mudcat.org: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafeawe

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]


BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?

Stu 17 Aug 09 - 12:50 PM
heric 17 Aug 09 - 12:29 PM
Alice 17 Aug 09 - 12:20 PM
Amos 17 Aug 09 - 12:18 PM
heric 17 Aug 09 - 12:06 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 17 Aug 09 - 11:51 AM
dick greenhaus 17 Aug 09 - 11:20 AM
McGrath of Harlow 17 Aug 09 - 10:35 AM
Greg F. 17 Aug 09 - 08:07 AM
Richard Bridge 17 Aug 09 - 07:47 AM
Penny S. 17 Aug 09 - 06:47 AM
Stu 17 Aug 09 - 06:37 AM
McGrath of Harlow 17 Aug 09 - 06:11 AM
Richard Bridge 17 Aug 09 - 05:56 AM
akenaton 17 Aug 09 - 04:31 AM
DMcG 17 Aug 09 - 02:20 AM
Peace 17 Aug 09 - 12:34 AM
DougR 16 Aug 09 - 11:49 PM
Peace 16 Aug 09 - 11:27 PM
bobad 16 Aug 09 - 11:25 PM
Peace 16 Aug 09 - 11:18 PM
Riginslinger 16 Aug 09 - 11:10 PM
Peace 16 Aug 09 - 10:23 PM
Amos 16 Aug 09 - 10:16 PM
Bill D 16 Aug 09 - 08:36 PM
Amos 16 Aug 09 - 08:25 PM
pdq 16 Aug 09 - 08:21 PM
heric 16 Aug 09 - 06:41 PM
McGrath of Harlow 16 Aug 09 - 06:10 PM
Rumncoke 16 Aug 09 - 05:26 PM
heric 16 Aug 09 - 04:28 PM
Maryrrf 16 Aug 09 - 04:19 PM
Bill D 16 Aug 09 - 03:22 PM
McGrath of Harlow 16 Aug 09 - 03:16 PM
Bill D 16 Aug 09 - 01:40 PM
Stringsinger 16 Aug 09 - 01:27 PM
heric 16 Aug 09 - 12:19 PM
heric 16 Aug 09 - 11:55 AM
Ebbie 16 Aug 09 - 11:53 AM
heric 16 Aug 09 - 11:27 AM
Greg F. 16 Aug 09 - 07:40 AM
Alice 15 Aug 09 - 09:27 PM
Peace 15 Aug 09 - 09:02 PM
Peace 15 Aug 09 - 08:50 PM
Bill D 15 Aug 09 - 08:27 PM
bobad 15 Aug 09 - 07:44 PM
Richard Bridge 15 Aug 09 - 07:43 PM
Alice 15 Aug 09 - 07:41 PM
Peace 15 Aug 09 - 07:18 PM
Alice 15 Aug 09 - 07:11 PM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:






Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Stu
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 12:50 PM

That's really scary.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: heric
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 12:29 PM

A brilliantly destructive argument that would be.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Alice
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 12:20 PM

There was an excellent interview on CNN last night by Don Lemon. He interviewed Tim Wise, the author of "White Like Me", on racism and how it relates to welfare and health care legislation and the attitudes of conservative white citizens. The discussion related to the behavior of people at the "town hall" meetings. The interview was on 8/16/09.

Here is a video of the Tim Wise interview.
Whenever we talk about spending on support for people who are the "have nots", there is hostility for social welfare spending that has a racist component.
I could not find it on you tube, but it is available as a CNN video and is posted on this blog:
http://thisweekwithbarackobama.blogspot.com/

Tim Wise wrote this online today, as he of course has been getting responses from that interview last night:

"...Indeed several of the e-mails made this same argument about opposing "government dependence," all the while oblivious, it appears, to the way in which that concept has become so color-coded in the white imagination over the past several decades. In fact, this is a point I had made on the program: that according to a significant body of social science research (among the most prominent, Martin Gilens's brilliant book, Why Americans Hate Welfare), most whites perceive social program spending aimed at helping the have-nots (be they income have-nots, housing have-nots, or health care-have nots) as being about giving something to those people, who are, of course, conceived of in black and brown terms, and taking from "hard-working" white folks in order to do it. So if the notion of government dependence itself has been racialized--and the evidence says it has been--to say that it is only this dependence you oppose, and that racism has nothing to do with it is to either lie or engage in self-deception of a most unfortunate and unbecoming variety.." Tim Wise


Alice


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Amos
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 12:18 PM

Obama is back-pedalling on a "national healthcare system" because like most "liberals" he has no real conviction

THis is horse-pucky, AKe. First, he is not back pedlaing. He went tot he mat yesterday in the NEw York Times, for example. Secopnd of all, he has plenty opf conviction, and your bizarre generality is way off base. The fundamental definition of liberalism is based on principles, and good ones--reciprocal respect, tolerance, honoring of individual liberty, and compassion for the species in general. COme off it.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: heric
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 12:06 PM

So far, Obama hasn't captured the middle. The Democrats don't need the right. They look silly and ineffectual blaming the far right for their own failure to persuade the middle.

