a Nation of laziness!!

[Old Rocks]

Navy, you are speaking of many nations that have a higher standard of living than we here in the US enjoy. And little Costa Rica can provide universal health care for it's citizens with a per capita income of only a tenth that of the US.

As far as you other objections go, have you actually looked at the various Health Care Systems in other nations? They are quite differant from each other in many ways. It is not a one fits all proposition. And all of them have longer average life spans, healthier old ages, and much lower infant mortality than we do here in the States.

and little old Costa Rica has only 4 million people to take care of in an area the size Vermont....the county i live in has 3 million ....get real rocks...its not as easy as you pro-NHC people make it seem

I see. Then we are only to do thing in this nation that are easy? All I hear from you people, on any given subject, is "we can't" followed by various rationalizations why the present status quo is acceptable. Perhaps we should just replace the Star Spangled Banner with God Save the Queen. After all, that would be easier than having to make all these decisions as an independent nation.

 

[editec]

I think it not unreasonable to say that with universal health care, the government will then have the bludgeon to futher insinuate itself into what we now think of as personal lifestyle choices.

So while I do believe that we need to fix the HC system in this nation, I fully expect our government to use the " Since we pay for your mistakes we have the right to make those mistakes illegal" rationalization for imposing itself into our lives.

 

[Oddball]

I find this attitude of well "because they have we should have it" as somwhat troublesome. If it has not escaped notice of all those proponents of healthcare insurance for all in this nation that like to use statistics so much , what nation has one of the highest murder rates in the world, accident rates in the world, and when you factor those in yes we don't score too well. However, I don't see a rush to cure those problems that when taken out of the scroring we rank at or near the top in about every catagory. One oher factor you don't hear much discussed among those that would like to say that well we are not the same as the rest of the world and that those nations that have healthcare save for Japan perhaps have long suffered chronic unemployment , and long term economic woes as a result. Further, although many of those nations may have coverage they lack in basic availabilty of healthcare. So it's a trade offf, it's one thing to say you have coverage it's another to actually have a place to use it. What you will end up getting from all this is a a healthcare system for the masses that is bloated suffers from poor quality for those that cannot afford decent coverage, and another one for those that can afford to pay for it. So if this is the system you all envisioned then you are going to get just that.

Navy, you are speaking of many nations that have a higher standard of living than we here in the US enjoy. And little Costa Rica can provide universal health care for it's citizens with a per capita income of only a tenth that of the US.

As far as you other objections go, have you actually looked at the various Health Care Systems in other nations? They are quite differant from each other in many ways. It is not a one fits all proposition. And all of them have longer average life spans, healthier old ages, and much lower infant mortality than we do here in the States.

Move your sorry ass to Costa Rica....Problem solved.

 

[Oddball]

I think it not unreasonable to say that with universal health care, the government will then have the bludgeon to futher insinuate itself into what we now think of as personal lifestyle choices.

So while I do believe that we need to fix the HC system in this nation, I fully expect our government to use the " Since we pay for your mistakes we have the right to make those mistakes illegal" rationalization for imposing itself into our lives.

Far be it from me to be snarky, or anything like that, but......Well, duuh!!!!

 

[Navy1960]

I don't think the issue is complain and then point out what's wrong with the suggestion of National Healthcare. I think what most people who are not in favor of it are suggesting is that , yes healthcare costs are high, and that to control those costs you need address the issues that have an effect on those costs and not try to get into the business of mandating uniformity across the spectrum and hope that by doing so you will make everyones life a little better, by lowering standards for the majoirty that have it and raising standards for the the small minority that don't. What those that oppose this sort of thing also recognize is that Americans are better able for themselves to decide what's best for them rather than some nameless, faceless Govt. worker who has zero interest in them. Further those that oppose this legislation also feel that our govt. has zero authority to implement this legislation and are working beyond the bounds of what they are empowered to do. So while we all want healthcare costs to come down and many that oppose a Govt. run system have made good suggestions they are ignored all in the name of this uniformity which will NEVER be achieved because you will end up exactly where you started with those able to afford private healthcare having the best care and those in the govt. care having a sub standard care. When this happens, then you will have people on the left screaming for no more private care because it is unfair.

