngo said:


> And the insurance companies aren't working too well.



based on the evidence and the bills floating in Congress, the government is by no means going to do better. It appears they will do worse.


----------



## Hockey (Jul 29, 2009)

You know they say 2012 will be the end of the world...


The rate we're heading, I can see it happening


----------



## 8jimi8 (Jul 29, 2009)

PapaBear434 said:


> Rant ahead.
> 
> 
> /is covered by wife's Tricare Prime via the US Navy
> //the big evil government run health care seems to work well for us



oh really?

how is it working out for disabled veterans?


----------



## Hockey (Jul 29, 2009)

8jimi8 said:


> oh really?
> 
> how is it working out for disabled veterans?



Terrible

Father in-law and several others I know is being royally screwed by it


----------



## reaper (Jul 29, 2009)

Tricare and the VA are perfect examples of government health care. What a shame.


----------



## R.O.P. (Jul 29, 2009)

I've got to agree w/ reaper.  If there is to be broad support for government-managed healthcare, they should start by managing the healthcare they already have more effectively!


----------



## PapaBear434 (Jul 29, 2009)

Linuss said:


> This is what many liberals miss;
> 
> Most (many) of us conservatives want to help the uninsured. But it is NOT the federal goverments responsibility.   We also know that it will eventually happen:  it's a forgone conclusion that at some point there will be universal healthcare in the US.
> 
> ...



He's the same ding bat who threatened succession over taking stimulus money which included funding for fighting epidemic level diseases, and then immediately took emergency federal funding to help fight the swine flu.

Fine example of a conservative mind, there.


----------



## PapaBear434 (Jul 29, 2009)

How many patients have you folks had that refused treatment, even when you KNOW they could really use it, because they don't want to be saddled with the bill?  How many times have you seen someone with an advanced infection because they didn't get treatment earlier because they didn't have insurance or they didn't want to be charged the exorbitant co-pay?  

Seriously, how can anyone in EMS be opposed to covering everyone in the US with care?  How can any thinking person not say "Hey, we are supposedly the best, richest country in the world, and yet we are the only industrialized nation who doesn't have a universal coverage for it's citizens" and yet in the same breath say that it's impossible and not able to be pulled off?  And if you forget the untrue FUD, you would see that those other countries love their systems outside of a few isolated cases, while almost anyone without huge coffers of cash at their disposal gets screwed in ours.

How can people be so obtuse to rational arguments, so oblivious to facts, and so callous to your fellow man?  It's not going to be a foreign army or terrorists that destroy America, it's going to be greed and willful ignorance in the electorate that takes us down from within.


----------



## usafmedic45 (Jul 29, 2009)

Agreed, but people on both sides of the aisle are like that- it's just that the conservatives tend to dig in their heels a little more over _really_ stupid crap that really doesn't matter all that much...the trick is keeping either party from having too much power so that the competing gaggles of psychotic morons cancel one another out.   Or once you get enough of them together, hopefully a sufficient number of them will be moderate and willing to come to a consensus.


----------



## Shishkabob (Jul 29, 2009)

PapaBear434 said:


> He's the same ding bat who threatened succession over taking stimulus money which included funding for fighting epidemic level diseases, and then immediately took emergency federal funding to help fight the swine flu.



No.  He refused the federal stimulus money because it would then make Texas responsible for continuing the much lowered unemployment benefits.  It had nothing to do with wanting/not wanting epidemic level diseases.


----------



## Shishkabob (Jul 29, 2009)

PapaBear434 said:


> Seriously, how can anyone in EMS be opposed to covering everyone in the US with care?



Again, I don't think anyone is against having everyone covered.


What we're against is the federal government running and funding it.


----------



## bstone (Jul 29, 2009)

A few cents:

1) Mandate electronic everything

2) Mandate one universal referral form. My uncle who is a neurological Nurse Practitioner says he spends hours and hours filling out specific forms for each specific insurance company. None of the forms can be used for the others. Some insurance companies don't even accept the forms of one of their other states (eg BCBS-IL vs BCBS-MA...different forms, even tho they are both BCBS). It takes hours and hours for him to do all of this and that is time and money. Multiply that by a million. Yeah, lots of waste.

3) Allow people to buy a gov't funded insurance plan if they have tried and failed to get a private plan from 3 different insurers at a reasonable rate. If they are denied or the rates fall above X amount then they can get the public option.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Jul 29, 2009)

Just to add more fuel to the fire...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106979677


----------



## Shishkabob (Jul 29, 2009)

As of this moment, the only idea I'd be willing to accept from the government in the way of "government controlled insurance" is having a mandated cap on the amount they can charge someone, by a percentage of income.


For the sake of argument, let's say the cap is 10%.  If someone makes 100,000 a year, the max an insurance company can charge is $10,000.  If someone makes 16k a year, max is $1600.  It will then be up to the individual to research and buy their own.


----------



## PapaBear434 (Jul 29, 2009)

Linuss said:


> No.  He refused the federal stimulus money because it would then make Texas responsible for continuing the much lowered unemployment benefits.  It had nothing to do with wanting/not wanting epidemic level diseases.



Oh, I know WHY he didn't take it.  But the fact of the matter is, he didn't take money that he may or may not have known was allocated for preventive measures to an epidemic threat, because he wanted to show how independent he was and how he was standing up to the big mean Democrat in the White House.  He did it by saying "Keep your money, we don't need your hand outs!" and receiving thunderous applause from clueless Texans that still think they could leave the union and actually SURVIVE for more than a week."