Besides funding, I think Obama has to market and explain four things about the public option:

(1) it is needed by people who don't but should have entitlements to coverage under the existing public options;
(2) it is needed by people who don't have adequate benefits under the existing public options;
(3) it will save people who do not suspect they could run afoul of the employment based coverage they think they will always have;
(4) it will not coerce people away from their existing insurance into a public program, but accept them when they will be glad it's available.

Four is a bit tricky*, but if they tell the truth on all other things so their credibility is high, and they've structured the program so that (4) is true, they should be able to remain on target.

*especially where employers can dump their plans and give 8% of payroll to the government, and automatically enroll their employees.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 11:51 AM

""Whta does "treated" mean in that context?""


Stabilised, I believe, so you don't actually pop your clogs on their doorstep.

After all, they don't want their lobby made to look untidy by a Non Paying Corpse.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 11:20 AM

And, of course,the shortfall from the people that don't pay their emergency room fees--which can be pretty damned steep--is made up by raising rates of non-emergency-room patients. If I'm going to be taxed, I'd rather it be one by the government than by a hospital administrator...at least I can vote in the first case.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 10:35 AM

Whta does "treated" mean in that context?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 08:07 AM

What I DID say, is that anyone showing up for care at an Emergency Room at a US hospital that receives any form of federal funding, cannot be turned away without being treated.

And- as was shown conclusively by several posters- it was just as untrue the second time you said it as it was the first time.

Repeating a lie doesn't make it true, Douggie-boy!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 07:47 AM

Penny, I don't think it's a matter of religion. It's a matter of humanity. I think the options for descriptions of those who would deny adequate healthcare to millions are bad or hoodwinked. Those who apply the hoodwinks can only be bad - but they have their own religion, based on the mantras of a "free market economy" - which with the benefit of hindsight we KNOW does not work.   

Sugarfoot Jack, I agree. I smelt the ifs and buts the moment I heard the shadow health minister making promises with hidden getouts. But if the opressed in the UK did not take to the barricades against Thatcher, what hope have we that they will ever do so?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Penny S.
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 06:47 AM

How health works in Tennessee.

The GOP are mad. Or bad. This is a Christian country? (To be fair, once they knew about the charity, many gave. But should it be necessary?)

Penny


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Stu
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 06:37 AM

I have to say, from the UK side of the Pond this discussion looks increasingly insane. Although it isn't, this is a matter that should be above politics; it's about everyone chipping in via taxation to ensure every member of society regardless of social status gets looked after if they're ill. It's all comes down to conscience: if you care about your fellow humans you will vote for it, if you couldn't give a shit then you won't. It really is that fundamental, that black and white. If the majority of people are in favour and it doesn't happen the you don't live in a democracy.

One good thing to come of this is the fact the Tories are in a spot of bother due to me laddo bullshitting the great US public about the NHS. Several of his bestest mates are distancing themselves from him, including David Gove on The Andrew Marr Show (prime political talk show in the UK) yesterday morning who in an excellent display of crapping on his mate's head went to great pains to explain how much he was in favour of keeping the NHS and ring-fencing expenditure in the face of the inevitable public service cuts to come after the election - a vote-winner for sure (Americans take note).

Coupled with that The Observer also reports a rift in the shadow cabinet as it appears some shadow ministers seem to want to do privatise the lot; I honestly think there would be riots on the streets should that happen. The toff Cameron is now trying to patch up the rift but as the paper points out the majority of his parliamentary party are the same old school Thatcherite sheep that so hate the poor and would gladly run down the most treasured institution in the country. We must beware!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 06:11 AM

Obviously, anyone using the emergency room facilities is billed for the service.

Thank God I don't live somewhere where that is true.

Growing up sick in the US, and being treated by a humane NHS here, has shown me that Britain's system is far better - an article in today's paper which reinforces that appreciation of what we are fortunate to have here.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 05:56 AM

Given your views elsewhere on the protection of minorities, ake (ie that you are against it) I am surprised you did not choke on (some of) your words above.

