The ONLY word for this is tragic

[JoeB131]

You don't have to be a doctor to start a hospital. Are you really this stupid?

I also don't need to start a hospital to fix health care.

We just pass laws. Problem solved.

Oh yeah - you really "fixed" the problem with Obamacare...

yeah, we really did. Which is why you guys are going apeshit.

Rick Scott just folded on Exchanges. So did Snyder in Michigan.

 

[JoeB131]

[

What we had before obamacare was choice.
It was the best healthcare on earth.
Despite the idiotic claims from the anti American UN.

If it was so bad, why did the families of British kids with their "Envy of the world" NHS system always send their sick kids to the USA to be cured from conditions the far superior NHS declared untreatable, incurable and terminal.
Many were cured in the USA!!!
Care to explain?

I think what you leave out is "People with MONEY in the UK."

Not the average person living in a apartment complex, but really rich people send their kids here.

On average, though, British people live longer and they have a lower infant mortality rate.

 

[JoeB131]

But you see, that's the problem, for all your whining about "Socialized" medicine. They were passing the costs of those who couldn't pay onto those who could.

So again, single payer, everyone is covered, and you pay for what it actually costs to treat the person.

Lets break down your "logic" here:

• You claim we already pay for everybody under the current system
  
  
• You claim that drives up cost
  
  
• You propose a single payer system as a "solution"

So your solution to a system of covering everybody regardless of their ability to pay is to create a government run monopoly which covers everybody regardless of their ability to pay....

Hey dumb ass, the people who can't afford insurance now will NOT be paying into the system (just like now). Yet, they will be covered MORE than now (people without insurance only get emergency coverage now - under your "solution" they will have coverage for a hang-nail).

Leave it to a libtard to propose solving a problem of people getting free healthcare and burdening others by creating a system where people get free healthcare and burden others....

Again, it's that lack of compassion thing we talked about earlier.

"We can't give poor people health care. They might use it when they AREN'T dying!!!!!"

Okay, so they go in for a hangnail, which they get treated for all of $50.00.

Probably better than waiting for it to get infected and being treated for hundreds of bucks when they show up at an emergency room.

 

[JoeB131]

We spend more per capita than any other country, and we get the worst overall results.

The facts show otherwise. The facts show you're a blithering idiot who can't stop lying because you're too lazy to work.

Here is a child of the "wonderful" single payer system of England whose community raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to get her out of England's single payer system and into the U.S.'s for profit system to drastically improve her chances of surviving:

A total of of nearly £300,000 was raised in two appeals to take her to the US for treatment.

BBC News - Hundreds attend Ruby Owen's funeral

Two problems

The kid died anyway. So really, a lot of well meaning people gave money to send her to the US for expensive treatment that merely prolonged her life.

OVERALL- the UK has a lower infant mortality rate and child mortality rates than the US.

Second problem- For every Ruby Owen I can raise you a Nataline Sarkisyan. She was the girl who needed a liver transplant, but Cigna (which paid its CEO 83 million for this sort of thing) denied her coverage and fought her dad in court AFTER the man had worked for and paid for insurance.

Now, here's the thing. I don't see the NIH as necessarily a good model, because the government runs the hospitals as well as just paying the bills. Canada would be a better one.

But they are way ahead of us.

 

[JoeB131]

[

They found a reason to let you go? Are you sure it wasn't the fact that you actively worked against the best interests of the company? Are you certain it wasn't that fact that you were sabotaging the goal of your employers? Your subversive nature? If you were working to destroy everything I had worked to build all my life, I would fire your ass too and from the way you portray yourself on this site, I would guess that is exactly what happened.

Immie

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it wasn't, as I have six years of reviews where I was rated as "above average" or "exceptional" in my performance and got the maximum raise allowed. (Which probably made me a more attractive target during downsizing...)

I handled purchasing for the biggest account this company had, handling over 12 million in sales a year. I'm not going to go into a lot of inside baseball here, but I was in a key position with pretty critical responsibility. Until, of course, the geniuses in sales lost that account.

So, yes, my behavior in this affair was exceptional. The Office Manager (whom I am still friends with) has apologized to me several times for the company's behavior.