 

[Harry Dresden]

I see. Then we are only to do thing in this nation that are easy? All I hear from you people, on any given subject, is "we can't" followed by various rationalizations why the present status quo is acceptable. Perhaps we should just replace the Star Spangled Banner with God Save the Queen. After all, that would be easier than having to make all these decisions as an independent nation.

thats not what im saying Rocks and you know it.....how come i dont hear you guys talking about the problems we are going to have to move 300 million people into this?....you guys stand in front of everyone and act like agree on something, Obama signs it, and tomorrow its done and bingo we have a national health plan....start talking about how the hell this can be done instead of running to the ******* finish line....this is not going to be done in 6 months....and the more you rush this ...the worse its going to be....

 

[misteroboto]

I see. Then we are only to do thing in this nation that are easy? All I hear from you people, on any given subject, is "we can't" followed by various rationalizations why the present status quo is acceptable. Perhaps we should just replace the Star Spangled Banner with God Save the Queen. After all, that would be easier than having to make all these decisions as an independent nation.

thats not what im saying Rocks and you know it.....how come i dont hear you guys talking about the problems we are going to have to move 300 million people into this?....you guys stand in front of everyone and act like agree on something, Obama signs it, and tomorrow its done and bingo we have a national health plan....start talking about how the hell this can be done instead of running to the ******* finish line....this is not going to be done in 6 months....and the more you rush this ...the worse its going to be....

why would we have to move 300 million people on to it/

at best there are what maybe 30 million without any healthcare- if that increases by say another 30 million ( low wage and hourly workers dropped by small companies as many anti-UHC say wil be done) is that really so much? and we are already paying for people who dont have healthcare - we are just paying for them to get critical care instead of simply paying for them to goto a doctor when they feel ill - prety kitty bar the door -

lastly the real problem is that medicine is largely looked at as a for profit service - frankly taking care of any sick person will always cost and cost money - its always a loss -

 

[Chris]

I find this attitude of well "because they have we should have it" as somwhat troublesome. If it has not escaped notice of all those proponents of healthcare insurance for all in this nation that like to use statistics so much , what nation has one of the highest murder rates in the world, accident rates in the world, and when you factor those in yes we don't score too well. However, I don't see a rush to cure those problems that when taken out of the scroring we rank at or near the top in about every catagory. One oher factor you don't hear much discussed among those that would like to say that well we are not the same as the rest of the world and that those nations that have healthcare save for Japan perhaps have long suffered chronic unemployment , and long term economic woes as a result. Further, although many of those nations may have coverage they lack in basic availabilty of healthcare. So it's a trade offf, it's one thing to say you have coverage it's another to actually have a place to use it. What you will end up getting from all this is a a healthcare system for the masses that is bloated suffers from poor quality for those that cannot afford decent coverage, and another one for those that can afford to pay for it. So if this is the system you all envisioned then you are going to get just that.

Navy, you are speaking of many nations that have a higher standard of living than we here in the US enjoy. And little Costa Rica can provide universal health care for it's citizens with a per capita income of only a tenth that of the US.

As far as you other objections go, have you actually looked at the various Health Care Systems in other nations? They are quite differant from each other in many ways. It is not a one fits all proposition. And all of them have longer average life spans, healthier old ages, and much lower infant mortality than we do here in the States.

Shhhh.....

Don't bother them with the facts.

They live in a fantasy world, where there is nothing outside our borders.