As for residents of the USA, if you have indeed abandoned the idea of universal healthcare, may your God (if any) have mercy on you. You have had none for yourselves, nor your less fortunate. The insurance companies and the medical industry will also have none.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 04:31 AM

Obama is back-pedalling on a "national healthcare system" because like most "liberals" he has no real conviction.....the right will sacrifice anything but the system itself for their "principles",but we on the left lack the belief that would give us courage to press on. To the left, politics is simply a career, any conviction socialist is smothered at birth by the "liberals".

Look back at American history and see that any real change was achieved not by any mealy mouthed politician, but by people of conviction who led us on a straight path to a better society.

"liberalism" will never give us real change, only change the words that say "you are slaves and will stay slaves!"....Ake


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 02:20 AM

Only about fifty percent of those who do show up at ER for care pay the bill, though, evidently. The difference in cost, and the amount paid by the patient is offset by the hospital collecting more than cost from privately insured patients.

I realise I am making assumptions here, DougR, but I presume you are not really in favour of "the hospital collecting more than cost from privately insured patients". How would you like that changed? OR do you see it as just something that has to be lived with?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Peace
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 12:34 AM

Thank you, Doug.

We have come back to what the real problem is for the US I think. As Doug noted, it has to be paid for.

One thing that happened in Canada was a shift to more local medicine. Much of Canada is rural or isolated. In the NWT (part of Canada's frozen North--it's frozen lots, not all the time) we used to have BSNs (bachelor of science in nursing) in every settlement (locations of 60 to a 1000 people). They treat minor stuff, do some sewing when needed, and be on the phone or radio to speak/seek treatment advice/directions from doctors in Yellowknife or Inuvik (or Edmonton, Alberta if necessary). It wasn't perfect, but as with old age, it was better than the alternative. Today, small towns--and we have lots of 'em--have places where people can go to seek help, and yes it's a kinda 'socialist' thing, but it speeds up the service and weeds out some cases wherein the person really needs psych as opposed to medical help. The money to pay for an NHP is there. It's just in the wrong hands.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 16 Aug 09 - 11:49 PM

Peace: Thanks for posting that information from the Emergency Room Physicians group. It is very helpful.

I NEVER said the Emergency Room care was FREE! Obviously, anyone using the emergency room facilities is billed for the service. What I DID say, is that anyone showing up for care at an Emergency Room at a US hospital that receives any form of federal funding, cannot be turned away without being treated.

Only about fifty percent of those who do show up at ER for care pay the bill, though, evidently. The difference in cost, and the amount paid by the patient is offset by the hospital collecting more than cost from privately insured patients.

I see that some of you are already preparing yourselves for the Democrats distancing themselves from a public option, and naturally it's the Republicans fault. I think what happened was the members of Congress went home and got an ear full of what their individual party thought about the public option. Balancing the public option against not being re-elected in 2010 may have been a close call for some of them, but when push came to shove, they are going to choose holding on to their jobs.

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Peace
Date: 16 Aug 09 - 11:27 PM

Commie!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: bobad
Date: 16 Aug 09 - 11:25 PM

The first thing I would want to do is remove the middle man, ie. the insurance industry, from the health care picture, but that's because I live in a Canadian-style Nazi slave state.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Peace
Date: 16 Aug 09 - 11:18 PM

"Everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Aug 09 - 11:10 PM

From that I would conclude the first thing one would want to do would be to cut the salaries of executives and put caps on malpractice insurance.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Peace
Date: 16 Aug 09 - 10:23 PM

"Health care reform: Let the propaganda begin!"

The best article I have read on the current situation. More than worth a read--maybe even two.

Article here.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Amos
Date: 16 Aug 09 - 10:16 PM

"The Los Angeles Times leads with a report on the burgeoning Republican resistance to healthcare reform ? a campaign that's energized the party's base, but about which many party leaders remain deeply ambivalent. The so-called "August revolt," powered by activists' antics at Democratic town-hall meetings, has helped reinvigorate conservative groups; still, some GOP lawmakers are wary of associating themselves with the campaigners' increasingly cartoonish attacks. "The hostility went straight through to hysteria," said South Carolina conservative Rep. Bob Ingliss after being booed down at one recent town-hall. "You cannot build a movement on something that is not credible." " (Slate's 'Today's Papers' feature)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Aug 09 - 08:36 PM

Like Amos said.......

