I have proof Obamacare will ruin healthcare in America

Originally posted by grandmakdw
reply to post by Tardacus

 

Promoting the general welfare is not the same as providing the general welfare

Look up the two words in the dictionary. They have 2 very different meanings.
Providing means giving it to you. Provide means being a nanny or daddy and giving it to you, a government handout.

Promoting means helping people get it for themselves, encourage people to do what is best for the general welfare, not to give stuff to people.

Providing for everyone means the person is totally dependent on the giver and the giver and put whatever strings they want on what is provided. i.e. You can not send a sandwich with your child to school, they must eat the government provided chicken nuggets because we don't know if your sandwich is nutritious enough. You can not drink over 16oz of coke at any meal because it is not good for your health.

Promoting means helping people to do for themselves and taking responsibility and taking pride in themselves.

and the best way to promote people to be responsible and take care of themselves is to make sure they are healthy and have access to medical care.sick and disabled people aren`t capable of being responsible or take care of themselves.people who can`t afford health insurance and health care are much more likely to become disabled or otherwise incapable of providing for themselves.

Originally posted by Tardacus

Originally posted by grandmakdw
reply to post by Tardacus

 

Promoting the general welfare is not the same as providing the general welfare

Look up the two words in the dictionary. They have 2 very different meanings.
Providing means giving it to you. Provide means being a nanny or daddy and giving it to you, a government handout.

Promoting means helping people get it for themselves, encourage people to do what is best for the general welfare, not to give stuff to people.

Providing for everyone means the person is totally dependent on the giver and the giver and put whatever strings they want on what is provided. i.e. You can not send a sandwich with your child to school, they must eat the government provided chicken nuggets because we don't know if your sandwich is nutritious enough. You can not drink over 16oz of coke at any meal because it is not good for your health.

Promoting means helping people to do for themselves and taking responsibility and taking pride in themselves.

and the best way to promote people to be responsible and take care of themselves is to make sure they are healthy and have access to medical care.sick and disabled people aren`t capable of being responsible or take care of themselves.people who can`t afford health insurance and health care are much more likely to become disabled or otherwise incapable of providing for themselves.

And preventative medicine DRIVES DOWN HEALTHCARE COSTS.

Giving away a little to everyone can save everyone a LOT later.

Or people can think they're winning some ideological battle, by denying their neighbors healthcare, and driving up their own bills.

There's ignorant and then there's just plain dumb.

I'm seeing a lot of desperate, hyperbolic scaremongering in this thread. Only bad theories require so much BS to get people to listen.

Originally posted by grandmakdw
I now know why patients die of hunger and thirst in socialist hospitals, (google the state of healthcare in UK/England); why they have bedsores; why they die from neglect.

Kindly refrain from slagging off the NHS, The NHS is a wonderful thing and does a dificult job, very well yes there have been times when idividual staff members have ballsed it up, don't tar the entire institution with the same brush, just because of few horror stories bandied about by media outlets with a clear agenda. There are thousands of people helped succesfully everyday by the NHS, but's that's not news is it dear?

I just spent 5 days in a fantastic American hospital. I had a full RN attend me the entire time, asking me if I needed anything or needed pain meds every 4 hours. The therapist even refilled my water jug. The cleaning person was through and nice. I ordered my meals room service style and they were delivered when I wanted them, and what I wanted exactly, not at the hospital's convenience. If I hadn't been on death's door, it would have been nicer than a stay at a spa.

I would expect that care too if i'd payed the silly prices you Americans pay, sounds too good to be true to me, I have a friend whose American and she actually trained over here as nurse with the NHS and has nothing but bad things to say about US healthcare.

Hospitals will not be able to have any decent level of care with this kind of payment. That's why the horror stories out of England, who has had for years "Obamacare".

There you go again with your biased outright propaganda against my country and the NHS. WE DO NOT HAVE OBAMACARE, we pay National Insurance from our wages each month to fund the health service it's that simple. If you are rich enough to afford Private healthcare in BRITAIN, you have theat choice, however Private healcare providers in BRITAIN, will not take high risk operations and patients, they leave that to NHS, because they are better at it.

