 | | 
06-06-2009, 11:49 AM
|  | Registered User Member #18867 | | Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Seattle
Posts: 4,177
Thanks: 299
Thanked 209 Times in 178 Posts
Rep Power: 30 | |
Quote: Originally Posted by Harry Dresden 
Quote: Originally Posted by HUGGY
Quote: Originally Posted by Toro Huggy
What is the difference between single payer and universal health care? As you stated earlier single payer is a government administered and paid system. It would be like medicare, which is very successful and has a 3% cost for running the program. You pick your doctor, you buy your own meds, the system is funded federally.
Right now we pay more for less. I don't have "the plan" as no one does yet. If we had a medicare-like system we would get more for less.
Universal is privately held insurance. If you live in a state where you have compulsory driving insurance then you are familiar with "universal" coverage. The main purpose of a private insurance company is to make a profit. The easiest way to do that is to deny benefits. I have seen and heard hundreds of instances where someone paid the premiums and where denied coverage.
I don't want more and the worst of the same which universal insurance is.
This isn't that hard to figure out. Of the 37 industrialised countries all but one provide health care for its citizens. If these are failed programs as the insurance companies would like you to believe then there would be mass rioting in those countries.
The lobbiests get paid fortunes to keep it so. Turn off your TV and radio. Go look in the mirror. Do you see a person as deserving of as healthy a future as possible or someone that has to beg from people who profit when you are sick by denying you medical aid.
This is as much about respect and human dignity as anything. Huggy....there are 10 countries in the world with populations over 100 mil.....how many of them have great healthcare systems?....and then compare the same countries and then tell me where you would rather be if you or a loved one was hurt seriously and needed help....what i am basically saying here is....all these so-called great health care systems are in countries with populations MUCH lower than ours,and are much smaller in size ....outside of Canada,but they only have to worry about,what,30 mill. people .....you guys are making it sound so much easier to do than what it really is..... An MRI can cost $5,000 in this "great" system we have right now. I had one a few years ago. I know what a friggin scam it is. Its a big pulsing magnetic field and a computer program that decodes the resonance. I know a bit about electronics and manufacturing. That price is obscene. An MRI should cost about $200 for the half an hour it takes. 8-10 patients ...over $2000 a day ...more than a million a year...and that is just one item. I would estmate that medical malpractice ins is about a third of the cost or more for physicians and hospitals. Medicare can't legally negotiate with the pharms. This system is not "great". It isn't even good.
They claim that it would take a trillion plus over 10 years to pay for single payer. Iraq has cost us more than that in 5 years. If we can come up with money for this phoney "war on terrorism" then we should be able to find the scatch for something that will actually benefit the citizens and businesses of our country.
I am a businessman and hold firmly to the notion of free enterprise. I believe doctors and nurses should be paid well for their service and education. That said and with the exceptions already noted I think it is morally repugnant to profit from someone elses pain.  |
06-06-2009, 12:16 PM
|  | Registered User Member #11841 | | Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,398
Thanks: 342
Thanked 639 Times in 433 Posts
Rep Power: 83 | | Huggy, while I appreciate and respect your opinions on healthcare and could not disagree with the assertions that *single payer* is different from Univeral Healthcare the fact is the only group of Americans that have rights under the constitution are prisioners. That is a result of a Supreme Court decision. As to the *single payer* arguement, when the Federal Govt. becomes not only the regulating body of the competetion but still further goes into direct competetion with other providers it will result in the Federal Govt. eventually becomming the the only body that administers and provides healthcare in this nation. While the the proivders themselves may be allowed to remain in private hands, they will be subject to a single paid source eventually leading to a reduction in services. While the name itself may not be Universal Healthcare the goal is Universal Healthcare and the end result will be Universal Healthcare if this unconstitutional measure passes. As for Medicare if I may make a suggestion, perhaps you might want to read what is going on with Medicare at the moment before you use it as an example of a good program the Govt. runs. The only thing that Medicare does well is provide front end services and those are all contracted to private companies such as Vangent.