We need a 'poll' that asks "which news media did you GET your fears & worries from?" and

"Do you really think your situation will be better after 10 MORE years of Republican pressure to do nothing, so that their contributors in the drug & insurance industries don't lose a dime?"?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Amos
Date: 16 Aug 09 - 08:25 PM

I am suspicious of current polls in the current situation, in which huge number of high visibility mellerdramatic horrorstories based on complete alterations and downright falsehoods about the reform plan have left a lot of peowple not even knowing what the plan IS or which of the many twists and spins provided by vested interests are true.

Obama's discussion in this morning's New York times should be required reading. The antics of the right in town hall meetings is a national disgrace, and Sarah Palin should be shot for adding fuel to an insane fire.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: pdq
Date: 16 Aug 09 - 08:21 PM

Polls support what?

"Public support for the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats has fallen to a new low as just 42% of U.S. voters now favor the plan. That's down five points from two weeks ago and down eight points from six weeks ago.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that opposition to the plan has increased to 53%, up nine points since late June.

More significantly, 44% of voters strongly oppose the health care reform effort versus 26% who strongly favor it. Intensity has been stronger among opponents of the plan since the debate began.

Sixty-seven percent (67%) of those under 30 favor the plan while 56% of those over 65 are opposed. Among senior citizens, 46% are strongly opposed.

Predictably, 69% of Democrats favor the plan, while 79% of Republicans oppose it. Yet while 44% of Democratic voters strongly favor the reform effort, 70% of GOP voters are strongly opposed to it.

Most notable, however, is the opposition among voters not affiliated with either party. Sixty-two percent (62%) of unaffiliated voters oppose the health care plan, and 51% are strongly opposed. This marks an uptick in strong opposition among both Republicans and unaffiliateds, while the number of strongly supportive Democrats is unchanged."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: heric
Date: 16 Aug 09 - 06:41 PM

Because you can put lipstick on a pig and call it reform. The WHOLE POINT of electing Obama was about doing right by each other. IS. I should have said is.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Aug 09 - 06:10 PM

I blame the American people for allowing themselves to be manipulated like lambs going to the slaughter. Why? All the polls I've seen indicate there's still a solid majority of the public want reform, even if there's a rather noisy minority who are against it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Rumncoke
Date: 16 Aug 09 - 05:26 PM

This Autumn I will get a phone call to attend the local clinic and have a 'flu' jab, along with a lot of other elderly and those who get any 'flu' badly - I've now begun to qualify on both counts rather than just the latter one.

The NHS has a policy of vaccinating those vulnerable to the virus and the system swings into action once the equinox is past.

I have a defunct thyroid so I get all the Thyroxine and blood tests I need, and all other prescriptions are free as well.

Not far away my grandson and his parents are being visited (late on a Sunday evening) by an expert on breastfeeding as he is not getting it right.

He has had all the care he, and his mum, needed since a couple of weeks after conception, and he is now just over two weeks old. He too will be called into the clinic to have his jabs, he will be checked over regularly, have free dentistry, eye tests - doctors whenever his mum thinks he's unwell, free medication as needed.

How US citisens can tolerate the health system they have I do not know nor understand.

How various people have got away with what has been said about the NHS is equally incomprehensible.

Anne Croucher


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: heric
Date: 16 Aug 09 - 04:28 PM

(If indeed it's all sunk) I don't blame Obama but I do blame the Congessional Democratic leadership. (If it's dead) they just squandered the Obama Advantage on the most important thing they could have done.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Maryrrf
Date: 16 Aug 09 - 04:19 PM

I was so hopefull that finally we would get universal access to health care in the United States. It is so long overdue. But now I don't think it's going to happen. And I don't blame Obama. I blame the American people for allowing themselves to be manipulated like lambs going to the slaughter. Ignorance, and an attitude of misplaced individualism that places little value on the good of society as a whole. And in many cases the people who oppose it most vehemently are precisely those who would benefit.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Aug 09 - 03:22 PM

I am afraid... today's paper says that The White House has 'almost' decided to give up on the "public option" in order to get ANYTHING!

THAT will please the private insurance companies...

BAH! (You may quote me)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Aug 09 - 03:16 PM

And providing a nice little earner for private insurance companies...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Aug 09 - 01:40 PM

Oh crap, Greg! That's not the point! The point is that the SYSTEM is overloaded...immigrants are merely one aspect in some areas! The issue is **UNINSURED**, no matter what the source & causes.