And here's the kicker. In the five years since I've left, they've hired and fired about six people to fill that same position.

 

[P@triot]

Poodle, EVERY country that has single payer spends LESS per capita than we do.

Because they all operate at a significantly lower standard of living than we do. Guess what, houses are also much cheaper in Mexico than they are here...

People drive up to Canada to get prescription drugs because they are affordable up there.

And Canadians drive here for life saving surgery. You get what you pay for. I'd rather pay more and have world class quality healthcare.

But I want to address a more serious issue. You seem to like to call everyone who disagrees with you stupid.

I won't stoop to your level. I'll even concede that you (and pretty much all USMB Posters) are very bright people who are well informed and understand complex issues better than 95% of the drooling masses.

Your big flaw is your lack of compassion and mercy.

“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.” ― Frédéric Bastiat

I am not lacking in compassion and mercy. I am educated. I've studied history and know that the private sector does everything exponentially better than the inefficient, wasteful, fraudulent government ever could.

It would be wonderful if you guys on the right came up with an alternative to ObamaCare that accomplished the same thing. The problem is you don't care. They're just poor people. Or illegals. Or "welfare people". **** them.

First of all, we have - it's called the free market and competition. Unfortunately, competing (which improves quality while driving down costs) is something you guys on the left fear because it requires effort.

Secondly, it would be wonderful if you guys on the left would return to Constitutional government. The cost of ANYTHING is none of the business of the federal government. It would be wonderful if they would focus on the 18 enumerated powers that they are responsible. It's funny how you guys on the left never really figured out that everything you want is legal and not controversial at the state level (just ask Mitt Romney and Massachusetts).

I support attempting to reform the health care system because it is smart (we pay the most of any country and get some of the worst results) and because it is compassionate...

The Constitution did not guarantee "compassion". It guaranteed FREEDOM. Your "compassion" does not supersede my rights. Your "compassion" does not entitle you to force someone to labor for you on your terms (that's called slavery - something the Democrats have a long history of loving but which they need to let go of already).

I do honestly hope when you grow up or at least get older, you will understand how foolish your blather sounds.

Funny, I was thinking the exact same thing about you and your communism...

 

[P@triot]

But you see, that's the problem, for all your whining about "Socialized" medicine. They were passing the costs of those who couldn't pay onto those who could.

So again, single payer, everyone is covered, and you pay for what it actually costs to treat the person.

Lets break down your "logic" here:

• You claim we already pay for everybody under the current system
  
  
• You claim that drives up cost
  
  
• You propose a single payer system as a "solution"

So your solution to a system of covering everybody regardless of their ability to pay is to create a government run monopoly which covers everybody regardless of their ability to pay....

Hey dumb ass, the people who can't afford insurance now will NOT be paying into the system (just like now). Yet, they will be covered MORE than now (people without insurance only get emergency coverage now - under your "solution" they will have coverage for a hang-nail).

Leave it to a libtard to propose solving a problem of people getting free healthcare and burdening others by creating a system where people get free healthcare and burden others....

Again, it's that lack of compassion thing we talked about earlier.

"We can't give poor people health care. They might use it when they AREN'T dying!!!!!"

Okay, so they go in for a hangnail, which they get treated for all of $50.00.

Probably better than waiting for it to get infected and being treated for hundreds of bucks when they show up at an emergency room.

Why are you changing the subject? Compassion wasn't the issue. You claimed a single payer system would drive down costs (see bolded in red above). I pointed out how the system you proposed is the exactly the same as the system we have now with the exception of who controls it (the people vs the government).

So please explain how covering everyone regardless of their ability to pay under a single payer system will become affordable as opposed to our current system of covering everyone regardless of their ability to pay which you claim is unaffordable...

 

[P@triot]

We spend more per capita than any other country, and we get the worst overall results.

The facts show otherwise. The facts show you're a blithering idiot who can't stop lying because you're too lazy to work.

Here is a child of the "wonderful" single payer system of England whose community raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to get her out of England's single payer system and into the U.S.'s for profit system to drastically improve her chances of surviving:

A total of of nearly £300,000 was raised in two appeals to take her to the US for treatment.