We have been hearing the warnings about the about the financial health of the Medicare program for years, but the latest report from the Medicare Trust Fund is indeed frightening. While many thought that this was a problem that future generations would have to bear, it now appears that present seniors will be affected.
According to the trustees report the financial outlook for the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund that pays hospital benefits has deteriorated significantly from last year, with annual cash flow deficits beginning this year. These deficits will continue through the decade and explode in 2010 as the first baby boomers retire and being using Medicare. By the trustees estimates the trust fund will be exhausted (broke) by the year 2019, just as the greatest numbers of baby boomers start relying on Medicare for health care coverage.
In addition, they report that the Medicare Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) Trust Fund that pays for physician services and the new prescription drug benefit will require substantial increases over time in both general revenue transfers and premium charges (the monthy premium for Medicare part B is $66.60 per month for the year 2004). The premium for the new prescription drug program (Medicare Part D) is also expected to increase rapidly after that part of the program begins in 2006. Medicare In Crisis
While I understand all of those who wish to have their fellow citizens not suffer and be able to afford medical services. There are many ways to accomplish this within the framework of our form of Govt. rather than change our form of Govt. to accomplish the goal.
__________________
God grant me the courage not to give up what I think is right even though I think it is hopeless.
Chester W. Nimitz | | The Following User Says Thank You to Navy1960 For This Useful Post: | |
06-06-2009, 12:36 PM
|  | Member of the Illuminati Member #2926 | | Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Florida via Saskatchewan
Posts: 8,505
Thanks: 117
Thanked 765 Times in 564 Posts
Rep Power: 170 | |
Quote: Originally Posted by Harry Dresden Huggy....there are 10 countries in the world with populations over 100 mil.....how many of them have great healthcare systems?....and then compare the same countries and then tell me where you would rather be if you or a loved one was hurt seriously and needed help....what i am basically saying here is....all these so-called great health care systems are in countries with populations MUCH lower than ours,and are much smaller in size ....outside of Canada,but they only have to worry about,what,30 mill. people .....you guys are making it sound so much easier to do than what it really is..... I'm not arguing one way or another, since I have lived in both Canada and the UK, and have used both systems. If you are worried about size, there are two points. First, one would think that the larger the country, the greater the economies of scale. This is absolutely, positively, completely and totally a big plus for government-run health care. One of the reasons why other countries have lower health care costs is because there is less paperwork due to economies of scale. Second, if you think that the country is too big, then do it through the states.
Having lived half my life in Canada and half in America - and a bit in England - my perception is that Americans have a far worse perception of the Canadian system than it really is. On the other hand, most Canadians also have a far worse perception of the American system than it really is. Both nations feed on cultural stereotypes and overdramatize the differences.
Generally, if you are poor or lower-middle class, it is better to be in Canada. If you are rich and upper middle class, it is better to be in America. If you are middle class, it depends upon your health insurance in the US. If you have great insurance, it is better to be in America. If you have poor insurance, it is better to be in Canada.
__________________  
"First thing we do, let's kill all the bankers."
- From Henry VI, altered somewhat. |
06-06-2009, 02:02 PM
|  | Dive Control Specialist Member #11636 | | Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Richmond, ME
Posts: 27,079
Thanks: 5,080
Thanked 950 Times in 766 Posts
Rep Power: 161 | | gee, maybe Jon should remove HIS lips first |
06-06-2009, 03:02 PM
|  | Wizard At Large Member #16291  | | Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: SoCal.....