We need more & better doctors and a better way to control costs, and immigrants ARE 'one' of those costs. We also need fewer people of ALL types, but you can guess what Republican Shibboleths even hinting at that would stir up.

None of these issues are gonna be even addressed, much less solved, if we don't confront them openly and discuss them in detail.

If you just sweep these issues under the rug and pretend they aren't there, you just end up with a bumpy rug that everyone trips over.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 16 Aug 09 - 01:27 PM

The solution is easy. Tax the rich more. Reduce taxes for middle-class and poor. Take the money out of the hands of defense industry. Regulate the insurance industry. Regulate
Wall Street. Emphasize Preventative Care. (Stop eating Big Macs etc. and stop smoking)

We afford Single Payer but the fat cats are opposed. Their roadblocks are so transparent. Greed, power and money. They want you sick. Then they can refuse you coverage.

Obama just made a fatal deal with Pharma. The insurance rates will now go up.
Do you trust the insurance industry to kick back 80 billion? Maybe if they make five times that amount.

The argument is a red-herring. NH works in every other civilized country in the world.
Who is standing in the way? Guess.

Frank Hamilton


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: heric
Date: 16 Aug 09 - 12:19 PM

Another question: Instead of setting up multiple new government agencies, why isn't this just a discussion about expanding the entitlements to and benefits under Medicaid, and forcing the employed uninsured to pay 8% of their pre-tax salary?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: heric
Date: 16 Aug 09 - 11:55 AM

Instead of an honest discussion about the cost and funding for people who don't have access, today we are into what's in it for me. What's in it for everybody is relegated to a side issue on the safety net for people who fall out of employer provided insurance.

In a good world, people could have honestly discussed how much we can pay for the benefit of those who are not being properly served, and how much of that we are willing to pass off onto our grandchildren.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Aug 09 - 11:53 AM

Columnist Leonard Pitts, Jr. wrote about the recent chaotic townhall meetings and he used a line I like: "With apologies to Franklin Roosevelt, the only thing they have to sell is fear itself. "


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: heric
Date: 16 Aug 09 - 11:27 AM

What a pickle we're in now. Even HHS Secretary Sebelius said Saturday that providing citizens with the option of government-run insurance isn't essential to the Obama adminstration's proposed overhaul of U.S. health care. Obama is directing the charge at health insurance reform. Health CARE reform requires costs containment, but health insurance reform mostly requires mandates which increase the flow of money to the providers. Obama has to make people not fear cost containment, and in his editorial he says don't worry we'll do it by cutting waste and fraud.

People would redirect their own energies to cost containment if they felt the costs, which they don't with employer mandates and low deductible policies, both of which are centerpieces of the proposals.

Health insurance is different than other insurance. It is basically a payment facilitating mechanism with cost sharing.

If abandonment of the 8% solution is about to happen, that's a powerful tool for cost containment lost.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Aug 09 - 07:40 AM

Right you are, Bill. Its those fu$kin'poor illegal immigrants screwing the system up.

Thanks for interjecting another Republican Shibboleth into the discussion.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Alice
Date: 15 Aug 09 - 09:27 PM

PRIVATE hospitals do not have to admit patients who cannot pay if they deem, for example, that a broken leg is not a life threatening emergency. In rural states, like Montana, people often live hundreds of miles away from any kind of hospital.

The only hospital in our area is a privately owned hospital. If you have a broken leg and cannot pay and you are not on Medicare or Medicaid, then they can tell you to try the other privately owned hospitals 150 miles away. Those hospitals don't have to take you either, if your problem is not life threatening. One of them, in Billings, is a Catholic hospital that does tend to be more charitable. The hospital here and the second hospital in Billings are Lutheran non-profits, private hospitals, and are not as charitable.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Peace
Date: 15 Aug 09 - 09:02 PM

What do war, Congressmen, Senators, and the defense/offense industry have in common? The answer, if you haven't already guessed is "profits."

Conflict makes money for the military industrial complex, and the cronies they place in Congress, the Senate, and the White House.

An investigation by Ralph Forbes from American Free press reported on May 05, 2008 that more than a quarter of US senators and congressmen have invested at least $196 million of their own money in companies doing business with the Department of Defense (DoD) that profit from the death and destruction in Iraq [1].

