It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why is 'everyone' on this board so against an expansion of Public Health Care in the U.S?

page: 7
9
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 08:05 AM
link   
This is all presented in a proper and acceptable package to some - but the truth is the system is anti-health, I have survived the Quebec lie and saved myself from the atrocities these uninformed and sometimes outright sadistic incompetents ruin our health.
This guy presents the cold hard facts on a lucky day...Take the time to watch this and you will understand the additional BS your government is imposing on you...




posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Devino

Originally posted by Pathos
Existential Psychology is the belief that we are all free, and that it is at such a level where it leaves us vulnerable to the consequences of our 'own' choices.

If you don't have health insurance, we the taxpayers should not pay for your own choices. Your consequences are not our burden. Once we loose the right to choose, we leave behind certain freedoms granted by our constitution. People who want free health insurance (without a disability), are victims of their own foolish choices.

Don't put your burdens on me, for you are the one who made the choice.

I'm a deep believer in the dynamics behind psychology. Even though I obtained my degrees in another field of study, I took several classes in psychology because I believe in the responsibility of 'the individual' for 'individual freedom'. (Without social intervention.)

"You" are responsible for "your own" lack of health care. Not me.


This psychological belief is in contradiction the way you presented it. Regardless of what you may think about my comment I feel you could benefit from at least trying to understand my point.

What?!? Hahaha.... Your telling me that my understanding of Existential Psychology is flawed. Even though someone with a Phd in psychology gave me an A on my senior thesis, you (a nobody) are telling me my education is flawed. Hahaha.... I am dead on correct.

Wow! I think you just tried to deflect my response, for you couldn't come up with a better answer. Instead of presenting an educational observation, you attempted to discredit my analysis. Hahaha... How much psychology have you learned?

Your answer to my question shows me evidence, which supports the fact that you don't know what your talking about. Health care for everyone through mandates is not freedom. National health care will degrade the quality of care people will receive, and it will take away individual responsibility and freedoms.

When does feeding any system more people lower the price of anything? Lowering the price for health care is important, but we shouldn't accomplish it through giving health care providers more people. All we are doing is giving them more money, but we are not asking them for anything in return.

How you fix the system is to:
(1) Lower the price of pills.
(2) Lower the price of treatments.
(3) Options.

Our overall problem remains with the over priced fraud that is in the system. Adding more people doesn't mean squat.

Obama wants to create a national heath care system, so he can redistribute the wealth to the lower class. We have plenty of time to come up with better solutions. Obama is using fear mongering, so he can get more votes in 2012.

We got time. There is no hurry.

[edit on 1-8-2009 by Pathos]

[edit on 1-8-2009 by Pathos]



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by jjkenobi
 


Hi. I just wanted to say that if you pay 50% of your income in taxes, you need a new tax atty! I can significantly help you.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Instead of killing off the old people that actually worked in this country & earned their golden years why don't we just kill off those that are on the dole without having earned it? It's just as draconian but no worse.

Lets kill off those that suck up all of the resources on the public dole. That includes all that don't produce anything.

I mean that is what they are saying right? Kill those that are no longer of value to society because they can't contribute anymore...

What would the list of non producing non contributing members of our society look like? We must include young and old because that is just as arbitrary as what they are proposing.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 10:35 AM
link   
chloelobrien.wordpress.com...



ObamaCare, The Other Clunker Program
July 31, 2009
Merely four days out of production, the proudly touted government program “Cash for Clunkers” came to a screeching halt Thursday amid worries of an empty tank.

In an unexpected move, the government halted the program, saying it proved so popular with the public that it ran out of money in just four days of official operation. The White House later told us and others on background that the program had not been suspended, but hastened to add that all deals in the hopper before midnight Thursday would be honored — making it sound as if it had been suspended. New York Times Today

“There’s a significant backlog of ‘cash for clunkers’ deals that make us question how much funding is still available in the program,” said Bailey Wood, a spokesman for the dealers association. AP Today

“I’m waiting for the government to reimburse me for over $80,000,” Barry Magnus, general manager of DCH Paramus Honda, in Paramus, N.J., told us. He has completed deals on about two dozen cars, advancing his customers the rebates of between $3,500 and $4,500 each while he waits for the government to repay him. New York Times Today

Clearly, the lack of planning for a simple three month government program resulting in a temporary shutdown four days in due to depleted funds and red tape, demands the question, Why should Americans feel any comfort in a Government run health care system?