Then, when an epidemic hit and was flowing over the border of Texas, he went to the feds and begged for a hand out.

Please, your argument deserves better than to be balanced on the top of a stool with a broken third leg that is this numbskull.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Jul 29, 2009)

PapaBear434 said:


> How can people be so obtuse to rational arguments, so oblivious to facts, and so callous to your fellow man?



Because we're all individuals who have our own opinions on how things should be done.  Sometimes people agree with you, and sometimes they don't.  Sometimes they agree with your "facts", and sometimes they have their own "facts".  

Just because they don't agree with you doesn't make them obtuse, so I'm going to ask that you refrain from the name calling even in generalized terms.


----------



## Shishkabob (Jul 29, 2009)

PapaBear434 said:


> Oh, I know WHY he didn't take it.  But the fact of the matter is, he didn't take money that he may or may not have known was allocated for preventive measures to an epidemic threat, because he wanted to show how independent he was and how he was standing up to the big mean Democrat in the White House.



No.  Again, he didn't take the money because it would have put Texas in a bad position fiscally.  


If he took the money, the state would have to lower their requirements to collect unemployment, and as such, would be forced to provide unemployment benefits to WAY more people when the federal money ran out.



Texas runs on a type of budget that every other state (CALIFORNIA!) and the Federal government should adopt-- a no deficit budget.  Every 2 years, they make a budget.  If money going out exceeds projected money coming in, the budget is rejected and reworked.


----------



## PapaBear434 (Jul 29, 2009)

Linuss said:


> Again, I don't think anyone is against having everyone covered.
> 
> 
> What we're against is the federal government running and funding it.



Who else is going to do it?  In so far, state-wise Massachusetts is the only one that has stepped up to that plate, and they are failing because it doesn't have a big enough healthy pool to help pay the round out.

Insurance companies?  Malarkey.  They won't do anything unless there is MASSIVE profits in it for them.

Someone has to step up.  Every other country has figured this out.  Are we not as smart as them?  Or are we just greedier?  Continuing with the status quo leaves us as wither stupid or greedy.  I'd like to go for the third option.


----------



## Shishkabob (Jul 29, 2009)

Correct, someone does, but NOT the federal government.  It's not it's job, responsibility, or duty.


I don't know where the answer lays, but it sure isn't with the federal government run option.


----------



## PapaBear434 (Jul 29, 2009)

ffemt8978 said:


> Because we're all individuals who have our own opinions on how things should be done.  Sometimes people agree with you, and sometimes they don't.  Sometimes they agree with your "facts", and sometimes they have their own "facts".
> 
> Just because they don't agree with you doesn't make them obtuse, so I'm going to ask that you refrain from the name calling even in generalized terms.



But it is obtuse and willfully ignorant, hoss.  They use arguments that can easily be disproven by looking at...  You know, facts.  Canada, Germany, France, Spain...  Lithuania has a lower infant mortality rate than us, for god's sake.  

Having an opinion is all fine and good.  But some opinions deserve to be disregarded as ignorant, like when they fly in the face of every fact that has been presented.  I don't put much cred in the current movement to prove that the President is a Kenyan sleeper cell agent, and I don't put much cred in people's arguments that a universal health care is going to makes us kill the old people and ration treatment to only those of use to "the State" when the entire world has evidence via systems that are currently working to prove the contrary.


----------



## JPINFV (Jul 29, 2009)

PapaBear434 said:


> Seriously, how can anyone in EMS be opposed to covering everyone in the US with care?


I don't know. How can any responsible person advocate letting the government make their decisions for them. Hey look, I can make blatantly sweeping statements too. 



> How can any thinking person not say "Hey, we are supposedly the best, richest country in the world, and yet we are the only industrialized nation who doesn't have a universal coverage for it's citizens" and yet in the same breath say that it's impossible and not able to be pulled off?


Yep. Other countries have it all figured out with their out of control government costs and long lines. Let's be like England where the dentists are all hitting their cap on patients and refusing to make any new appointments, period, because they won't be reimbursed. Hey, let's be like Canada where unless you're going to die within 24 hours, you get a nice long wait. There's a reason why a ton of Canadians come across the border to get surgery and procedures. 


> And if you forget the untrue FUD, you would see that those other countries love their systems outside of a few isolated cases, while almost anyone without huge coffers of cash at their disposal gets screwed in ours.


Yep, it's all ponies, and rainbows, and hearts over there. You think taxes are high now, just wait until it's a government insurance and everyone starts wanting every drug, procedure, and test because it's their "right."




> How can people be so obtuse to rational arguments, so oblivious to facts, and so callous to your fellow man?  It's not going to be a foreign army or terrorists that destroy America, it's going to be greed and willful ignorance in the electorate that takes us down from within.



How can people be so into government control to be oblivious to how their government is set up? How can people be so irresponsible to expect that the government's job is to bail them out all the time? It's not going to be a foreign army or terrorists that destroy America, it's going to be people who think that the government is the solution to any and all of their problems and should make all of their choices for them.


----------



## Shishkabob (Jul 29, 2009)

PapaBear434 said:


> But it is obtuse and willfully ignorant, hoss.  They use arguments that can easily be disproven by looking at...  You know, facts.  Canada, Germany, France, Spain...  Lithuania has a lower infant mortality rate than us, for god's sake.



What facts?  I've seen no studies exclusively saying that the sole and only reason they have a higher living rate then us is their government run healthcare.