BBC News - Hundreds attend Ruby Owen's funeral

Two problems

The kid died anyway. So really, a lot of well meaning people gave money to send her to the US for expensive treatment that merely prolonged her life.

OVERALL- the UK has a lower infant mortality rate and child mortality rates than the US.

Second problem- For every Ruby Owen I can raise you a Nataline Sarkisyan. She was the girl who needed a liver transplant, but Cigna (which paid its CEO 83 million for this sort of thing) denied her coverage and fought her dad in court AFTER the man had worked for and paid for insurance.

Now, here's the thing. I don't see the NIH as necessarily a good model, because the government runs the hospitals as well as just paying the bills. Canada would be a better one.

But they are way ahead of us.

If what you say is true, then the people of Cigna should be prosecuted both criminally (for breach of contract) and civilly (for pain & suffering). But that doesn't justify unconstitutionally altering our healthcare system. I was 100% happy with our current system - who are you to force me out of it?

 

[P@triot]

[

So you agree that you're too lazy and would rather FORCE other people to perform their labor for you at the price you want rather than the price they want? In other words, the same communism you professed to in another thread. Got it.

Actually, I think doctors who are doctors because they want yatchs or mansions are doctors for the wrong reasons.

I disagree with you. But what you and I think doesn't matter. Who are we to tell someone else why or if they should become a doctor? This is (well, was) a free nation where people had the right to decide for themselves why they would choose a particular field.

 

[P@triot]

I also don't need to start a hospital to fix health care.

We just pass laws. Problem solved.

Oh yeah - you really "fixed" the problem with Obamacare...

yeah, we really did. Which is why you guys are going apeshit.

Rick Scott just folded on Exchanges. So did Snyder in Michigan.

And how is that "fixing" the problem? You know who else is "folding"? Companies all over America who can't afford the 18 new taxes in Obamacare and the costly new regulations.

You're idea of "fixing" things is to put men and women out of work and ensure their children become hungry, homeless, and uninsured? Yeah, you sure are the "compassionate" one....

 

[MeBelle]

you a Nataline Sarkisyan. She was the girl who needed a liver transplant, but Cigna (which paid its CEO 83 million for this sort of thing) denied her coverage and fought her dad in court AFTER the man had worked for and paid for insurance.

If what you say is true, then the people of Cigna should be prosecuted both criminally (for breach of contract) and civilly (for pain & suffering). But that doesn't justify unconstitutionally altering our healthcare system. I was 100% happy with our current system - who are you to force me out of it?

It's not true.
Death of Nataline Sarkisyan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JoeB131]

[

On average, though, British people live longer and they have a lower infant mortality rate.

They do live on average 4 months longer.
How does healthcare impact on that?
Fewer Brits get sick, that's why.
Cancer rates are lower.Heart disease is lower.
Their income won't stretch to the diet Americans can afford.

Okay, guy, lets start with your top one.

Yes, they have less cancer and heart disease? Why? EVERYONE Has access to a doctor.

And frankly, you make it out like their diet is not as "rich" as ours. They do eat better than we do and less of them are fat. But again, that has a lot more to do with.

[

They live in a country with a very gentle climate.
Their weather conditions are not as deadly.
No wildfires, no earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes, noreasters or flash floods.

Lifestyle and location!

No Mosquitos!
No EEE, west Nile, lime disease ( from deer ticks, that don't exist in the UK).

A closed government that does not apply the same standards to statistics as the USA.

You can't blame it on healthcare not logically.
But logic is the sworn enemy of the fanatical liberal totalitarian of the Obamacult!!

All of those things don't kill that many Americans. Not enough to account for the fact that Brits live longer and less of their babies die in infancy.

 

[JoeB131]

you a Nataline Sarkisyan. She was the girl who needed a liver transplant, but Cigna (which paid its CEO 83 million for this sort of thing) denied her coverage and fought her dad in court AFTER the man had worked for and paid for insurance.