If you are going to insult MY country and it's medical staff, at least try to have an ounce of a clue as to what you are talking about, do your research and stop spreading irresponsible quite frankly stupid lies about a health system you clearly know nothing about.

If I were asked to name one and only one thing about the UK of which I was most proud or that I would be least like to see gone it would be the NHS.

After reading thru this thread and all the replies it contains it appears that most ATS'ers
are in favor of a government mandated healthcare plan. And if that holds true here on a
conspiracy website, then it is probably true that an even higher percentage of average
Americans would also be in favor of this plan.

I'm not calling everyone who agrees with this plan socialist BUT....

Seventy years ago McCarthy would have put all you people on a "RED" list.

I don't agree with socialized medicine, and I'm not always correct....but then again
consensus opinion is not always correct either...

We did run around on this planet for a few centuries (just before this nation was founded)
believing that the world was flat...

I sincerely hope that all you people with your humanist/socialist/compassionate tendencies
are correct, and I am wrong.

Maybe there won't be long lines or long waits to get health care, maybe only your doctor and
yourself (and not some government bureaucrat) will make the important decisions that pertain to
your health, maybe there will be plenty of fresh new doctors coming out of med school
who will be ready to dedicate their lives to helping others, maybe health care prices will
fall, maybe everyone will get exactly what they need--when they need it, and we'll all live
happily ever-after....

And...(to quote Wayne from Wayne's World) ...maybe a little later....bats will fly outta my ass.

Originally posted by rival
After reading thru this thread and all the replies it contains it appears that most ATS'ers
are in favor of a government mandated healthcare plan. And if that holds true here on a
conspiracy website, then it is probably true that an even higher percentage of average
Americans would also be in favor of this plan.

I'm not calling everyone who agrees with this plan socialist BUT....

Seventy years ago McCarthy would have put all you people on a "RED" list.

I don't agree with socialized medicine, and I'm not always correct....but then again
consensus opinion is not always correct either...

We did run around on this planet for a few centuries (just before this nation was founded)
believing that the world was flat...

I sincerely hope that all you people with your humanist/socialist/compassionate tendencies
are correct, and I am wrong.

Maybe there won't be long lines or long waits to get health care, maybe only your doctor and
yourself (and not some government bureaucrat) will make the important decisions that pertain to
your health, maybe there will be plenty of fresh new doctors coming out of med school
who will be ready to dedicate their lives to helping others, maybe health care prices will
fall, maybe everyone will get exactly what they need--when they need it, and we'll all live
happily ever-after....

And...(to quote Wayne from Wayne's World) ...maybe a little later....bats will fly outta my ass.

edit on 17-10-2012 by rival because: (no reason given)

Some countries have had socialised medicine for close to a hundred years and the worst side effect is healthier and richer people...

And McCarthy called everyone a communist/socialist... we're in good company on that front...

One more thing, Insurance is socialised medicine, except it's socialised through a business, not the governement.

If your state senator votes to change your healthcare, you can vote him out... if all the healthcare providers change something, good luck finding a recourse.

In the UK and most of Europe, you pay the governement for insurance, except everyone pays the same amount, more or less, via taxes. the state hires the doctors and owns the hospitals, and hey guess what, it also educates them for next to nothing, compared to US medical schools.

If there was actually some huge threat to people:

- they wouldn't like it so much
- you'd have a lot more ammo against it
- it wouldn't be the norm in most places

But it is popular, all over the world, it gets good and often better results than the US system, it covers everyone and it's cheaper.

Only a ideologue, a fool or someone ignorant of those fact, which are easy to verify, turns it down.

Better healthcare for less money.

Debt reduction and universal coverage.

reply to post by longlostbrother

And McCarthy called everyone a communist/socialist... we're in good company on that front...

No, he did not, and he was right about communist infiltration, and it still exists even now. This argument does not work for people who know better.

Some countries have had socialised medicine for close to a hundred years and the worst side effect is healthier and richer people...