That is a purely coincidental "fact".  I'm willing to bet the US has a much higher illicit drug usage per pregnant mother ratio.  Willing to bet that more of our mothers drink while preggo.  


There are a million explanations, and you can't limit it JUST to free healthcare vs paid.


----------



## PapaBear434 (Jul 29, 2009)

Linuss said:


> Correct, someone does, but NOT the federal government.  It's not it's job, responsibility, or duty.
> 
> 
> I don't know where the answer lays, but it sure isn't with the federal government run option.



So, you don't know what would work.  But you know it's not what is being suggested.

Right now, 50 million don't have insurance, and even more than that have insurance that won't be there for them when they need it.  And we have about 40+ examples around the world of other systems that work, and are generally working well and have huge approval numbers from the people involved in it.  Why, exactly, do we think this won't work when everyone else has done it?


----------



## JPINFV (Jul 29, 2009)

Linuss said:


> There are a million explanations, and you can't limit it JUST to free healthcare vs paid.




Oh shush. We wouldn't want little things like facts and confounding variables to get into the way of big government.


----------



## Shishkabob (Jul 29, 2009)

PapaBear434 said:


> So, you don't know what would work.  But you know it's not what is being suggested.
> 
> Right now, 50 million don't have insurance, and even more than that have insurance that won't be there for them when they need it.  And we have about 40+ examples around the world of other systems that work, and are generally working well and have huge approval numbers from the people involved in it.  Why, exactly, do we think this won't work when everyone else has done it?



Why don't I think it will work / work as well for us?

How many countries having a 300,000,000+ population?




I hate that "50 million" statistic, because it's misleading.  How many of that 50million CHOOSE not to be covered?  I bet it's way more then you think or the pro-UHC group is willing to admit.


----------



## PapaBear434 (Jul 29, 2009)

JPINFV said:


> Oh shush. We wouldn't want little things like facts and confounding variables to get into the way of big government.



Oh, shush your nonsense.  This isn't even a single payer system like Canada, England, or any of the others.  It's a "public option," which just gives people a backup plan when their for-profit insurance doesn't work for them.

If that destroys the insurance companies, they deserve to die.  They just couldn't compete.  Isn't' that was capitalism is all about?  Why are you against competition?  What are you, a socialist?

And to whomever brought up long lines, dentists not taking appointments, and all that other stuff: That's the FUD, guys.  Fear, uncertainty, doubt.  I have family members who live in Canada, and they have yet to have anything like that happen.  I was injured in Canada, and as an American citizen I was charged a grand total of $50 USD for a torn rotator cuff.  Then, I got back to the states, and a single session of rehab cost me $650, with co-pay from Blue Cross/Blue Shield.

Besides, how would it be different than today?  How many calls do we get where people are just calling us because they think it will get them to the head of the line in the ED?  How many times have you seen people bleeding and broken, sitting in the waiting room?  How many times have you seen someone get denied treatment as "experimental," even though it's a perfectly accepted and standard practice, because the insurance companies don't want to pay?

It's all fear.


----------



## PapaBear434 (Jul 29, 2009)

Linuss said:


> Why don't I think it will work / work as well for us?
> 
> How many countries having a 300,000,000+ population?
> 
> ...



Who would choose NOT to be covered?  People who aren't covered are usually too broke to afford it or have a "pre-existing condition" that makes them uncoverable.  

Yeah, perfectly healthy 25 year olds may not get health care.  Probably because they are fresh out of college and trying to start their life.  But some might be idiots.  But even idiots need health care, and right now those idiots are dragging down our national economy every time they need treatment and go to the ER for help.

It's amazing how many more people would go into the Doctor for preventative measures if we had a system that didn't punish you for doing so.


----------



## Sasha (Jul 29, 2009)

> I hate that "50 million" statistic, because it's misleading. How many of that 50million CHOOSE not to be covered? I bet it's way more then you think or the pro-UHC group is willing to admit.



Have you looked at the hike in insurance cost for just being overweight? It's outrageous. Many people can't afford to pay out a third of their rent a month for insurance and have to live and hope they will never need health care.


----------



## Shishkabob (Jul 29, 2009)

No, plenty of people opt not to buy insurance (foolishly or not) because they are healthy and think they don't need it.  



Another gripe I have with this proposed plan-- it fines people to choosing not to be covered.  So much for freedom of choice.  

And it also fines small businesses for not offering it.  My family owns a small business with about 40 employees.  We don't offer insurance.  If we were to offer insurance, we'd have to lose atleast 10 of our employees. That's all our economy needs right now... more laid off sick people.


----------



## Shishkabob (Jul 29, 2009)

Sasha said:


> Have you looked at the hike in insurance cost for just being overweight?


Joggings free.




Statistcally, they cost more because they are more unhealthy.  What's so bad about trying not to go broke by raising rates on someone guaranteed to take more money out then they were ever to put in?


----------



## Sasha (Jul 30, 2009)

Linuss said:


> Another gripe I have with this proposed plan-- it fines people to choosing not to be covered.  So much for freedom of choice.
> 
> .



People who want health care simply cannot afford to have it. So much for freedom of choice.


----------



## Shishkabob (Jul 30, 2009)

Sasha said:


> People who want health care simply cannot afford to have it. So much for freedom of choice.



They had the choice to get an education and get a worthwhile job.


----------



## Sasha (Jul 30, 2009)

Linuss said:


> Joggings free.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Jogging. Adds muscle mass, which adds to weight, which adds to your insurance premium.