If what you say is true, then the people of Cigna should be prosecuted both criminally (for breach of contract) and civilly (for pain & suffering). But that doesn't justify unconstitutionally altering our healthcare system. I was 100% happy with our current system - who are you to force me out of it?

It's not true.
Death of Nataline Sarkisyan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Uh, yeah, it is true.

And, no, Cigna can't be prosecuted. The court found that because Nataline's Dad's employer had paid for the insurance, he had no standing to sue them.

 

[JoeB131]

Oh yeah - you really "fixed" the problem with Obamacare...

yeah, we really did. Which is why you guys are going apeshit.

Rick Scott just folded on Exchanges. So did Snyder in Michigan.

And how is that "fixing" the problem? You know who else is "folding"? Companies all over America who can't afford the 18 new taxes in Obamacare and the costly new regulations.

You're idea of "fixing" things is to put men and women out of work and ensure their children become hungry, homeless, and uninsured? Yeah, you sure are the "compassionate" one....

Guy, any company that is folding because they can't afford ObamaCare is a company that was going to fold in any event.

Because the people running them were incompetent.

But since you can't process info, the fact was, the Repuke Governors all stomped their feet and said they won't expand Medicare.. but they are all folding like cheap shirts now.

 

[JoeB131]

[

If what you say is true, then the people of Cigna should be prosecuted both criminally (for breach of contract) and civilly (for pain & suffering). But that doesn't justify unconstitutionally altering our healthcare system. I was 100% happy with our current system - who are you to force me out of it?

The problem is, they can't get sued.

They did not have a contract with Nataline nor her father. They had a contract with Nataline's employer.

And no one is forcing you out of it, guy. If you have a health insurance plan through your employer, it probably isn't changing.

(Waiting for Poodle to tell me how it is... should be interesting.)

 

[JoeB131]

[

Why are you changing the subject? Compassion wasn't the issue. You claimed a single payer system would drive down costs (see bolded in red above). I pointed out how the system you proposed is the exactly the same as the system we have now with the exception of who controls it (the people vs the government).

So please explain how covering everyone regardless of their ability to pay under a single payer system will become affordable as opposed to our current system of covering everyone regardless of their ability to pay which you claim is unaffordable...

Because poor people will insist on being treated whether they can pay or not.

Those fuckers, they just refuse to die. They just vote for Democrats.

Single payer WILL bring costs down because they will bring efficiencies. Such as dispensing anti-biotics for $10.00 instead of $500.00 in an Emergency room.

Every country that does this spends, less, they live longer and less of their kids die in infancy.

(I think this is where you blurt out ... "but..but...but... Freedom". )

 

[JoeB131]

[

So you agree that you're too lazy and would rather FORCE other people to perform their labor for you at the price you want rather than the price they want? In other words, the same communism you professed to in another thread. Got it.

Actually, I think doctors who are doctors because they want yatchs or mansions are doctors for the wrong reasons.

I disagree with you. But what you and I think doesn't matter. Who are we to tell someone else why or if they should become a doctor? This is (well, was) a free nation where people had the right to decide for themselves why they would choose a particular field.

Sure they can.

And we can tell the, "This is what you will get paid for services rendered."

Because we are the payer.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Because they all operate at a significantly lower standard of living than we do. Guess what, houses are also much cheaper in Mexico than they are here...

Poodle, we aren't talking about Mexico. We are talking about Germany and Canada and Japan- countries that have equivlent standards of living to what we have. Except those damned dirty socialists have less mansions and less slums.

[

People drive up to Canada to get prescription drugs because they are affordable up there.

And Canadians drive here for life saving surgery. You get what you pay for. I'd rather pay more and have world class quality healthcare.

No, RICH Canadians drive down here. Guy, I know you are really concerned about the international brotherhood of Rich Douchbags, but the rich are gonna be fine, really. They are even going to be fine under Obamacare.

[
“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.” ― Frédéric Bastiat

I'm very glad yo ufound a quote you think is clever. Now if you tried thinking for yourself, that would be fine. Point was, the reason why we have PUblic Education- (Hint, the guy who first advocated it in America was Thomas Jefferson, who you often misquote on other issues)- is because the private sector DIDN'T provide it to most people.