Would you care to cite the specific ones here? Because the Bolsheviks tried to communise everything at the turn of the centruy and look where it got them?

reply to post by longlostbrother


So the problem you have is privatized insurance then? What you mean is you prefer govt run stuff.

reply to post by longlostbrother


So you are telling me that US hospitals have a higher incidence of MRSA why? Do they prescribe more antibiotics than other countries?

MRSA is the result of decades of often unnecessary antibiotic use. For years, antibiotics have been prescribed for colds, flu and other viral infections that don't respond to these drugs. Even when antibiotics are used appropriately, they contribute to the rise of drug-resistant bacteria because they don't destroy every germ they target. Bacteria live on an evolutionary fast track, so germs that survive treatment with one antibiotic soon learn to resist others.

www.mayoclinic.com...=causes

Or are you trying to say that hospitals in other countries do not have staphylococcus? Or you are saying that French hospitals are cleaner than US hospitals? How about Cuban hospitals?


Apparently MRSA is prevalent even in the UK, and also rising in Scandinavia and the Netherlands.

Dr. David Swann of the University of Huddersfield, discovered 55 percent of medical bags used by nurses are never cleaned and only six per cent are cleaned once a week. So he is set to commercialize his award-winning ‘21st century’ nursing bag and says it could dramatically reduce the risk of MRSA infection in communities globally. He said the problem is exacerbated by the lack of any official cleaning specification to which nursing bags used outside hospitals must conform.

www.science20.com...

I believe your arguments on behalf of socialized medicine have nothing to do with good health care practices, and probably even less with sharing the cost.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

So the problem you have is privatized insurance then? What you mean is you prefer govt run stuff.

What I mean is that is works better, and that's not an opinion. It's cheaper. that's not an opinion. And people are happier with it, in many many instances. Also not an opinion.

You'd rather pay an unaccountable business to act as a middle man, for no good reason.

That drives up costs.

You'd rather for profit healthcare which drags down results.

I tend to be results oriented. I'm all for capitalism, when it's the right answer, but having lived in both (something you've obviously never done) and having seen all the data (something you refuse to acknowledge) I know, factually, that you don't need to privatise medicine, and in fact that makes it worse.

I like better and cheaper.

You like worse and more expensive.

Originally posted by longlostbrother

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

So the problem you have is privatized insurance then? What you mean is you prefer govt run stuff.

What I mean is that is works better, and that's not an opinion. It's cheaper. that's not an opinion. And people are happier with it, in many many instances. Also not an opinion.

You'd rather pay an unaccountable business to act as a middle man, for no good reason.

That drives up costs.

You'd rather for profit healthcare which drags down results.

I tend to be results oriented. I'm all for capitalism, when it's the right answer, but having lived in both (something you've obviously never done) and having seen all the data (something you refuse to acknowledge) I know, factually, that you don't need to privatise medicine, and in fact that makes it worse.

I like better and cheaper.

You like worse and more expensive.

It is a fact that govt paying for services causes a rise in cost, not reduction, and this is because the govt is not accountable to anyone but themselves and businesses will bill them whatever the price they want, because there is not real competition. Just ask the US Defense contractors.
I remember hearing a story about the high cost of toilets due to the fact that companies can bill the govt whatever they want without any real oversight.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

So you are telling me that US hospitals have a higher incidence of MRSA why? Do they prescribe more antibiotics than other countries?

MRSA is the result of decades of often unnecessary antibiotic use. For years, antibiotics have been prescribed for colds, flu and other viral infections that don't respond to these drugs. Even when antibiotics are used appropriately, they contribute to the rise of drug-resistant bacteria because they don't destroy every germ they target. Bacteria live on an evolutionary fast track, so germs that survive treatment with one antibiotic soon learn to resist others.

www.mayoclinic.com...=causes

Or are you trying to say that hospitals in other countries do not have staphylococcus? Or you are saying that French hospitals are cleaner than US hospitals? How about Cuban hospitals?

edit on 17-10-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

I know what causes MRSA.