Overweight does not simply mean fat. Body builders are, by definition, overweight. Athletes, given enough muscle mass can be, by defintion, overweight.


----------



## Sasha (Jul 30, 2009)

Linuss said:


> They had the choice to get an education and get a worthwhile job.



Not all jobs offer insurance, and it's not just bad jobs that don't offer it.. Not everyone had the luxury of being able to finish high school or go to college. Some people work to support their families from the time that they can legally leave school and get a job.

I don't have the option of insurance with my job because I work per diem. I work per diem because I get more money that way. Not enough to cover an insurance premium, but more money.


----------



## PapaBear434 (Jul 30, 2009)

Sasha said:


> Have you looked at the hike in insurance cost for just being overweight? It's outrageous. Many people can't afford to pay out a third of their rent a month for insurance and have to live and hope they will never need health care.



Thank you, Sasha.  Said it a lot better than I, and a lot more concisely.  

And the metrics they use to determine overweight is usually a BMI calculation.  They are all different, and the insurance companies will usually do their best to find the one that is most unfavorable to the client.

I have never been less than 225 lbs. in my entire adult life, and that was after six months in the police academy working me out six times a week.  I was rocking a six pack at the time, working on the V-shape on my torso, and was in awesome shape (unlike the fat blob I am now, of course).  According to my Dad's insurance company, the previously mentioned Blue Cross/Blue Shield, I was considered "Obese" for my height and weight standards.  I am six feet tall and weighed 225 lbs. 

How does THAT happen?


----------



## JPINFV (Jul 30, 2009)

PapaBear434 said:


> If that destroys the insurance companies, they deserve to die.  They just couldn't compete.  Isn't' that was capitalism is all about?  Why are you against competition?  What are you, a socialist?



Oh sweet, we want to play the "What are you" game?

Government running private enterprise out of business isn't capitalism. What are you, a fascist? Hell, even Mussolini made the trains run on time. 



> And to whomever brought up long lines, dentists not taking appointments, and all that other stuff: That's the FUD, guys.  Fear, uncertainty, doubt.  I have family members who live in Canada, and they have yet to have anything like that happen.  I was injured in Canada, and as an American citizen I was charged a grand total of $50 USD for a torn rotator cuff.  Then, I got back to the states, and a single session of rehab cost me $650, with co-pay from Blue Cross/Blue Shield.


Yep, let's ignore what's really happening in all of those systems that work so well. Here. http://www.lep.co.uk/news/8000-still-waiting-for-NHS.4265224.jp I guess the England news agencies are just lying about their dentists, right? 8000 patients without a dentist. Such a marvel of government work. I guess it's only a fact if it supports the fascists that want government control over everything. All hail Obama, dictator of the Americans. 

Canada's supreme court: 





> "Access to a waiting list is not access to health care," two of the justices wrote in their decision.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/healthcare/




> Besides, how would it be different than today?  How many calls do we get where people are just calling us because they think it will get them to the head of the line in the ED?  How many times have you seen people bleeding and broken, sitting in the waiting room?  How many times have you seen someone get denied treatment as "experimental," even though it's a perfectly accepted and standard practice, because the insurance companies don't want to pay?
> 
> It's all fear.



Yep, and the government will pay for everything. We won't have anyone sitting in waiting rooms because the government will add 100000 ER beds and fully staff them to every hospital. Government will pay for any and all treatments. All hail the government, the solution to everything since government = free.


----------



## PapaBear434 (Jul 30, 2009)

Linuss said:


> They had the choice to get an education and get a worthwhile job.



Social Darwinism?  If you can't afford the over-inflated rates of the insurance companies, you deserve to die?  

How can you possibly argue this new-age Calvinism and not feel like a horrible person?


----------



## Sasha (Jul 30, 2009)

> How does THAT happen?



Muscle weighs more than fat. You are probably obese by BMI standards but in better shape then all the "healthy" thin people running around.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Jul 30, 2009)

Do I really need to put this thread on a time out?


----------



## Sasha (Jul 30, 2009)

ffemt8978 said:


> Do I really need to put this thread on a time out?



I think we're being very civil....


----------



## ffemt8978 (Jul 30, 2009)

Telling each other to shush, and calling them socialists and fascists does not constitute being civil.


----------



## Shishkabob (Jul 30, 2009)

PapaBear434 said:


> How can you possibly argue this new-age Calvinism and not feel like a horrible person?



And how can you argue forcing your beliefs on the majority of people against it, but call it unfair and inhumane to do the same back?  How can you not feel like a hypocrite?


----------



## JPINFV (Jul 30, 2009)

Besides, nothing of this changes the fact that government run health care is unconstitutional.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Jul 30, 2009)

Thread reopened.


----------



## PapaBear434 (Jul 30, 2009)

Linuss said:


> And how can you argue forcing your beliefs on the majority of people against it, but call it unfair and inhumane to do the same back?  How can you not feel like a hypocrite?



Last I checked, the polls said that the majority of people supported this health care initiative.  

My only problem is that this bill doesn't go far enough.  Personally, I want a full, single payer system with supplemental care offered to those who want and can afford it.  You know, like Germany does.  This current plan is being designed by politicians who have been bought and paid for by the insurance companies.  They aren't going to let their highly paid congress-critters vote against their interests.  

I want a plan that makes the insurance companies angry.  I want one that makes them freaking TERRIFIED.  I want them to know that they can no longer take premiums for years and years and years, and then deny Grandma cancer treatment after decades of regular payment because they'll play the odds that the family will give up the suit or settle for pennies on the dollar than it would have cost for the actual treatment costs.  