Since Congress has been committed to wasting taxpayer’s hard earned monies for years, obviously this is not the first government program to exhaust all funding.

On Tuesday, the Government Accountability Office added the Postal Service to its list of “high risk” federal programs, urging it to work with Congress to find a solution to its financial problems. Postmaster General John E. Potter says the Postal Service now expects to run a record $7 billion deficit in 2009, up from projections in March of $6 billion. Losses for the third quarter will not be made public until Aug. 5, but Mr. Potter says those numbers should be similar to figures from the second quarter, when the Postal Service lost $1.9 billion. New York Times, July 29, 2009

On Thursday, Congress moved to bail out the highway trust fund by transferring $7 billion from the general budget. ‘It would be the second such bailout for the fund in a year, following an $8 billion transfer from the general budget last September.’ AP Today

In a written statement, Senator Tom Coburn said, “Congress has wasted billions of dollars on low-priority projects like bike paths while bridges are in disrepair. In today’s economy, it’s inexcusable to continue business as usual when Congress could be supporting state priorities that would save lives, save taxpayer funds, create jobs and truly stimulate the economy,”

So, consider for a moment that you are required to wait months for a doctor’s appointment or to reschedule a hip replacement surgery pending government approval. What if you are denied an MRI or mammogram necessary for a diagnosis? If these circumstances are acceptable to you, ponder for awhile whether your parent’s right to live another year should be determined by a bureaucrat behind a desk crunching numbers?

Make no mistake, this is not an imaginary tale, take a look at history to prove the story. If you believe Congress will miraculously be capable of running a health care system without rationing and increasing taxes, then I will yield to an infamous proverb, ‘we reap what we sow.’



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Heres what Obamas own doctor has to say about Obamacare.

www.huffingtonpost.com...



Obama's Doctor: President's Vision For Health Care Bound To Fail.

The man Barack Obama consulted on medical matters for over two decades said on Tuesday that the president's vision for health care reform is bound for failure.

Dr. David Scheiner, a 70-year Chicago-based physician who treated Obama for more than 20 years, said he was disheartened by the health care legislation his former patient is championing, calling it piecemeal and ineffectual.

"I look at his program and I can't see how it's going to work," Scheiner told the Huffington Post. "He has no cost control. There would be no effective cost control in his program. The [Congressional Budget Office] said it's going be incredibly expensive ... and the thing that I really am worried about is, if it is the failure that I think it would be, then health reform will be set back a long, long time."

Scheiner, who prefers a more progressive approach to reform, was hesitant about trying to divine the president's motives, although he said he believed that "in his heart of hearts" Obama "may well like a single-payer program."

"His pragmatism is what is overwhelming him." Scheiner added: "I think he's afraid that he can't get anything through if he doesn't go through this incredibly compromised program."

Admitting that he was not a political practitioner, Scheiner said he felt compelled to speak out because of his unique relationship with the president and this critical moment in the health care debate. A champion of a single-payer health care system, Scheiner noted repeatedly that he came to the debate from the perspective of having dealt with the hassles and pitfalls of the current system. His speaking out is part of a larger effort, launched by Physicians for a National Health Program, to push Congress to consider single-payer as an alternative to current reform proposals.

As Scheiner sees it, all alternatives simply fall short. Keeping private insurers in the market, he warns, would simply maintain burdensome administrative costs. He argued further that the pharmaceutical industry is not being asked to make "any kind of significant sacrifices" in the current round of reform negotiations. As for a public health care option, Scheiner insists that the proposal remains vague and inadequate.

"First of all, they haven't really gone into great detail about the public option," he said. "How much is it going to cost, are they going to really undercut private health insurance by a considerable amount? Will there be any restriction that you can get for public option?"

Despite his policy critiques, Scheiner's affection for his long-time patient is quite obvious. He recalled the president as being "gracious" and "never pulling rank" when he came to his office. "Part of my shtick, is I sing songs and I love humor," Scheiner said. "I remember last time I saw him I told him a joke, he said, 'Doc, you told me that joke before.' I was so impressed he can remember my bad jokes -- this guy has to be really bright."

During the course of the campaign, Scheiner became one of the many mini-celebrities in Obama's orbit. When the then-Senator released a one-page summary documenting his health, criticism for its brevity was laid on the doc's doorstep.