Posts: 5,790
Thanks: 595
Thanked 340 Times in 276 Posts
Rep Power: 103 | |
Quote: Originally Posted by Toro
Quote: Originally Posted by Harry Dresden Huggy....there are 10 countries in the world with populations over 100 mil.....how many of them have great healthcare systems?....and then compare the same countries and then tell me where you would rather be if you or a loved one was hurt seriously and needed help....what i am basically saying here is....all these so-called great health care systems are in countries with populations MUCH lower than ours,and are much smaller in size ....outside of Canada,but they only have to worry about,what,30 mill. people .....you guys are making it sound so much easier to do than what it really is..... I'm not arguing one way or another, since I have lived in both Canada and the UK, and have used both systems. If you are worried about size, there are two points. First, one would think that the larger the country, the greater the economies of scale. This is absolutely, positively, completely and totally a big plus for government-run health care. One of the reasons why other countries have lower health care costs is because there is less paperwork due to economies of scale. Second, if you think that the country is too big, then do it through the states.
Having lived half my life in Canada and half in America - and a bit in England - my perception is that Americans have a far worse perception of the Canadian system than it really is. On the other hand, most Canadians also have a far worse perception of the American system than it really is. Both nations feed on cultural stereotypes and overdramatize the differences.
Generally, if you are poor or lower-middle class, it is better to be in Canada. If you are rich and upper middle class, it is better to be in America. If you are middle class, it depends upon your health insurance in the US. If you have great insurance, it is better to be in America. If you have poor insurance, it is better to be in Canada. well at least you gave me some kind of an answer....if Huggy thought what he sputtered was an answer,then he indeed is lost as some have suggested....you been involved in all 3 so you can see a lot of things we cant... |
06-07-2009, 08:13 AM
|  | Registered User Member #401 | | Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 44,103
Thanks: 404
Thanked 534 Times in 417 Posts
Rep Power: 379 | |
Quote: Originally Posted by WillowTree Speaking of 'below the radar', some changes maybe coming: http://www.lincolntribune.com/module...?storyid=12551 Quote: A Tale Of Two Tax Protests
Date 2009/6/7 1:28:12 | Topic: Opinion
By John Hood
RALEIGH – About the dueling protests held recently in Raleigh on the subject of North Carolina taxes and spending, one can observe some similarities.
Both events occurred at the Legislative Building. Both focused media and public attention on the yawning budget gap the North Carolina General Assembly will have to close for the fiscal year that begins July 1. And both featured impassioned speeches about the budget.
But the similarities end there.
On June 2, representatives from some 80 nonprofits, spending lobbies, and left-wing groups held a press conference to state their opposition to a developing House version of the 2009-10 budget that would close the deficit without a tax increase. The liberals argued that unless the spending cuts are “balanced” with tax hikes (though they preferred the euphemism “more revenues”) the state’s progress would be set back by decades. Some predicted widespread social upheaval and even dead bodies if the legislature failed to raise taxes.
On June 3, approximately 3,000 taxpayers from across North Carolina gathered outside the Legislative Building to oppose new taxes and demand fiscal restraint and accountability from their elected officials. The Tar Heel conservatives participating in this “Take Back Our State Tea Party,” organized by the state chapter of Americans for Prosperity, argued that the escalating government budgets of the past two decades were never a sign of North Carolina’s “progress” but were instead evidence of North Carolina’s descent into fiscal recklessness, public corruption, and economic stagnation. Recognizing that households and businesses are already suffering income and job losses due to the recession, protesting taxpayers said it was time for government agencies to bring their spending appetites in line with economic reality, too.
Indeed, the fundamental difference between the two messages was realism. The liberal press conference lacked it. The conservative protest exemplified it.
The reason why many Democratic members of the NC House are loath to recommend a tax increase is that, realistically, it won’t help the state budget picture very much – but it will hurt the economy and their own political prospects, perhaps by a lot. ....