The report also edifies that 151 members of congress invested close to a quarter-billion dollars in companies that received defense contracts of at least $5 million in 2006. These companies got more than 275.6 billion from the government in 2006, or $755 million per day, according to Fedspending.org [2]. In 2004, the first full year after the current Iraq war began, Republican and Democratic lawmakers-both hawks and doves invested between $74.9 million and 161.3 million in companies under contract with the DoD [1]. No wonder the Democratic congress kept approving the enormous spending bills on the war, since a significant portion of it happens to end up in their deep pockets.

The report elucidates further that investments in these contractors yielded Congress members between $15.8 million and $62 million in personal income from 2004 to 2006, through dividends, capital gains, royalties, and interest [1]. Certainly, as the war went on and escalated, so did the increase in profits.

Interestingly, the report also mentioned that members of the senate foreign relations and armed services committees which oversee the Iraq war had between $32 million and $44 million invested in companies with DoD contracts. Per example, war hawk Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), chairman of the defense-related Senate Homeland security and Governmental Affairs Committee, had at least $51,000 invested in these companies in 2006. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), who voted for Bush's war, had stock in defense companies such as Honeywell, Boeing and Raytheon, but sold them in May 2007. [1].


from

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?aid=8920&context=va


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Peace
Date: 15 Aug 09 - 08:50 PM

congressmen who own pharmaceutical stocks


Google that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Aug 09 - 08:27 PM

It may vary from state to state...and even within one state. I have NOT looked up the details for Maryland.

This hospital, the nearest one to me, has struggled with its committment to emergency treatment for years. You cannot find on the website any direct statement of whatever actual law it operates under...just 'suggestions' about applying for free or reduced cost care.
I do know they had to restrict emergency obstetric care recently, as they were simply inundated.


Here is a Wash Post article from 2006
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/30/AR2006063001871.html

from this sire
"Hospitals are affected too, mostly as poor immigrants without health insurance show up in emergency rooms, accounting for much of the traffic at such places as Holy Cross Hospital in Silver Spring."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: bobad
Date: 15 Aug 09 - 07:44 PM

Further to Peace's post:

Hospitals have three obligations under EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act)

   1. Individuals requesting emergency care, or those for whom a representative has made a request if the patient is unable, must receive a medical screening examination to determine whether an emergency medical condition (EMC) exists. Examination and treatment cannot be delayed to inquire about methods of payment or insurance coverage, or a patient's citizenship or legal status. The hospital may only start the process of payment inquiry and billing once the patient has been stabilized to a degree that the process will not interfere with or otherwise compromise patient care.
   2. The emergency room (or other better equipped units within the hospital) must treat an individual with an EMC until the condition is resolved or stabilized and the patient is able to provide self-care following discharge, or if unable, can receive needed continual care. Inpatient care provided must be at an equal level for all patients, regardless of ability to pay. Hospitals may not discharge a patient prior to stabilization if the patient's insurance is canceled or otherwise discontinues payment during course of stay.
   3. If the hospital does not have the capability to treat the condition, the hospital must make an "appropriate" transfer of the patient to another hospital with such capability. This includes a long-term care or rehabilitation facilities for patients unable to provide self-care. Hospitals with specialized capabilities must accept such transfers and may not discharge a patient until the condition is resolved and the patient is able to provide self-care or is transferred to another facility.

Wikipedia


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Aug 09 - 07:43 PM

Incidentally, in the UK, even if you have insurance (I used to) and you obtain a referral to the insurers' OWN hospital, the hospital will seek to have you agree to pay if the insurer declines cover. I caused much annoyance when I refused to agree to that in a BUPA hospital, and sat in the waiting room amending their standard terms so that they agreed that they would bill their owners, the insurers, and not me.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Alice
Date: 15 Aug 09 - 07:41 PM

Here is a doctor who writes that people who do not care for themselves "are people who really don't deserve health care reform".
Do some patients not deserve health care reform? Aug 6, 2009


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Peace
Date: 15 Aug 09 - 07:18 PM

Re. ER care from the American College of Emergency Physicians.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Alice
Date: 15 Aug 09 - 07:11 PM

I have to correct a misconception that people have about emergency rooms and care in the US.

I have had to go to the emergency room for myself and my son over the last 20 years with things like broken bones, chest pain, etc., when we had no health insurance. There is only one hospital here. The DO NOT have to admit us - they demand first that I guarantee with a credit card or some other statement that I sign that I will pay all the costs. The costs are NOT discounted. They DO NOT treat you for free or even have to admit you if you do not have insurance or enough money or credit to pay. People on the right have been lied to about this and they believe that "everyone can get care" at the emergency room. WRONG!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
Next Page

 


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.



Mudcat time: 12 April 9:12 AM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.