"The guy was healthy, you know," Scheiner recalled. "What can you say? His only problem was that he smoked ... But there wasn't that much to say. If I had added anything it would have been pure drivel. There wasn't anything serious in his record. He'd never had anything. The guy is built like a rock, he could probably bench-press me...

"I think my most impressive time was when Jon Stewart actually mocked my report," he added. "I thought that was wonderful."

All of which makes his current criticism of Obama's health care policies all the more difficult. While Scheiner raved about the president's intellectual curiosity, he was at loss for words as to why Obama had consulted with private industry executives more than primary care physicians. And while he spoke glowingly about the president's oratorical talents, he expressed disappointment that Obama had not done more to explain the benefits of single-payer coverage to the American public.

The White House has said that the president moved away from a single-payer approach both because of philosophical objections (consumers should be allowed to keep their coverage) as well as political realities (limited support for the proposal in Congress). The administration's position increasingly resembles the maxim, Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

"It's a good question," Scheiner said, when asked if having watered-down reform become law was better than getting a single-payer system stalled in Congress. "Is something better than nothing? That is a hard one for me. That is a difficult one, because, in the end, I think [Obama's] program is going to fail."






posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Pathos
 
Yeah, I know. Me, a nobody, pointing out mistakes and contradictions in your replies to this thread. In your emotional haste to flame me you made several more mistakes. For starters assuming I am a nobody. But maybe your right, to you I am a nobody and I'm fine with that.


Originally posted by Pathos
Your telling me that my understanding of Existential Psychology is flawed.

I am not telling you that your understanding of Existential Psychology is flawed and I am sure your dissertation on this was well presented and deserved an A.
I am pointing out a contradiction in the way you presented your belief in Existential Psychology here.


Originally posted by Pathos
you (a nobody) are telling me my education is flawed...I think you just tried to deflect my response

I have never claimed that your education is flawed nor am I attempting to deflect or dis-inform your response.
What I am attempting to do is communicate my thoughts to you in a way that doesn't provoke an aggressive response from a feeling of insecurity. I believe I have failed at this and your response in return tells a great deal about your own psychological profile. You may find this offensive also but again this is not my intention.


Originally posted by Pathos
...you couldn't come up with a better answer. Instead of presenting an educational observation, you attempted to discredit my analysis.

I am not sure what you mean by "a better answer" as I didn't discern any "answers" in your original reply, it reads more like opinions and theories. My educational observation is emphasizing the importance of health care and education for our nation. I can not argue against problems in our government because I agree that there are many and I also agree that there is no easy answer but time we do not have. This is a problem that should have been addressed decades ago at least.


Originally posted by Pathos
Your answer to my question shows me evidence, which supports the fact that you don't know what your talking about.

I didn't know you had a question to be answered but I will agree that I do not know what I am talking about when it comes to most political debates nor do I care to learn. I consider it a cluster f... of deception and corruption that I want no part of.


Originally posted by Pathos
National health care will degrade the quality of care people will receive, and it will take away individual responsibility and freedoms.

I would argue that this is one possible outcome and there are countries that have national health care befitting this description. However there are also National heath care plans that work quite well, Germany's for example, and I would think it better to model after these rather then the ones that don't work.


Originally posted by Pathos
When does feeding any system more people lower the price of anything?

Group plans in just about every service can lower the price per person.


Originally posted by Pathos
Lowering the price for health care is important, but we shouldn't accomplish it through giving health care providers more people.

Now I don't understand this comment, if your question about 'more people lowering prices' was a rhetorical way of claiming it doesn't happen than the word "shouldn't" implies a contradiction to that claim.

As for the rest of your reply I agree fully and would like to add the problem with pharmaceutical lobbyists influencing legislature that further add higher costs to an already overpriced market.

I appreciate your reply even though I unfortunately offended you, all I can hope for is that you try to understand my point of view and not take it personal.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna

Originally posted by Animal

IMHO they should simply be ignored until the time comes that they choose to participate in logical and open debate.


I like how you think that everyone who disagrees with you is unworthy of discussing anything with and should be ignored. That kind of thinking says a lot about a person.


If you and yours could come up with relevant factually based arguments rather than opinion based arguments meant to spark fear, then so be it.

But as far as I have seen, the only thing the opposition has to offer is the above.