 

[Navy1960]

I find this attitude of well "because they have we should have it" as somwhat troublesome. If it has not escaped notice of all those proponents of healthcare insurance for all in this nation that like to use statistics so much , what nation has one of the highest murder rates in the world, accident rates in the world, and when you factor those in yes we don't score too well. However, I don't see a rush to cure those problems that when taken out of the scroring we rank at or near the top in about every catagory. One oher factor you don't hear much discussed among those that would like to say that well we are not the same as the rest of the world and that those nations that have healthcare save for Japan perhaps have long suffered chronic unemployment , and long term economic woes as a result. Further, although many of those nations may have coverage they lack in basic availabilty of healthcare. So it's a trade offf, it's one thing to say you have coverage it's another to actually have a place to use it. What you will end up getting from all this is a a healthcare system for the masses that is bloated suffers from poor quality for those that cannot afford decent coverage, and another one for those that can afford to pay for it. So if this is the system you all envisioned then you are going to get just that.

Navy, you are speaking of many nations that have a higher standard of living than we here in the US enjoy. And little Costa Rica can provide universal health care for it's citizens with a per capita income of only a tenth that of the US.

As far as you other objections go, have you actually looked at the various Health Care Systems in other nations? They are quite differant from each other in many ways. It is not a one fits all proposition. And all of them have longer average life spans, healthier old ages, and much lower infant mortality than we do here in the States.

Shhhh.....

Don't bother them with the facts.

They live in a fantasy world, where there is nothing outside our borders.

No Chris, in fact there are few facts that have been presented that support the need to mandate healthcare as a method to reduce the factors that cause healthcare costs to rise. In fact most of the things that have been presented by those in favor of mandated healthcare for all base their arguments on a world view of healthcare and not a national view. What I find interesting about that is, that most of those who advocate that have never been outside this nation other than to read a UN report of listen to the news about how great the healthcare is in Canada. The difference is that I don't suffer from the illusion that healthcare is a "right" that you or I are owed under the contitution. Another issue that those that support mandated healthcare tend to overlook is the form of Govt. they live under and if you choose to call that a fantasy world of course your entitled to call your nation whatever you choose to call it. As far as fact's go, if you or anyone else had ever presented facts that merited your contentions then they would be worthy of consideration. However there is that little thing called the constitution that keeps getting in the way of that isnt' there. One other thing of note on your comments Chris, while many like to beat the drum of the WHO studies as they apply to this nation what they neglect to take into consideration is this nations murder rate, it's accidental death rate,illegal immigration healthcare costs, and a number of factors that effect overall healthcare quality. So when your ready to mandate no more murders, and no more accidents, then perhaps your mandated healthcare to improve healthcare quality and delivery might make sense.

 

[asaratis]

I wonder if it's even occurred to our politicians to look past the insurance industry in seeking solutions for healthcare reform? They seem stuck in their little box and can't seem to think outside it. I've seen nothing in the proposed legislation that actually targets reducing costs or even in looking at WHY costs have risen so dramatically in the recent past.
For example, I recently went for a yearly check up. I needed a culture run and a blood test. I paid the doctor's office for the check up. I received a separate bill from a lab for the culture and was sent to a different clinic to have blood drawn and was billed by them as well. In previous years, all of the services I required were considered part of the check up and billed by the doctor's office at half the cost. Total cost for my routine checkup was $450.00 ( and I never saw a doctor..just a nurse practictioner ) I didn't see anything in the health care legislation that would address issues like this.
If they want to truly lower the cost of medical care, they should look at increasing the number of doctors by perhaps subsidizing medical school tuition. If you want to lower cost on anything..increase supply.

Whatever. What you said fixes none of the major problems we have with healthcare. Why don't you solve all the major problems instead of coming up with new ones? Are you trying to distract us or just confuse the conversation? You know what is wrong with healthcare? Parking!

And Navy is swallows every reason why we can't fix healthcare because the fact is, he wants the status quo too.

Lets face it, if we read more of your writings, I bet you are in favor of the status quo. You're just coming up with new arguments everyday to obstruct any progress. Relax, us liberals have this issue covered.

Don't believe the hype. Its going to get better.