__________________
"We are fighting today for our life, for our liberty, for our all, we cannot go on being led as we are. Somehow or other, we must get into the Government men who can match our enemies in fighting spirit, in daring, in resolution and in thirst for victory."~Leo Amery 1940, while staring at Chamberlain |
06-07-2009, 08:53 AM
| | Registered User Member #18867 | | Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Seattle
Posts: 4,177
Thanks: 299
Thanked 209 Times in 178 Posts
Rep Power: 30 | |
Quote: Originally Posted by Annie
Quote: Originally Posted by WillowTree Speaking of 'below the radar', some changes maybe coming: A Tale Of Two Tax Protests - Opinion - News : Lincoln Tribune : Instant, reliable and credible local news. Quote: A Tale Of Two Tax Protests
Date 2009/6/7 1:28:12 | Topic: Opinion
By John Hood
RALEIGH – About the dueling protests held recently in Raleigh on the subject of North Carolina taxes and spending, one can observe some similarities.
Both events occurred at the Legislative Building. Both focused media and public attention on the yawning budget gap the North Carolina General Assembly will have to close for the fiscal year that begins July 1. And both featured impassioned speeches about the budget.
But the similarities end there.
On June 2, representatives from some 80 nonprofits, spending lobbies, and left-wing groups held a press conference to state their opposition to a developing House version of the 2009-10 budget that would close the deficit without a tax increase. The liberals argued that unless the spending cuts are “balanced” with tax hikes (though they preferred the euphemism “more revenues”) the state’s progress would be set back by decades. Some predicted widespread social upheaval and even dead bodies if the legislature failed to raise taxes.
On June 3, approximately 3,000 taxpayers from across North Carolina gathered outside the Legislative Building to oppose new taxes and demand fiscal restraint and accountability from their elected officials. The Tar Heel conservatives participating in this “Take Back Our State Tea Party,” organized by the state chapter of Americans for Prosperity, argued that the escalating government budgets of the past two decades were never a sign of North Carolina’s “progress” but were instead evidence of North Carolina’s descent into fiscal recklessness, public corruption, and economic stagnation. Recognizing that households and businesses are already suffering income and job losses due to the recession, protesting taxpayers said it was time for government agencies to bring their spending appetites in line with economic reality, too.
Indeed, the fundamental difference between the two messages was realism. The liberal press conference lacked it. The conservative protest exemplified it.
The reason why many Democratic members of the NC House are loath to recommend a tax increase is that, realistically, it won’t help the state budget picture very much – but it will hurt the economy and their own political prospects, perhaps by a lot. ....
I understand the anxst some feel over the means to recover from the destruction the lack of regulation and criminal judgement in the financial sector has caused in our economy.
That is better placed in another thread.
The topic of this one is about truth or lying by the media.
No matter what we do in the end we must all have the same true facts to make those choices. I am no happier when information is scewed in support of my opinions as when it is slanted in favor of positions of which I am oposed. |
06-07-2009, 08:57 AM
| | Registered User Member #401 | | Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 44,103
Thanks: 404
Thanked 534 Times in 417 Posts
Rep Power: 379 | | ......
Quote: Originally Posted by HUGGY I understand the anxst some feel over the means to recover from the destruction the lack of regulation and criminal judgement in the financial sector has caused in our economy.
That is better placed in another thread.
The topic of this one is about truth or lying by the media.
No matter what we do in the end we must all have the same true facts to make those choices. I am no happier when information is scewed in support of my opinions as when it is slanted in favor of positions of which I am oposed. That would be 'angst' and even if spelled correctly, your implication fails.
As for thread, I was staying on point as one can tell with the quotes in my post above.
__________________
"We are fighting today for our life, for our liberty, for our all, we cannot go on being led as we are. Somehow or other, we must get into the Government men who can match our enemies in fighting spirit, in daring, in resolution and in thirst for victory."~Leo Amery 1940, while staring at Chamberlain |
06-07-2009, 09:11 AM
| | Registered User Member #401 | | Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 44,103
Thanks: 404
Thanked 534 Times in 417 Posts
Rep Power: 379 | | Now as to the media and 'truth' hmmm. Lots of links: JustOneMinute: An Outrage If Bush Had Proposed It Quote: June 06, 2009
An Outrage If Bush Had Proposed It
The NY Times covers a trial balloon that would provoke outrage from the left if Bush-Cheney had proposed it. However, as the Times tells it, the proposal has no sponsorship at all - apparently it just fell from the sky, or something. Here we go: The Obama administration is considering a change in the law for the military commissions at the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, that would clear the way for detainees facing the death penalty to plead guilty without a full trial.