I choose to ignore illogic, ignorance and spin. Bring in some real factually based evidence and we can have a discussion.

I have presented evidence to support my idea, and the opposition has presented 'ooo ooo the government is evil and will kill us all'. Sorry that just does not cut it.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   
What I don't understand is why people think healthcare is too expensive? It seems to be a top priority on everybodys list, but people whine and moan that it is too expensive.

A decent family policy can be had for ~$500 a month. How much do we spend a month on shelter, groceries or a car?

The healthcare we get through the private sector is exceptional, if you pay for it. It is argueably the best in the world. Our healthcare is a bargain and no more a right than shelter, food, transportation or any other neccessity that must be produced by somebody else in order for you to have it. The more you pay the better it is.

I won't go into the huge number of middle income families that choose not to have healthcare because they would rather drive a new car, instead of their used one thats paid off, live in a slightly smaller house or eat hamburgers instead of steak.

This is a matter of priorities and living within your means. Nothing more nothing less.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by mhc_70
What I don't understand is why people think healthcare is too expensive? It seems to be a top priority on everybodys list, but people whine and moan that it is too expensive.


It is both a top priority and too expensive.


Originally posted by mhc_70
A decent family policy can be had for ~$500 a month. How much do we spend a month on shelter, groceries or a car?


Really? Where do you get that information? This is representative of the information I see:



In 2008, employer health insurance premiums increased by 5.0 percent – two times the rate of inflation. The annual premium for an employer health plan covering a family of four averaged nearly $12,700. The annual premium for single coverage averaged over $4,700.2
link

That is $1058.33 a month, more that double what you have cited.

Dont like that figure try this one:


In 2007, U.S. health care spending was about $7,421 per resident and accounted for 16.2% of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP); this is among the highest of all industrialized countries.
link


Originally posted by mhc_70
The healthcare we get through the private sector is exceptional, if you pay for it. It is argueably the best in the world.


Really? Says who? The World Health Organization ranks the USA as #37 for quality of care.


Originally posted by mhc_70
I won't go into the huge number of middle income families that choose not to have healthcare because they would rather drive a new car, instead of their used one thats paid off, live in a slightly smaller house or eat hamburgers instead of steak.


What are you talking about? Where did you get this information? How about facts rather than your slanderous opinion. I am sure there are some in the USA who make this decision, however to make such a generalization requires you to provide proof, other wise it is only a weak and slanderous statement.


Originally posted by mhc_70
This is a matter of priorities and living within your means. Nothing more nothing less.


You simply do not get it. What coverage do YOU have? Who provides it? What are your deductibles? What do YOU pay every month?



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Devino
 

I thought about another way to think about this issue. If we compare health insurance to the cost of DVD players, you can see a collation between the lower purchase price and the escalating number of people buying. My only issue is that - Even though more people are buying into the system, what is going to stop private companies from raising prices?

[edit on 1-8-2009 by Pathos]



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 


My family coverage is a little over $600 a month, a group policy from United Health Care through my employer who pays 50%. While some may call my coverage catastrophic insurance, due to a $10,000 deductible, I have a $25 co-pay, RX card, vision and dental included. I understand that my total out of pocket maybe be more, what I was refferring to, ~$500, was premiums.

I also think it is my personal responsibility to maintain a healthy lifestyle, which reduces my out of pocket costs. Many people don't realise how much eating healthy and regular exercise will improve their overall health.

As far as that study saying the US ranks 37th, do you believe everything you read? Or do you try to understand the agendas by the ones forming the study, the variables and parameters used to come to the conclusion? Have you made an attempt to verify the veracity of the findings?




smartgirlnation.com...

By: Richard G. Fessler, MD, PhD

The media and political community have made a big deal out of the fact that the U.S. ranks 37 out of 191 countries on the World Health Organization’s Health Care Ranking System. Is this tool a credible way to compare quality health care delivered in the U.S. vs the rest of the world?