PS. Do you know how Canada did it? One Province at a time. So it may have to be passed state by state instead of nationally. We shall see.

You call liberalism "progress" whether we move forward or backward.

In Canada, as in Great Britain there are people that come to the United States for health care. Cancer patients are "progressing" from treatable to untreatable as they wait on government lists for government permission to receive treatment.

Liberalism is a mental disorder. Soon it will be on the list of ailments covered by free government insurance and all liberals will receive monthly stipends from mother government. (You people are NUTS!!!)

 

[Darkwind]

I find this attitude of well "because they have we should have it" as somwhat troublesome. If it has not escaped notice of all those proponents of healthcare insurance for all in this nation that like to use statistics so much , what nation has one of the highest murder rates in the world, accident rates in the world, and when you factor those in yes we don't score too well. However, I don't see a rush to cure those problems that when taken out of the scroring we rank at or near the top in about every catagory. One oher factor you don't hear much discussed among those that would like to say that well we are not the same as the rest of the world and that those nations that have healthcare save for Japan perhaps have long suffered chronic unemployment , and long term economic woes as a result. Further, although many of those nations may have coverage they lack in basic availabilty of healthcare. So it's a trade offf, it's one thing to say you have coverage it's another to actually have a place to use it. What you will end up getting from all this is a a healthcare system for the masses that is bloated suffers from poor quality for those that cannot afford decent coverage, and another one for those that can afford to pay for it. So if this is the system you all envisioned then you are going to get just that.

Navy, you are speaking of many nations that have a higher standard of living than we here in the US enjoy. And little Costa Rica can provide universal health care for it's citizens with a per capita income of only a tenth that of the US.

As far as you other objections go, have you actually looked at the various Health Care Systems in other nations? They are quite differant from each other in many ways. It is not a one fits all proposition. And all of them have longer average life spans, healthier old ages, and much lower infant mortality than we do here in the States.

Do you know Rocks, I have been to a whole lot of places in the world and to be very honest with you, there is no place on the earth and that includes All of Europe, Asia, and pretty much most of the nations you can name, there is no place I would rather have my healthcare than the United States. One of the things that people never seem to graps when they cite these statistics is our nation also has many factors that add to those statistics such has a very high accident rate, a high murder rate, a high incidence of people over weight because of fast food, etc.. All of these things factor into your overall statistics of lifespan, etc. that the WHO used to measure this nation against others. So I for one am able to seperate that and then recognize that out nations health care quailty is second to none. Many cannot take that out of the mix , which is fine , but, to not address the factors that actually cause healthcare costs to rise and to simply in a ham handed manner mandate it across the board will not effect costs. You really want to know that this is going to accomplish Rocks I wil tell you. While it may lead to more people covered after a very long period of adjustment, what it will lead to is this, people who can afford quailty healthcare will be able to buy it and those with the govt. healthcare will be stuck with low quailty care. You will have the "HAVE's" and the HAVE NOTS" of healthcare when it comes to quailty and if this is the goal that you support then by all means be my guest. If you think this is not true take a look at Canada for example, even though they are illegal these private for profit clinics are popping up all over the place because, Govt. healthcare simply cannot provide the type of quailty helathcare people expect. I've said it many times and will continue to say it, in order to fix healthcare costs you need to address ALL the issues that effect costs and not just point a finger at one group of companies and cross your fingers and hope thats it. The other factor that seems to escape people that support this legislation is that A. it's not supported anywhere in the constitution and will likely meet a court challenge in many states B. this nation has a massive deficit and will likely lead this nation into bankruptcy C. It does not address any of the factors that actually cause healthcare costs to rise D. will add to an already large unemployment number..

So if healthcare is worth all that to you, then you Rocks and others what I might suggest as I always have is go to your state legislature and demand it be put on your next elections ballot by getting enough signatures. That way the residents of your state have spoken and you will get no complaints from me because your state will be paying for it's own citizens demands and not making others pay it for them.

There is one other thing that must be considered when we place a government agent between the citizen and the doctor.