I didn't tell you that, statistics from around the world did... if you disagree, please argue with the people who compiled those statistics.

As for cleaner, well.... it's hard to find a standard other than how many cases of things like MRSA happen... so again let's look at MRSA...

www.mrsasurvivors.org...
www.webmd.com...

In 2005:

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) there were estimated 94,360 MRSA infections (invasive) in the US with approx. 18,650 deaths. No updated data is available from the CDC and MRSA infections have proliferated in the US from 2005-2010. Many hospitals in the US are switching over to the CDC’s NHSN reporting system as before MRSA was reported to CMS ( centers for Medicaid and Medicare).

Other organizations estimate the true numbers to be over one million infected in the US with MRSA and over 100,00 deaths. US hospitals use ICD9 coding and many MRSA infections were not included in statistics. Also, MRSA infections have grown rampant in the community causing an alarming rise in CA-MRSA (community-acquired MRSA).

The UK, at the same time had 7100.

the US is aprox 5x more populous than the US.

5 x 7100 = 35500
US cases in the same period = 94,360

So yeah, the UK is much cleaner by that measure... and guess what, in 2010, the UK had less than 2000.

Do you think the US has managed to get it down to 10K in the same time period?

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by longlostbrother

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

So the problem you have is privatized insurance then? What you mean is you prefer govt run stuff.

What I mean is that is works better, and that's not an opinion. It's cheaper. that's not an opinion. And people are happier with it, in many many instances. Also not an opinion.

You'd rather pay an unaccountable business to act as a middle man, for no good reason.

That drives up costs.

You'd rather for profit healthcare which drags down results.

I tend to be results oriented. I'm all for capitalism, when it's the right answer, but having lived in both (something you've obviously never done) and having seen all the data (something you refuse to acknowledge) I know, factually, that you don't need to privatise medicine, and in fact that makes it worse.

I like better and cheaper.

You like worse and more expensive.

It is a fact that govt paying for services causes a rise in cost, not reduction, and this is because the govt is not accountable to anyone but themselves and businesses will bill them whatever the price they want, because there is not real competition. Just ask the US Defense contractors.
I remember hearing a story about the high cost of toilets due to the fact that companies can bill the govt whatever they want without any real oversight.

That's obviously not true.

All countries with socialised medicine pay LESS than America does, per person, and many that pay a LOT LESS have much better outcomes.

You're just making up crazy crap now.

reply to post by longlostbrother

You'd rather for profit healthcare which drags down results.

That is debatable considering what I just posted, and considering the only way to take profit out of healthcare is to have the govt also manufacture everything(which is true communism) because any company manufacturing product used in hospitals and clinics would have to be sold to the govt at cost, and what companies want to do that? Then what nurse or doctor wants to work for less pay? Do you think you are going to increase production when people are not getting paid and yet are being overworked? Only in some wild Utopialand would that ever occurr.

reply to post by longlostbrother

That's obviously not true

ok then prove it!

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

You'd rather for profit healthcare which drags down results.

That is debatable considering what I just posted, and considering the only way to take profit out of healthcare is to have the govt also manufacture everything(which is true communism) because any company manufacturing product used in hospitals and clinics would have to be sold to the govt at cost, and what companies want to do that? Then what nurse or doctor wants to work for less pay? Do you think you are going to increase production when people are not getting paid and yet are being overworked? Only in some wild Utopialand would that ever occurr.

Obviously, you don't know what communism means, which is fine, but be careful using words you don't understand...

You are very confused and have repeatedly posted complete nonsense (like your last ridiculous post). Try looking at all the facts and figures and then either accept paying more for less, while making a useless industry (the insurance industry) rich, for no reason... or

Accept that other countries, many many many other countries, do it better for less.

Those are the ONLY two options the data allows for.

There's NO survey or metric that shows the US pays less and has better care. Not a single one.

I have lived in both, and currently live in Europe with top notch healthcare which costs me next to nothing... I wouldn't go back to paying through the nose for nothing for any reason.... neither would all the brits or the french or the other Europeans, who are healthier, pay less, get more and are more satisfied with what they get.

reply to post by longlostbrother

Obviously, you don't know what communism means, which is fine, but be careful using words you don't understand...