Let’s be perfectly clear about this, the United States Health Care is second to none! Ask the tens of thousands of patients who travel internationally to the US every year for their health care. As an example of the quality of health care delivered in the US, Americans have a higher survival rate than any other country on earth for 13 of 16 of the most common cancers. Perhaps that is why Belinda Stronach, former liberal member of the Canadian Parliament and Cabinet member (one of the health care systems touted as “superior” to the US) abandoned the Canadian Health Care system to undergo her cancer treatment in California.1

But to understand how WHO derives this misleading statistic, which has been ballyhooed widely by both the media and politicians alike, you need to understand how it is created. WHO’s health care rankings are constructed from five factors each weighted according to a formula derived by WHO. These are:

1. Health Level: 25 percent

2. Health Distribution: 25 percent

3. Responsiveness: 12.5 percent

4. Responsiveness Distribution: 12.5 percent

5. Financial Fairness: 25 percent

“Health level” is a measure of a countries “disability adjusted life expectancy”. This factor makes sense, since it is a direct measure of the health of a country’s residents. However, even “life expectancy” can be affected by many factors not related to health care per se, such as poverty, homicide rate, dietary habits, accident rate, tobacco use, etc. In fact, if you remove the homicide rate and accidental death rate from MVA’s from this statistic, citizens of the US have a longer life expectancy than any other country on earth.2

“Responsiveness” measures a variety of factors such as speed of service, choice of doctors, and amenities (e.g. quality of linens). Some of these make sense to include (speed of service) but some have no direct relationship to health care (quality of linens). These two factors at least make some sense in a ranking of health care, but each is problematic as well.

The other three factors are even worse. “Financial fairness” measures the percentage of household income spent on health care. It can be expected that the “percentage” of income spent on health care decreases with increasing income, just as is true for food purchases and housing. Thus, this factor does not measure the quality or delivery of health care, but the value judgment that everyone should pay the same “percentage” of their income on health care even regardless of their income or use of the system. This factor is biased to make countries that rely on free market incentives look inferior. It rewards countries that spend the same percentage of household income on health care, and punishes those that spend either a higher or lower percentage, regardless of the impact on health. In the extreme then, a country in which all health care is paid for by the government (with money derived from a progressive tax system), but delivers horrible health care, will score perfectly in this ranking, whereas a country where the amount paid for health care is based on use of the system, but delivers excellent health care will rank poorly. To use this factor to justify more government involvement in health care, therefore, is using circular reasoning since this factor is designed to favor government intervention.

“Health Distribution and Responsiveness Distribution” measure inequality in the other factors. In other words, neither factor actually measures the quality of health care delivery, because “inequality of delivery” is independent of “quality of care”. It is possible, for example, to have great inequality in a health care system where the majority of the population gets “excellent” health care, but a minority only gets “good” health care. This system would rank more poorly on these measures than another country that had “equal”, but poor, health care throughout the system.


In summary, therefore, the WHO ranking system has minimal objectivity in its “ranking” of world health. It more accurately can be described as a ranking system inherently biased to reward the uniformity of “government” delivered (i.e. “socialized”) health care, independent of the care actually delivered. In that regard the relatively low ranking of the US in the WHO system can be viewed as a “positive” testament to at least some residual “free market” influence (also read “personal freedom”) in the American Health Care system. The American health care consumer needs to understand what the WHO ranking does and does not say about American health. Don’t be fooled by “big government” politicians and the liberal media who are attempting to use this statistic to push for socialized medicine in the United States. It says essentially nothing about the delivery of health care or the quality of that delivery in the US. It does say that, so far, the American health care consumer has at least some personal freedom to seek the best health care available, and is not yet relegated to the “one size fits all” philosophy of government sponsored health care systems.


If it is so bad, why do so many people come here, from those nations higher on the list, for their medical needs?

As far as my slanderous opinion, from your link...



Nearly 40 percent of the uninsured population reside in households that earn $50,000 or more.


Evidently health insurance is not very high on their priority list.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Animal

I choose to ignore illogic, ignorance and spin. Bring in some real factually based evidence and we can have a discussion.


So what would you like me to do? Would you like a copy of my health records showing that insurance refused to pay for the test that directly led my doctor to the correct diagnosis? Would that be enough to prove my statements as to my personal experience with government run health care as factually correct? Somehow I doubt it would. You seem to prefer ignoring anything that doesn't fit in with your opinions on how it's going to work.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Why anyone would want government total control of their healthcare is beyond my understanding, especially Ovomit's healthcare plan.

The federal government has ruined and bankrupted every major social program. Programs like welfare, VA hospitals, medicare and medicaid to name just a few are nothing but a cesspool of fraud, waste and corruption. Why would you want to give the government more control over you.