Politics. If you are a registered member of a party that is currently out of power within a state or even the whole nation, it is not unthinkable that the party in power would use the threat of 'with-holding' medical care as a means of getting you inline with their beliefs.

 

[Darkwind]

It is an absolute probability that in order for government to keep costs down they will begin rationing your access to specific procedures if not outright saying that you'll have to forgo that procedure.

The elderly are going to be hit the hardest as their 'bill' to the taxpayer will be the highest and their 'worth' to society the least.

 

[KittenKoder]

It is an absolute probability that in order for government to keep costs down they will begin rationing your access to specific procedures if not outright saying that you'll have to forgo that procedure.

The elderly are going to be hit the hardest as their 'bill' to the taxpayer will be the highest and their 'worth' to society the least.

Don't forget the disabled as well.

 

[Darkwind]

It is an absolute probability that in order for government to keep costs down they will begin rationing your access to specific procedures if not outright saying that you'll have to forgo that procedure.

The elderly are going to be hit the hardest as their 'bill' to the taxpayer will be the highest and their 'worth' to society the least.

Don't forget the disabled as well.

One has but to look at the Vetrans Administration as an example of how well our government will treat our disabled. It is not that much of a stretch to see it applied to anyone who is either not with the party in power (Which means either party) or whose value to the state is less then optimum.

In Mass., the SR-Healthcare is already bankrupt, broken and rationing the care given to the citizenry. The plan that is being debated in congress is 100's of times larger and currently has language the would force every citizen to become part of the SR Healthcare industry.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I wonder if it's even occurred to our politicians to look past the insurance industry in seeking solutions for healthcare reform? They seem stuck in their little box and can't seem to think outside it. I've seen nothing in the proposed legislation that actually targets reducing costs or even in looking at WHY costs have risen so dramatically in the recent past.
For example, I recently went for a yearly check up. I needed a culture run and a blood test. I paid the doctor's office for the check up. I received a separate bill from a lab for the culture and was sent to a different clinic to have blood drawn and was billed by them as well. In previous years, all of the services I required were considered part of the check up and billed by the doctor's office at half the cost. Total cost for my routine checkup was $450.00 ( and I never saw a doctor..just a nurse practictioner ) I didn't see anything in the health care legislation that would address issues like this.
If they want to truly lower the cost of medical care, they should look at increasing the number of doctors by perhaps subsidizing medical school tuition. If you want to lower cost on anything..increase supply.

Whatever. What you said fixes none of the major problems we have with healthcare. Why don't you solve all the major problems instead of coming up with new ones? Are you trying to distract us or just confuse the conversation? You know what is wrong with healthcare? Parking!

And Navy is swallows every reason why we can't fix healthcare because the fact is, he wants the status quo too.

Lets face it, if we read more of your writings, I bet you are in favor of the status quo. You're just coming up with new arguments everyday to obstruct any progress. Relax, us liberals have this issue covered.

Don't believe the hype. Its going to get better.

PS. Do you know how Canada did it? One Province at a time. So it may have to be passed state by state instead of nationally. We shall see.

Yea that's it "parking", thats what's wrong with healthcare.

You are truly an idiot.


ps.
The Top Ten Things People Believe About Canadian Health Care, But Shouldn't

 

[Lonestar_logic]

What is your position on the “Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act” also known as EMTALA? It requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. Don’t you think that government has no business getting involved in health care? If a hospital knows that Joe Smith is struggling to come into the hospital and has a life threatening condition, that Joe needs immediate care, and that Joe has no insurance and no financial resources, then that hospital should be free to have security escort Joe out to the curb. The hospital can have Joe carried outside and dumped off at the curb if Joe is in too much pain to walk. Don’t you agree? Leave the free market alone to do as it pleases as long as there is no fraud involved. “If you don’t have the money to pay for your care and you can’t find charity, then die in the street.”

Exactly--and people who REALLY care will be there to help them when the hospital kicks em to the curb.