I want this done, because I am tired of seeing people not getting treatment for completely treatable disorders and injuries because they can't afford it or don't have access to it.  It's sick, wrong, and immoral that we, the supposedly most giving nation on the planet, refuses to take care of it's own people.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Jul 30, 2009)

PapaBear434 said:


> Last I checked, the polls said that the majority of people supported this health care initiative.
> 
> My only problem is that this bill doesn't go far enough.  Personally, I want a full, single payer system with supplemental care offered to those who want and can afford it.  You know, like Germany does.  This current plan is being designed by politicians who have been bought and paid for by the insurance companies.  They aren't going to let their highly paid congress-critters vote against their interests.
> 
> ...



Good for you...now figure out a way to pay for it WITHOUT raising my taxes or putting us a trillion dollars in debt within 10 years.


----------



## firecoins (Jul 30, 2009)

ffemt8978 said:


> Telling each other to shush, and calling them socialists and fascists does not constitute being civil.



Do you think calling anyone not civil is civil?  No.  

1.  There so such thing as free healthcare.  We will all be paying for it.  

2.  50 million uninsured become insured.  There is no increase in health resources.  Everyone gets alot less healthcare.  

3.  To limit costs, the government controlled healthplan won't fund your healthcare if you partake in so called dangerous or unpopular activities. Smoking and obesity are the current ones but it could be increased to riding a motorcycle, parachuting, lifitn patients on stretchers, posting on EMTlife, driving vehicles that are fuel inefficient and on and on.


----------



## bstone (Jul 30, 2009)

ffemt8978 said:


> Good for you...now figure out a way to pay for it WITHOUT raising my taxes or putting us a trillion dollars in debt within 10 years.



Ending a $10Billion a month war in Iraq and Afghanastan would easily pay for it. Why not concentrate on our own people vs warring with countries that pose no threat?


----------



## Sasha (Jul 30, 2009)

bstone said:


> Ending a $10Billion a month war in Iraq and Afghanastan would easily pay for it. Why not concentrate on our own people vs warring with countries that pose no threat?



Pulling out of Iraq now would not be good for anyone!


----------



## Shishkabob (Jul 30, 2009)

PapaBear434 said:


> Last I checked, the polls said that the majority of people supported this health care initiative.



Really?  Might wanna check the numbers again.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...3_now_oppose_congressional_health_care_reform

Rasmussen-- 53% oppose, 44% approve.  




You're mistaking wanting reform, for wanting THIS reform.


----------



## 8jimi8 (Jul 30, 2009)

the answer is hydrogen power and wind energy.  Forgive me all of these numbers are coming from a memory of a radio broadcast.

Basically the premise was.  retool our auto factories to produce hydrogen vehicles.  As well as a $6trillion investment in more production of those giant windmills. (he also said that if we fill up the great plains with windmills it would actually generate enough electricity for the whole country)

I think he said we spend about $2 trillion per year using petroleum based fuel.

His idea being that if we build enough windmills to power the entire electric grid as well as eliminating our dependence on fossil fuels for transportation and then exported our windmills across the globe...  

it would take that $6 trillion investment and then turn into a $2trillion/year surplus, since we would no longer be dependent on oil.

But... i idealize wayyy too far.  No, i think instead we'll gut the healthcare bill, not reform a thing and keep on bailing out banks and auto companies.

Just remember this... when we roll out socialized medicine and it doesn't work for us... There will be no going back.  By then it'll be too late and Mitt Romney will be the next president.  I haven't even begun researching what his agenda is.


----------



## JesseM515 (Jul 30, 2009)

Healthcare is such a HUGE issue in our country... I think alot of the issues with insurance coverage happen because companies have become so large and wealthy that they can sway politicians with lobbyists and bribes. The same can be said about drug companies. If only there was a way to get free universal healthcare like so many other countries have succeeded in doing... but what do I know Im only 22 and I dont get paid for my opinions = )

Gotta love the military! and Tricare!!!!


----------



## PapaBear434 (Jul 31, 2009)

Linuss said:


> You're mistaking wanting reform, for wanting THIS reform.



You could be right there.  I want Canada's system, UK's system, Germany's system.  This idiotic system being proposed, with no public option and a mandate to have insurance without it makes no sense.


----------



## k8ek8e (Jul 31, 2009)

Lobbying should be illegal in my opinion.


----------



## 8jimi8 (Jul 31, 2009)

agreed. As should campaign donations.  Each candidate should have a set amount of money given out by the fed and free air time on all major networks.  There should be fed sponsored debates aired on the internet and networks and we should hold state elections where it only takes 3% of the population of that state's votes to qualify you to be in the race.  

AND NO FREAKING ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES THAT DONT PRINT A RECEIPT FOR YOUR VOTE. omFg.

but we digress!

I think papabear is finally on the page with the rest of us.  It really seemed like he was arguing for something crazy, but as it turns out he's just a bleeding heart like the rest of us.

Yah... we don't want to keep the little man down and keep his insurance card just out of reach.  We just dont want to flush our country down the toilet and lose any of our personal freedom or wealth in the process.


----------



## firecoins (Jul 31, 2009)

k8ek8e said:


> Lobbying should be illegal in my opinion.



no, it shouldn't.  Freedom of speech goes right out the window.  Every group including proObamaplan would not get to talk to Congress men.