The provision could permit military prosecutors to avoid airing the details of brutal interrogation techniques. It could also allow the five detainees who have been charged with the Sept. 11 attacks to achieve their stated goal of pleading guilty to gain what they have called martyrdom.
The proposal, in a draft of legislation that would be submitted to Congress, has not been publicly disclosed. It was circulated to officials under restrictions requiring secrecy. People who have read or been briefed on it said it had been presented to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates by an administration task force on detention. Ordinarily I have no qualms about capital punishment but in this case, sending some jihadists off to collect their virgins, or raisins, or whatever without what the world would view as a fair trial can only lead a public relations debacle of the sort I would expect the kinder, humbler (yet God-like!) Obama to avoid.
Apparently this procedure is acceptable in conventional trials but not in the military courts: The provision would follow a recommendation of military prosecutors to clarify what they view as an oversight in the 2006 law that created the commissions. The law did not make clear if guilty pleas would be permitted in capital cases. Federal civilian courts and courts in most states with capital-punishment laws permit such pleas.
But American military justice law, which is the model for the military commission rules, bars members of the armed services who are facing capital charges from pleading guilty. Partly to assure fairness when execution is possible, court-martial prosecutors are required to prove guilt in a trial even against service members who want to plead guilty.
During a December tribunal proceeding in Guantánamo, the five detainees charged with coordinating the Sept. 11 attacks said they wanted to plead guilty. Military prosecutors argued that they should be permitted to do so. Defense lawyers argued that tribunals should follow American military law and bar the guilty pleas. The military judge has not yet made a decision. And Obama's position? Who knows?!? The Times is utterly mystified: The draft legislation includes other changes administration officials disclosed last month when President Obama said he would continue the controversial military commission system with changes that would increase detainees’ rights. It is not known whether the White House has approved the proposed death penalty provision. A White House spokesman declined to comment. S ure, someone on the administration task force just snuck in that provision without anyone at the White House knowing or caring.
I can see the benefits to the Administration of this trial balloon - lefties will howl and Obama can disavow the idea, reassuring us with something to the effect of 'that was not the task force I knew'.
And when this plan is scrapped it will be just as well.
Posted by Tom Maguire on June 06, 2009 | Permalink
__________________
"We are fighting today for our life, for our liberty, for our all, we cannot go on being led as we are. Somehow or other, we must get into the Government men who can match our enemies in fighting spirit, in daring, in resolution and in thirst for victory."~Leo Amery 1940, while staring at Chamberlain |
06-07-2009, 09:22 AM
| | Registered User Member #18867 | | Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Seattle
Posts: 4,177
Thanks: 299
Thanked 209 Times in 178 Posts
Rep Power: 30 | |
Quote: Originally Posted by Annie Now as to the media and 'truth' hmmm. Lots of links: JustOneMinute: An Outrage If Bush Had Proposed It Quote: June 06, 2009
An Outrage If Bush Had Proposed It
The NY Times covers a trial balloon that would provoke outrage from the left if Bush-Cheney had proposed it. However, as the Times tells it, the proposal has no sponsorship at all - apparently it just fell from the sky, or something. Here we go: The Obama administration is considering a change in the law for the military commissions at the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, that would clear the way for detainees facing the death penalty to plead guilty without a full trial.
The provision could permit military prosecutors to avoid airing the details of brutal interrogation techniques. It could also allow the five detainees who have been charged with the Sept. 11 attacks to achieve their stated goal of pleading guilty to gain what they have called martyrdom.