What if nobody cares or if the sick person can't find anyone to help?

Muskrat... you sound like a five year old. Grow the **** up!!

 

[Chris]

Exactly--and people who REALLY care will be there to help them when the hospital kicks em to the curb.

What if nobody cares or if the sick person can't find anyone to help?

Muskrat... you sound like a five year old. Grow the **** up!!

No, you grow the **** up, asshole.

Every other Western democracy has a single payer system, and they cover everyone and pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare and have better results than we do.

That's the money side of it.

The moral side of it is that we should take care of the old and the sick in our society.

All of them.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

What if nobody cares or if the sick person can't find anyone to help?

Muskrat... you sound like a five year old. Grow the **** up!!

No, you grow the **** up, asshole.

Every other Western democracy has a single payer system, and they cover everyone and pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare and have better results than we do.

That's the money side of it.

The moral side of it is that we should take care of the old and the sick in our society.

All of them.

Aww how cute you coming to muskrats rescue. Single-payer healthcare is a dismal failure. Canadians spend a lower percentage of their income on healthcare than we Americans, and are guaranteed access to healthcare. What they are not guaranteed is that they receive treatment in a timely manner. Us Americans should ask ourselves whether we really want to wait nine weeks for heart surgery or 12 weeks for a hip replacement.

A 2005 Supreme Court of Canada decision, applying only in Quebec, determined that single-payer health care violates the constitutional right to life and security of the person. Similar challenges are underway in other provinces. Single-payer healthcare is a solution that is worse than the problem.

Keep in mind the current liberal movement toward “single-payer” healthcare, where “single payer” means the government, which is what Canada has. Want to understand why you probably don’t want a Canadian “free” health-care system? Apart from the confiscatory taxes, there’s the specter that when you’re diagnosed with a potential tumor in your brain, you may be told you have to wait four months for an MRI and another four months for a neurosurgeon’s consult.

That’s what happened to an Ontario man who decided instead to cross the border into the US and pay for his lifesaving treatment out of his own pocket and get it done in four weeks.

Free Market Cure - The Myths of Single-Payer Health Care

Every other western country has single payer healthcare, which of these countries has 300 million people? Australia? Sweden? Canada? The U.K.? Another thing, just because other countries have a system in place doesn't mean it's better or that it would work in every country. You sound like my five year old grandkid.. "but the other kids have one...."

Not only should you grow the **** up, you should also rethink your position on single payer healthcare.

 

[Navy1960]

sealy, obviously you have not spent a lot of time actually reading all my posts on healthcare then, because in fact I've on many occasions more than I can remember made it clear what my position is and even to you. In fact, I have even offered many alternatives that would in my mind work much better than what has been proposed. As I have said many times as well, those that support legislation whereby the Federal Govt. is the provider of healthcare for all it's citizens do so because they wrongly believe that the Federal Govt. is empowered to do so and also believe that healthcare is a right which it is not. I have made suggestions on that issue as well sealy that in order to reach the goal of socailized medicine for all, that those who support this work within the framework of our form of Govt. then you would have no problem with me. However, as long as ANYONE advocates their Govt. is responsible for their healthcare when they are not constitutionally entitled to it, then you will find me a fierce opponent of that. I don't think anyone here would deny the need to reform healthcare costs sealy , I just happen to believe that reform does not mean providing healthcare coverage for all and hoping that by doing so that costs will magically go down. I am also one that believe that we owe that come after us a better nation than the one we recieved and by spending our way into backruptcy we should be ashamed of ourselves when solutions to this issue exist.

 

[Avatar4321]

No, you grow the **** up, asshole.

Every other Western democracy has a single payer system, and they cover everyone and pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare and have better results than we do.

That's the money side of it.

The moral side of it is that we should take care of the old and the sick in our society.

All of them.

Youd think that the fact that its failed in every other western democracy would turn you off to the process.

You should take care of your parents. Government shouldnt.