Are you kidding me? That is the oldest trick in the book. Accusing people of not knowing what communism or Marxism is is just a cheap trick.


Communism is centralized State control of the means of production and abolition of private property. I rest my case.


Try this on for size

b: a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production

www.merriam-webster.com...

I guess the only thing missing here is the one party system. But in essence, state run means of production and abolition of private property are the principal definitions of communism. So forcing a company to sell it's goods to govt at cost(only way to do it non profit) or having the govt actually run the production itself is the only way for healthcare to be non profit, and I stand by my conviction that it is a communistic process if done that way.

reply to post by longlostbrother

One more thing, Insurance is socialised medicine, except it's socialised through a business, not the governement. If your state senator votes to change your healthcare, you can vote him out... if all the healthcare providers change something, good luck finding a recourse. In the UK and most of Europe, you pay the governement for insurance, except everyone pays the same amount, more or less, via taxes. the state hires the doctors and owns the hospitals, and hey guess what, it also educates them for next to nothing, compared to US medical schools. If there was actually some huge threat to people: - they wouldn't like it so much - you'd have a lot more ammo against it - it wouldn't be the norm in most places But it is popular, all over the world, it gets good and often better results than the US system, it covers everyone and it's cheaper. Only a ideologue, a fool or someone ignorant of those fact, which are easy to verify, turns it down. Better healthcare for less money. Debt reduction and universal coverage.

I'm against the principle of socialized medicine, I'm against the principle of socialized societies.
Though I dislike labels I believe in a libertarian philosophy. I admit, my philosophy has an
inherent belief that people will do the right thing; that charities and charitable people will help
the needy and those less fortunate. That idea is probably more pie-in-the-sky sentimental than the
reality of socialized medicine over the last century.

But to put the romantics aside...

Here's what I fear...the restriction of people to live their lives as they choose and to be
responsible for themselves. That's it in a nutshell. And I'm not naive to the success of
some socialized medical programs in some countries, or that the people of those countries
are generally happy about their system.

But for us here in the US, we have arrived at a very precarious point in time where the
libertarian principles that our country was founded on are under attack. We have legislaltion
that removes our right to a trail, a jury, or even a lawyer. We have 24/7 surveillance of
all personal communication. We (like you in the UK) have a system of government video
surveillance of the population that is growing larger and more comprehensive everyday.
At some point I expect we will have legislation that will tie all private surveillance into
a government matrix of surveillance, and when you have add all of the elements together;
socialized wellness programs, government dole, comprehensive surveillance of all
citizens, what you have is a society that is no longer "free" to any degree that that word
can be used to describe any society. You have in place a system of government that,
with one small push, one engineered, or natural catastrophe, can be tilted over the
edge and fall face first into tyranny.

That's what I fear. It is inevitable if history's lessons are correct.

Perhaps I am an ideologue. Or perhaps my wariness is borne of my awareness of human history
where governments of people go thru stages, from liberty, to apathy, to tyranny, to anarchy...

...I just want the liberty phase to last as long as possible...so count me out of every new
social program, every new social tax...we have enough already IMO...

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

Obviously, you don't know what communism means, which is fine, but be careful using words you don't understand...

Are you kidding me? That is the oldest trick in the book. Accusing people of not knowing what communism or Marxism is is just a cheap trick.


Communism is centralized State control of the means of production and abolition of private property. I rest my case.

No, it's not.

Communism states that the WORKERS own the means of production and share the profits.

As for private property, under true communism (about as common as pure capitalism) the WORKERS owned all the land and rented it out, at a pittance to anyone that needed it.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

A simple definition of the basic concept is: "A system of social organization in which goods are held in common."

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

So the people are the state, the people own the factories and the land and the people are in charge.

NOW... has that EVER existed... ? About as frequently as real capitalism.

Is the governement running healthcare in any way related to communism?

No, obviously not.

Does socialised medicine give more for less and produce better results?

Yes.