[
I am not lacking in compassion and mercy. I am educated. I've studied history and know that the private sector does everything exponentially better than the inefficient, wasteful, fraudulent government ever could.

I don't care how "educated" you think you are, you've bought into propaganda. YOu think the Private Sector does things better because the Private Sector spends billions propagandizing it.

I on the other hand have worked in both the public sector and private sector. I've seen private sector companies that were so awful they collapsed. I've seen public sector agencies that were damned good at what they did.

[
First of all, we have - it's called the free market and competition. Unfortunately, competing (which improves quality while driving down costs) is something you guys on the left fear because it requires effort.

Guy, this is what tells me you don't work in the private sector. Usually when costs are driven down, quality suffers. Trust me, this is what I do for a living. A solid chunk of my day is beating up vendors because they decided to "drive down costs" by using inferior materials or hiring inept operators.

[
Secondly, it would be wonderful if you guys on the left would return to Constitutional government. The cost of ANYTHING is none of the business of the federal government. It would be wonderful if they would focus on the 18 enumerated powers that they are responsible. It's funny how you guys on the left never really figured out that everything you want is legal and not controversial at the state level (just ask Mitt Romney and Massachusetts).

Why should I wait for my state to get off its ass and fix the problem when we can (and should) fixt it on the national level. Frankly, I think all you guys who whine about "constitutional" stuff should be reduced to the Roots and Leeches medicine that was practiced by the Founding Slave Rapists.

[

I support attempting to reform the health care system because it is smart (we pay the most of any country and get some of the worst results) and because it is compassionate...

The Constitution did not guarantee "compassion". It guaranteed FREEDOM. Your "compassion" does not supersede my rights. Your "compassion" does not entitle you to force someone to labor for you on your terms (that's called slavery - something the Democrats have a long history of loving but which they need to let go of already).

Guy, this is laughable for a number of reasons.

First, any private sector insurance program is EVERY bit as socialist as a government run program. Either you are paying in more than you are receiving or you are taking out more than you paid in if you get sick. The only question is whether the government can run such a pool better than Cigna.

Hint, MEdicare doesn't pay its CEO 83 million for denying people care.

Polls of patient satisfaction,where Medicare and the VA rate consistantly higher than private insurance, indicates the government does.

[

I do honestly hope when you grow up or at least get older, you will understand how foolish your blather sounds.

Funny, I was thinking the exact same thing about you and your communism...

Yawn, guy, calling everyone "Communist" is kind of silly. Screaming "Freedom" is what a child who has read too much Ayn Rand does. I think you have some serious growing up to do.

 

[JoeB131]

I want to throw one more thing out to Poodle, who lives in mortal terror that a few pennies his employer has thrown him might end up going to treat a poor person.

62% of bankruptcies are linked to medical crisis. In short, people walk away from their debts and obligations because they've run up too many medical bills... Of those, 75% of them had insurance when the crisis started.

Now, here's the thing. Who do you think ends up paying that when Citibank or Well's Fargo ends up writing off that debt?

The rest of us do.

I'm sure Poodle's answer will be...

"Taking care of poor people!!!! You are infringing on my Freedom, you COMMUNIST!!!"


Medical Bills Are the Biggest Cause of US Bankruptcies: Study

Bankruptcies resulting from unpaid medical bills will affect nearly 2 million people this year—making health care the No. 1 cause of such filings, and outpacing bankruptcies due to credit-card bills or unpaid mortgages, according to new data. And even having health insurance doesn't buffer consumers against financial hardship.

The findings are from NerdWallet Health, a division of the price-comparison website. It analyzed data from the U.S. Census, Centers for Disease Control, the federal court system and the Commonwealth Fund, a private foundation that promotes access, quality and efficiency in the health-care system.


"A lot of Americans are struggling with medical bills," said NerdWallet Health Vice President Christina LaMontagne.


NerdWallet estimates that households containing 1.7 million people will file for bankruptcy protection this year.

 

[Geaux4it]

I like my insurance coverage and it's a fair service at a fair price.

They should leave those of us who like what we have the hell alone

-Geaux