The proposal, in a draft of legislation that would be submitted to Congress, has not been publicly disclosed. It was circulated to officials under restrictions requiring secrecy. People who have read or been briefed on it said it had been presented to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates by an administration task force on detention. Ordinarily I have no qualms about capital punishment but in this case, sending some jihadists off to collect their virgins, or raisins, or whatever without what the world would view as a fair trial can only lead a public relations debacle of the sort I would expect the kinder, humbler (yet God-like!) Obama to avoid.
Apparently this procedure is acceptable in conventional trials but not in the military courts: The provision would follow a recommendation of military prosecutors to clarify what they view as an oversight in the 2006 law that created the commissions. The law did not make clear if guilty pleas would be permitted in capital cases. Federal civilian courts and courts in most states with capital-punishment laws permit such pleas.
But American military justice law, which is the model for the military commission rules, bars members of the armed services who are facing capital charges from pleading guilty. Partly to assure fairness when execution is possible, court-martial prosecutors are required to prove guilt in a trial even against service members who want to plead guilty.
During a December tribunal proceeding in Guantánamo, the five detainees charged with coordinating the Sept. 11 attacks said they wanted to plead guilty. Military prosecutors argued that they should be permitted to do so. Defense lawyers argued that tribunals should follow American military law and bar the guilty pleas. The military judge has not yet made a decision. And Obama's position? Who knows?!? The Times is utterly mystified: The draft legislation includes other changes administration officials disclosed last month when President Obama said he would continue the controversial military commission system with changes that would increase detainees’ rights. It is not known whether the White House has approved the proposed death penalty provision. A White House spokesman declined to comment. S ure, someone on the administration task force just snuck in that provision without anyone at the White House knowing or caring.
I can see the benefits to the Administration of this trial balloon - lefties will howl and Obama can disavow the idea, reassuring us with something to the effect of 'that was not the task force I knew'.
And when this plan is scrapped it will be just as well.
Posted by Tom Maguire on June 06, 2009 | Permalink I can see you have an agenda this morning. I'm not sure what it is but it doesn't appear clear it is on topic. "Media Lying"
As to the spelling errors..this site offers a spell check with strings attached. Otherwise ones on ones own. If minor distractions sidetrack your attention I recommend you try zoloft or other medication that helps focus. |
06-07-2009, 09:28 AM
| | Registered User Member #401 | | Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 44,103
Thanks: 404
Thanked 534 Times in 417 Posts
Rep Power: 379 | | Huggy, it seems you are the one in need of meds. As for my response to your spelling and advice, it mattered to me as mine does to you. 
__________________
"We are fighting today for our life, for our liberty, for our all, we cannot go on being led as we are. Somehow or other, we must get into the Government men who can match our enemies in fighting spirit, in daring, in resolution and in thirst for victory."~Leo Amery 1940, while staring at Chamberlain |
06-07-2009, 10:41 AM
| | Registered User Member #19083 | | Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,106
Thanks: 92
Thanked 142 Times in 98 Posts
Rep Power: 16 | |
Quote: Originally Posted by HUGGY
Quote: Originally Posted by Harry Dresden
Quote: Originally Posted by HUGGY
As you stated earlier single payer is a government administered and paid system. It would be like medicare, which is very successful and has a 3% cost for running the program. You pick your doctor, you buy your own meds, the system is funded federally.
Right now we pay more for less. I don't have "the plan" as no one does yet. If we had a medicare-like system we would get more for less.
Universal is privately held insurance. If you live in a state where you have compulsory driving insurance then you are familiar with "universal" coverage. The main purpose of a private insurance company is to make a profit. The easiest way to do that is to deny benefits. I have seen and heard hundreds of instances where someone paid the premiums and where denied coverage.
I don't want more and the worst of the same which universal insurance is.
This isn't that hard to figure out. Of the 37 industrialised countries all but one provide health care for its citizens. If these are failed programs as the insurance companies would like you to believe then there would be mass rioting in those countries.