Just look at the newest program. The cash for clunkers program is a failure only after 4 days.
They ran out of money in 4 days when the current funding was supposed to last until November. How much do you think they underestimated the cost of national healthcare when it is already projected to cost trillions?

What happened to individualism in this country? Why would you want the government on your back telling you how to live your life? Since when do a large number of Americans want the government in their lives from cradle to grave? Are people so ignorant and lazy that they cannot or refuse to exist without government?

We already have to much government involvement in our lives. Did it ever occur to anyone that if you get government out of our lives that your life will improve? Just think how much money you would have in your pocket if the government severly reduced taxes on individuals and business while at the same time eliminating completely all major federal government social programs and useless and/or reduntant government departments. You know what might happen if this occured? You would actually have more than enough money in your pocket to buy your own private health insurance.

Ovomit is a loser and must be stopped before he totally destroys America.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   
First off Jenna, I dont really care about your personal records at all What I do care about is you backing up the claims you make with information that proves them.

The person who posted directly after you is a perfect example of what I am talking about. He makes bold statements about the inability of the government's inability to do anything (laughable at best) which are completely irrelevant as all they are are statements HE has made.

A compelling argument has a statement but it ALSO has facts to back it up.

While I admit no system is perfect, including our government, but the comparisons work in favor of having a public option. This I will hold to until someone PROVE it wrong.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Are you saying the "cash for clunkers" program has not been a failure?

You linked the World Health Organization’s Health Care Ranking System and posed it as fact, which only tells me if it aligns with your opinion you believe it must be fact.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by mhc_70
 


What does 'cash for clunkers' have to do with health care? In what way does it critique the Public Option being proposed at the moment?

Nothing.

The government also messed up IMHO by giving money to banks rather than citizens in the recent past, that does not mean anything in the discussion about health care though.

The tactic you are using is 'generalization'. your premise is 'because the government has failed int he past they must by default ALWAYS fail'.

This is weak argument as it fails to meet the rigors of logic and reality.

I posted the WHO's ranking of nations based on the quality of health care to clearly demonstrate that the common claim that the USA has the best possible system to be a misconception or untruth.

It is a valid piece of information because it ties DIRECTLY to the discussion at hand, which 'cash for clunkers' does not.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by HulaAnglers
 


I ask this question again here: where in the Constitution does it give the fed control of our health care? What is not given to the fed is for the state or the people, so why are we falling for something that is so unConstitutional? We are not a socialist state.

Why don't Dr.s just charge less, or let people buy into a clinic, say we all pay between 20 and 1000 a month based on income and we pay a small clinic visit. Then the "insurance" we are paying each month covers catasrtophic, and the Dr.s use a lot of alternative and preventitive methods to keep us healthy. Then we cut down on the need for medical intervention and only thos in greatness need are seen more often.

I mean why don't us Americans write our own system and present it o the various states, after all I own my body and I should be the only one in charge of choosing how I am healed or kept well.

Just a radical thought or two.......



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Animal

The person who posted directly after you is a perfect example of what I am talking about. He makes bold statements about the inability of the government's inability to do anything (laughable at best) which are completely irrelevant as all they are are statements HE has made.


His statement was the "cash for clunkers" was a failure, therefore he did not trust the government to nationalize healthcare, and rightly so. You said it was just a bold statement, I asked you if you felt it was not a failure.

Can you give me an example of an efficient government implemented program?

If you can't see the hidden agenda in the NWHO study, then you have drank too much of the cool-aide.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by mhc_70
 


Name an efficient government program? I wouldn't even know how to begin the search.

I wouldn't know how to find out how 'efficient' the education systems is, but I would NEVER willing do without it.

i wouldn't know how to determine how 'efficient' the the federal highway administration is, but I certainly would not want ot do without that either.

I wouldn't know how to estimate the efficiency of say the military, public health administration, center for disease control, or a host of other vital services, but i do know I would not want to do with out them.

Maybe if you more clearly defined what you mean by efficiency I would be able to answer better, as it stands it is my belief you are looking to prove the 'high cost' of government services.

For example,

The United States spends nearly $100 billion per year to provide uninsured residents with health services, often for preventable diseases or diseases that physicians could treat more efficiently with earlier diagnosis.
link

Is spending 100billion dollars a year on the un-insured in this nation 'efficient'? I honestly am not sure, the variables have not been quantified, but I would be willing to venture the system could be IMPROVED.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join