----------



## 8jimi8 (Jul 31, 2009)

maybe just... "paid lobbyists" then how about that!


----------



## Jon (Aug 1, 2009)

ffemt8978 said:


> Telling each other to shush, and calling them socialists and fascists does not constitute being civil.



Just to clarify, though: 


> ...a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a more egalitarian method of compensation...


~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
There is SOME truth to the socialism label.


And I really would love to see a test of "national healthcare" as violating the 10th Amendment, as "Universal Access to Health Care" is NOT a right guaranteed under the US Bill of Rights


> Tenth Amendment: provides that powers that the Constitution does not delegate to the United States and does not prohibit the States from exercising, are "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution



And to stir the pot even more - Illegal Aliens, Undocumented Guest Workers - whatever you want to call them. THEY DON'T PAY TAXES... because they DON'T EXIST on paper. Why do some of the plans call for me to pay for THEIR medical care with MY tax money? I know this happens already - however, Is it FAIR to all concerned? Will it be BENEFICIAL to all concerned?


----------



## Hal9000 (Aug 1, 2009)

*Rights*

Rights typically relate to freedom FROM state intervention in specific affairs. We have habeas corpus rights which protect us FROM arbitrary imprisonment by the government. We have the right to bear arms, which prevents us FROM being divested of our firepower by the government. But it is most important to note that the right to bear arms does not mean that the government will buy you a gun if you cannot afford to purchase your own. 

Having the right TO something rather than FROM something usually obliges the government to buy it for you.  

Someone from the UK said it much better than I could.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Aug 1, 2009)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/30/AR2009073002816.html


----------



## JesseM515 (Aug 1, 2009)

Sasha said:


> Pulling out of Iraq now would not be good for anyone!



*sigh* it would be good for me!!! It sucks here! = )


----------



## thrilla82 (Aug 6, 2009)

found this to be very interesting.  what i dont understand is, why would people want to give up the right to choose who their doctor is?  my father in law passed away from ms and could have had better treatment.  for the longest time his doctor couldnt figure out what was going on, so my wife and i convinced him to get a second oppinion.  go figure, the doctor found over 20 lesions on his brain.  how was this missed?  so now they want us to be assigned one doctor and thats it, i dont like that one bit.  but read this article, obama care in one word.


http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24397&highlight=obamacare


----------



## PapaBear434 (Aug 6, 2009)

thrilla82 said:


> found this to be very interesting.  what i dont understand is, why would people want to give up the right to choose who their doctor is?  my father in law passed away from ms and could have had better treatment.  for the longest time his doctor couldnt figure out what was going on, so my wife and i convinced him to get a second oppinion.  go figure, the doctor found over 20 lesions on his brain.  how was this missed?  so now they want us to be assigned one doctor and thats it, i dont like that one bit.  but read this article, obama care in one word.
> 
> 
> http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24397&highlight=obamacare



_Dear Mr. or Mrs. thrilla82,
    We regret to inform you that your current primary care physician, Dr. Madeupname, has been removed from your current network coverage plan.  We understand that your family has been seeing Dr. Madeupname for many years, delivered your three children, and helped nurse your spouse through that bout of cancer, and apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.  We encourage you to please look through your insurance plan on our website and choose another PCM from our extensive list of physicians you've never heard of and no nothing about.

    If you have any objection to the above action, please reference our aggrievance and appeal procedure located in our labyrinthine, red-tape laden bylaws and fine print.  Please have three copies of your birth certificate, two forms of ID, original versions, six copies of your middle school graduation forms, and a vial of virgin goat blood obtained during the highest point of the harvest moon enclosed with your appeal forms, which can be found conveniently on our poorly designed and powerfully aggravating website.  

     Thank you again for your continued patronage at Bendyouover & Hard Health Services, and please have a healthy day._

If you think that crap doesn't happen now, you are deluding yourself.  People paying a huge premium for the companies to choose your Doctor and/or screw you over in your time of need anyway.

At least with a public option, people that otherwise wouldn't have the opportunity to see a doctor now would.  Plus, if you don't like your doctor, or want a second opinion, you can request to change your PCM and schedule another appointment.  That's how it works in Medicare/Medicade, that's how it works in Tricare (I just did it last week myself since my PCM was, quite frankly, kind of a jerk,) that's how it works in Canada/UK/Germany...  It would be no different under any of the three major proposed systems in the House right now.

Oh, and it has the added benefit of stopping the trend of people going bankrupt because they or somoene in their family has the audacity to get sick.  60% of all bankruptcies in the US are due to medical bills.  And a lot of those folks have insurance.  Or DID, until they raised their rates so high they could no longer pay for their policy, and can't shop around with another company because they won't be covered due to a "pre-existing condition."


----------



## Shishkabob (Aug 6, 2009)

Papa---- then change the way insurance companies operate.  But don't offer free, or close to free, healthcare to those who don't pay for it, funded by the federal government.


----------



## thrilla82 (Aug 6, 2009)

and all im saying is, the government is having a hard time running medicare and medicaid and also social security and now they want to run the whole thing?  why dont we take baby steps here and fix those first, then move on from there.


----------



## PapaBear434 (Aug 6, 2009)

I submit that Linuss and thrilla have not read the bills in question, and fundamentally do not understand what is being proposed.  They are proposing starting up a public option.  Not taking over, not outlawing private insurance, just offering a baseline coverage for all.

Besides, if you're saying that private insurance cannot compete with a public option, but in the same breath claim that the government can do nothing right and runs everything into the ground, you are selectively choosing what to believe in.