The lobbiests get paid fortunes to keep it so. Turn off your TV and radio. Go look in the mirror. Do you see a person as deserving of as healthy a future as possible or someone that has to beg from people who profit when you are sick by denying you medical aid.
This is as much about respect and human dignity as anything.
Huggy....there are 10 countries in the world with populations over 100 mil.....how many of them have great healthcare systems?....and then compare the same countries and then tell me where you would rather be if you or a loved one was hurt seriously and needed help....what i am basically saying here is....all these so-called great health care systems are in countries with populations MUCH lower than ours,and are much smaller in size ....outside of Canada,but they only have to worry about,what,30 mill. people .....you guys are making it sound so much easier to do than what it really is..... An MRI can cost $5,000 in this "great" system we have right now. I had one a few years ago. I know what a friggin scam it is. Its a big pulsing magnetic field and a computer program that decodes the resonance. I know a bit about electronics and manufacturing. That price is obscene. An MRI should cost about $200 for the half an hour it takes. 8-10 patients ...over $2000 a day ...more than a million a year...and that is just one item. I would estmate that medical malpractice ins is about a third of the cost or more for physicians and hospitals. Medicare can't legally negotiate with the pharms. This system is not "great". It isn't even good.
They claim that it would take a trillion plus over 10 years to pay for single payer. Iraq has cost us more than that in 5 years. If we can come up with money for this phoney "war on terrorism" then we should be able to find the scatch for something that will actually benefit the citizens and businesses of our country.
I am a businessman and hold firmly to the notion of free enterprise. I believe doctors and nurses should be paid well for their service and education. That said and with the exceptions already noted I think it is morally repugnant to profit from someone elses pain.
Many doctors have their own practice. They are businessmen, too. Are you saying that businessmen should have a ceiling placed on their potential incomes? |
06-07-2009, 10:59 AM
| | Registered User Member #18867 | | Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Seattle
Posts: 4,177
Thanks: 299
Thanked 209 Times in 178 Posts
Rep Power: 30 | |
Quote: Originally Posted by code1211
Quote: Originally Posted by HUGGY
Quote: Originally Posted by Harry Dresden
Huggy....there are 10 countries in the world with populations over 100 mil.....how many of them have great healthcare systems?....and then compare the same countries and then tell me where you would rather be if you or a loved one was hurt seriously and needed help....what i am basically saying here is....all these so-called great health care systems are in countries with populations MUCH lower than ours,and are much smaller in size ....outside of Canada,but they only have to worry about,what,30 mill. people .....you guys are making it sound so much easier to do than what it really is.....
An MRI can cost $5,000 in this "great" system we have right now. I had one a few years ago. I know what a friggin scam it is. Its a big pulsing magnetic field and a computer program that decodes the resonance. I know a bit about electronics and manufacturing. That price is obscene. An MRI should cost about $200 for the half an hour it takes. 8-10 patients ...over $2000 a day ...more than a million a year...and that is just one item. I would estmate that medical malpractice ins is about a third of the cost or more for physicians and hospitals. Medicare can't legally negotiate with the pharms. This system is not "great". It isn't even good.
They claim that it would take a trillion plus over 10 years to pay for single payer. Iraq has cost us more than that in 5 years. If we can come up with money for this phoney "war on terrorism" then we should be able to find the scatch for something that will actually benefit the citizens and businesses of our country.
I am a businessman and hold firmly to the notion of free enterprise. I believe doctors and nurses should be paid well for their service and education. That said and with the exceptions already noted I think it is morally repugnant to profit from someone elses pain.
Many doctors have their own practice. They are businessmen, too. Are you saying that businessmen should have a ceiling placed on their potential incomes? Well ...yes and no.
First I have a problem with health, pain and fatal outcomes a free for all economically.
Right now only the super rich have a realistic opportunity to unlimited health care access. Any other opinion of that fact is bullshit. Ins co's don't make money unless they deny coverage. Denied coverage is profit denied to a doctor. Your point is therefore mute.
I don't see a time when access to the handfull of super star surgeons will be decided by anything but money like it is now.
What we are talking about is not that group. We are talking about a more average physician which is still pretty good. I don't think they will be hurt by not paying for crazy malpractice ins. premiums. These doctors are now and always will be well paid. |
06-07-2009, 12:32 PM
| | Dive Control Specialist Member #11636 | | Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Richmond, ME
Posts: 27,079
Thanks: 5,080
Thanked 950 Times in 766 Posts
Rep Power: 161 | |
Quote: Originally Posted by HUGGY
Quote: Originally Posted by Annie Now as to the media and 'truth' hmmm. Lots of links: JustOneMinute: An Outrage If Bush Had Proposed It Quote: June 06, 2009
An Outrage If Bush Had Proposed It
The NY Times covers a trial balloon that would provoke outrage from the left if Bush-Cheney had proposed it. However, as the Times tells it, the proposal has no sponsorship at all - apparently it just fell from the sky, or something. Here we go: The Obama administration is considering a change in the law for the military commissions at the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, that would clear the way for detainees facing the death penalty to plead guilty without a full trial.
The provision could permit military prosecutors to avoid airing the details of brutal interrogation techniques. It could also allow the five detainees who have been charged with the Sept. 11 attacks to achieve their stated goal of pleading guilty to gain what they have called martyrdom.
The proposal, in a draft of legislation that would be submitted to Congress, has not been publicly disclosed. It was circulated to officials under restrictions requiring secrecy. People who have read or been briefed on it said it had been presented to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates by an administration task force on detention.
Ordinarily I have no qualms about capital punishment but in this case, sending some jihadists off to collect their virgins, or raisins, or whatever without what the world would view as a fair trial can only lead a public relations debacle of the sort I would expect the kinder, humbler (yet God-like!) Obama to avoid.
Apparently this procedure is acceptable in conventional trials but not in the military courts: The provision would follow a recommendation of military prosecutors to clarify what they view as an oversight in the 2006 law that created the commissions. The law did not make clear if guilty pleas would be permitted in capital cases. Federal civilian courts and courts in most states with capital-punishment laws permit such pleas.
But American military justice law, which is the model for the military commission rules, bars members of the armed services who are facing capital charges from pleading guilty. Partly to assure fairness when execution is possible, court-martial prosecutors are required to prove guilt in a trial even against service members who want to plead guilty.
During a December tribunal proceeding in Guantánamo, the five detainees charged with coordinating the Sept. 11 attacks said they wanted to plead guilty. Military prosecutors argued that they should be permitted to do so. Defense lawyers argued that tribunals should follow American military law and bar the guilty pleas. The military judge has not yet made a decision.
And Obama's position? Who knows?!? The Times is utterly mystified: The draft legislation includes other changes administration officials disclosed last month when President Obama said he would continue the controversial military commission system with changes that would increase detainees’ rights. It is not known whether the White House has approved the proposed death penalty provision. A White House spokesman declined to comment.
S ure, someone on the administration task force just snuck in that provision without anyone at the White House knowing or caring. I can see the benefits to the Administration of this trial balloon - lefties will howl and Obama can disavow the idea, reassuring us with something to the effect of 'that was not the task force I knew'.
And when this plan is scrapped it will be just as well.
Posted by Tom Maguire on June 06, 2009 | Permalink I can see you have an agenda this morning. I'm not sure what it is but it doesn't appear clear it is on topic. "Media Lying"
As to the spelling errors.. this site offers a spell check with strings attached. Otherwise ones on ones own. If minor distractions sidetrack your attention I recommend you try zoloft or other medication that helps focus. more BULLSHIT
there are no strings attached
the spell check requires an install of an IE helper, and that is FREE
so what "strings" are you talking about
btw, if you dont want that, you can always install FireFox Browser(comes with a really nice spellcheck feature) | | |
Lower Navigation
| | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
| | |
|
| » Site Navigation | | | | » Apple iPad Forum | | | |