----------



## HotelCo (Aug 6, 2009)

PapaBear434 said:


> They are proposing starting up a public option.



How are they going to pay for it in this crippled economy?


----------



## firecoins (Aug 6, 2009)

PapaBear434 said:


> Besides, if you're saying that private insurance cannot compete with a public option, but in the same breath claim that the government can do nothing right and runs everything into the ground, you are selectively choosing what to believe in.



No they are not.  The government has an almost unlimited amount of power to tax and borrow.  Hence it can subsidize any program that loses money for some time.  Most people treat that as forever.  Social Security is going bankrupt as we speak. Even the military spend billion in unnecessary waste outside of the wars.

Business can not do that.  A business's goal is to make money. Too much waste and its gone. It will cut unecessary costs and healthcare will be a huge unecessary cost. A public option will give a busines the option to cut that cost and tell employees to sign up for the gov't plan.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Aug 6, 2009)

PapaBear434 said:


> I submit that Linuss and thrilla have not read the bills in question, and fundamentally do not understand what is being proposed.  They are proposing starting up a public option.  Not taking over, not outlawing private insurance, just offering a baseline coverage for all.
> 
> Besides, if you're saying that private insurance cannot compete with a public option, but in the same breath claim that the government can do nothing right and runs everything into the ground, you are selectively choosing what to believe in.



I submit that the elimination of private insurance is the ultimate goal of this plan.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/25779.html?n


----------



## PapaBear434 (Aug 6, 2009)

ffemt8978 said:


> I submit that the elimination of private insurance is the ultimate goal of this plan.
> 
> http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/25779.html?n



OR... Just for kicks, we could try the truth.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/08/06/healthcare/

_*Myth: Obama will ban all private health insurance.* Allegedly, the House proposal for healthcare reform bans private insurance. This rumor comes complete with a citation: "Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal," the unflaggingly pro-business paper Investors Business Daily wrote in an editorial last month. Other right-wing blogs and news outlets picked up on the idea, as well. It fits in with a broader message Republicans have been using: The reform will lead to a total government takeover of healthcare.

The IBD line is literally true -- Section 102 of the House bill says insurance companies can't independently issue any new individual policies after the legislation takes effect (though existing policies are grandfathered in). But it misses the point. Private plans aren't banned, but rather shifted into the new health insurance exchange the legislation would set up. You can still get a private policy, but the way in which you buy it changes. If you wanted to buy your own insurance, you have to do it through the government-run insurance exchange. Your policy becomes part of broader risk pools, which makes the premiums cheaper and keeps insurance companies from dumping them once they get sick. PolitiFact looked into the claim and rated the IBD editorial "pants on fire," its lowest rating -- as in, "Liar, liar, pants on fire."_


----------



## ffemt8978 (Aug 7, 2009)

PapaBear434 said:


> OR... Just for kicks, we could try the truth.
> 
> http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/08/06/healthcare/
> 
> ...



The truth is that he made the comments...





> The clip is labeled, “SEIU Health Care Forum 3/24/07,” and shows Obama saying: “I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s going to be, potentially, some transition process: I can envision a decade out, or 15 years out, or 20 years out.”



So he has said he wants to eliminate private insurance, and he has said he does not want to eliminate private insurance.  Even your quoted article states that this plan would ban any NEW private insurance policies, thereby forcing everyone to go through the public option unless they maintain their current policy.  

The question is now, which one do you believe?


----------



## PapaBear434 (Aug 7, 2009)

ffemt8978 said:


> The truth is that he made the comments...
> 
> So he has said he wants to eliminate private insurance, and he has said he does not want to eliminate private insurance.  Even your quoted article states that this plan would ban any NEW private insurance policies, thereby forcing everyone to go through the public option unless they maintain their current policy.
> 
> The question is now, which one do you believe?



That was the original goal, to be like EVERY OTHER SYSTEM in the world.  However, he was a realist, and knew that it would never fly with those invested in the status quo.

He goaded the House into creating an incredibly stupid hybrid system that is being proposed now, that let's these predatory insurance companies live to suck on the lifeblood of the sick and infirm another day.

Having an initial goal, and then changing your mind, doesn't make you a liar.  We already had a numb skull in office for eight years that held steadfast to every belief he ever had, never altering it in the least, and never admitting he was wrong.  It didn't work out so well.  How about we accept that changing one's mind, or lowering your goals to fit reality (no matter how corrupt reality is) is not a sign of weakness but is instead a sign of a rational, thinking person?


----------



## thrilla82 (Aug 7, 2009)

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/29036/


----------



## PapaBear434 (Aug 7, 2009)

thrilla82 said:


> http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/29036/



Wait, did you just reference Glenn Beck as a source of your opinions against a national health care service?  I think I see the problem here...

It seems that you are a...  Well, I can't really tell you what I think you are, as it will likely get me banned.  But seriously, you REALLY shouldn't listen to that raging loon.  He blatantly makes stuff up without any regard for the truth or any semblance of reality, and has more than a couple times called for the violent overthrow of the democratically elected government.  

Do yourself a favor, avoid Glenn Beck.  At the very least, don't reference Beck in your arguments, because it pretty much destroys any credibility you may have had outside of other nut jobs like him.


----------



## thrilla82 (Aug 7, 2009)

actually sir or ma'am, i listen to every point of view.  since im in afghanistan fighting for freedom, (something id like to have when i return) we have only one news channel.  this channel plays one hours of cnn, msnbc, fox news and the pentagon channel on a loop.  plus i get on the internet any chance i get to research what people have said on their shows.  say what you must, call me what you want, but i do listen to each side equally.


----------



## PapaBear434 (Aug 7, 2009)

thrilla82 said:


> actually sir or ma'am, i listen to every point of view.  since im in afghanistan fighting for freedom, (something id like to have when i return) we have only one news channel.  this channel plays one hours of cnn, msnbc, fox news and the pentagon channel on a loop.  plus i get on the internet any chance i get to research what people have said on their shows.  say what you must, call me what you want, but i do listen to each side equally.



Some points of view deserve no attention.  Mr. Beck is one of them.  He is the equivalent of a guy standing on a street corner yelling at the pigeons that the Jews run the water treatment facility and are secretly sneaking us kosher water to make us all gay.  

The only real difference is that he has a TV show.  You know, right along with this guy:







Who regularly interviews this guy:





Who helped this guy cover up illegal activities:





These are all the sorts of people I wouldn't want to associate my cause with, friend.  They are a cancer on the political system.

And please, while I respect that you are serving, or at least claim to be serving, in the US military, it doesn't make you smarter, more virtuous, or more of an expert on "freedom" or anything else by default.  I have been married to a Naval officer for over a decade now, which has more than proven to me that just because someone wears a uniform doesn't shield them from being a moron.  I have met more than a couple folks that couldn't rub two braincells together if you lent them one.

Besides, someone in the military arguing against universal health care is a bit of a hypocritical thing to do.  You realize that you, my wife, myself, my two children, and every other active member and dependent of the US Military is covered by a universal system, right?  

The other week, I had a pain in my left testicle.  Didn't know what it was, but it came in pulses, like a cramp, a couple times a day, and figured it had something to do with my vasectomy last December (Merry Christmas, you're sterile!)  I called up Tricare, got an appointment with my PCM at Portsmouth Naval Hospital five days later.  I went in for my appointment, doctor poked and prodded a bit and told me to turn my head and cough, and wrote me up a referral to the urologist.  

Appointment two days later, an ultrasound was done (how awkward that was) and it was determined that it was nothing more than the scar tissue forming and causing my nerves to fire weird.  They wrote me a prescription for Motrin 800mg  for when the pain held on for a while (the military Docs love the ol' "vitamin M") and sent me on my way.  

I got down to the pharmacy, and waited in line.  It was a long wait, about twenty minutes.  I showed them my ID at the window after my number was called, and they retrieved my Rx, instructed me to take it with food and all that, and sent me on my way with no payment or anything.

It's a great system, quite frankly, and don't see why it needs to be restricted to those who as a government employee.  Why shouldn't it be this simple for everyone?  How was it that this entire problem with a worrisome pain in my testicles being checked out and alleviated in a timely and cost effective manner infringed on my freedom again?  

Personally, I view a universal health care system as NECESSARY to ensure freedom.  Your definition of freedom seems to stem from freedom from the government, which is supposed to work for us because it is by definition run by us.  What we have now is tyranny not from Washington, but by predatory corporations that want to take your money and give you nothing in return were ever they are able.  We have people afraid to leave low paying jobs they hate and living in poverty because they can't afford to lose health benefits.  People that can't go to school to better themselves or their place in society because they have a sick family member eating up all available income.  We have 60% of all bankruptcies in this country resulting from medical bills, and most of those folks thought they had insurance.

Our system is broken.  There is nothing wrong, or unpatriotic, about saying that other countries have a better system than us or that they might be better at something than us.  What is unpatriotic is saying that we CAN'T be better, that we CAN'T fix it.  And even worse than that, we have people that are not even willing to try.  

We are America, damn it.  We may not be the best at everything, and we make plenty of mistakes and even commit vast atrocities at times.  But the thing that made us great is that we never stop TRYING to be the best, and never stopped trying to not repeat the mistakes of the past.  This current social conservative movement, though, is at the wrong side of history.  They are the one's dragging this country into decay, greed, and and abject apathy.


----------



## JPINFV (Aug 7, 2009)

I'll use the same argument I used on JEMS Life. Saying that the system needs reform and that because ObamaCare is reform, it is good is like saying Hitler was good for Germany because he reformed the broken Weimar Republic.

As far as the military system, it's essentially the same as any other employer provided health care system. Now do you really think that the nation has enough money to actually make that system universal? You can't just solve everything by taxing the rich, after all the rich already pay the vast majority of federal income tax in this country.


----------



## JPINFV (Aug 7, 2009)

PapaBear434 said:


> You could be right there.  I want Canada's system, UK's system, Germany's system.  This idiotic system being proposed, with no public option and a mandate to have insurance without it makes no sense.




US under a Canada system. Anything that isn't a life saving (basically, if you don't get this, you will die within a week) is optional and be prepared to wait years. Sick and tired of hobbling around on a bad hip? Too bad, hip replacements aren't necessary for life so we'll only pay for X amount a year. No private insurance since that would make some more equal than others. As a result, many Americans will flee to Mexico for procedures so that they actually get them in a reasonable period of time.


UK system: Once physicians and dentists meet their quota of government patients, they'll stop seeing people and taking new patients. After all, no physician is going to take people off of a 60,000 person wait list if they won't get paid for it.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Aug 7, 2009)

JPINFV said:


> is like saying Hitler was good for Germany because he reformed the broken Weimar Republic.



Thread closed due to invocation of Godwin's Law


----------

