The President wants to have a health care program in place and
passed before the end of the year:rolleyes: That leaves 6 months, excluding
congressional vacation over the summer to come up with an equitable, cost
efficient program estimated to cost ANOTHER Trillion dollars!!

He said today, he was asking for public input, but what are the specifics and when will we get them. Like you want to be thinking about health care over the summer when you finally have sometime not to think of the economic mess we are in.
Emergency, Emergency.

Common sense says an undertaking like that should be formulated gradually over a period of years, and in imho shouldn't even be considered until the
economy is sound and completely back on it's feet.

Another trillion $$$$. I bet you 3/4 of congress still doesn't even know what's
in the stimulus package, except for maybe the 640 Billion he stuck in there for health care that had nothing to do with stimulus. :(

What comes after a trillion?

What comes after a trillion?

I'm sure by the end of Obama's 1st term, whatever that number is, it will be common knowledge.
"the national debt is now 4 Gazillion, Bazillion dollars"

Common sense says an undertaking like that should be formulated gradually over a period of years, and in imho shouldn't even be considered until the economy is sound and completely back on it's feet.
We haven't seen a plan so it may be too early to say how rapid they will propose to enact change. That being said, a large system of 300+ Million people can only change so quickly. I'd be surprised if this wasn't a multi-year proposal.

As for the part about the economy, that doesn't make a lot of sense. The looming health care problem is bigger in $$$ terms than any pressing issue we face, and I'm not sure there is a free market solution. Waiting 2-5 years for the economy to recover could very well put the solution out of reach, if it isn't already.

I was a bit surprised Obama flipped on taxing health benefits after making it a campaign issue. While this would look to be a progressive tax, it's certainly going to get some serious opposition and is a looser from a PR perspective.

-spence

[QUOTE=spence;69295

Waiting 2-5 years for the economy to recover could very well put the solution out of reach, if it isn't already.
-spence[/QUOTE]



Then so be it, if we can't afford it now then it's not the time to do it.
It's this credit card mentality that has been a big part of getting us into this financial mess in the first place.

Then so be it, if we can't afford it now then it's not the time to do it.
It's this credit card mentality that has been a big part of getting us into this financial mess in the first place.
The problem isn't even really about affordability, it is about priority and solution.

We can't afford not to address this issue. It's like a leak eroding the foundation of your house.

-spence

One thing that makes me nervous, too many liberals think this

I'm not sure there is a free market solution.
-spence

What do you propose? Complete government control? I'm curious on your response, if Capitalism (free market) can't fix it, do you honestly believe that Socialism (government control) can fix it?

What do you propose? Complete government control? I'm curious on your response, if Capitalism (free market) can't fix it, do you honestly believe that Socialism (government control) can fix it?

While at the moment I don't know nearly enough about any proposed health care reform, I don't believe a capitalistic approach can resolve all situations.

Can a government controlled solution work? A quick look at Social Security and Welfare can answer that question.

A purely capitalistic approach is what has brought us to the insane costs of health care that currently exist. Capitalism is what brought the banks down - it is certainly not the supreme method of resolving financial issues. Some? yes... all? no.

I would be curious though at how effective the Canadian and UK health care systems are.

A purely capitalistic approach is what has brought us to the insane costs of health care that currently exist.

I would be curious though at how effective the Canadian and UK health care systems are.

Johhny,
A huge part of the crazy cost of healthcare is malpractice insurance for doctors. These costs have to be passed on to patients by doctors and hospitals. I know you work or worked in the medical field, so you must have some knowledge about this. Many of the best doctors coming out of medical schools now go into research because it's almost financially impossible to go into private practice and make a living while paying off student loans. That's why you see so many doctors trained outside of the US practicing medicine here.

I'm not sure about Europe, but many Canadians who need major surgeries come to the US because the Canadian healthcare system is not on par with what we have here. Also, the waits in emergency rooms in Canada make the emergency room waits in the US seem like they go by in the blink of an eye.

For anyone that doesn't understand how rationed healthcare works, here is a 1-minute demonstration.

The da Vinci system is a robotic system used for MIS, minimally invasive surgery. It is cutting-edge medicine for such surgeries as prostate surgery.

Use the Surgery Finder (linked at source URL) as follows:

1. Go to the URL. Click on the radio button that says "Hospitals".

2. From the "International" drop down list, select "Canada" and click the blue arrow.

You will notice that there are 9 hospitals that have the da Vinci system; with Canada's population of 33 million, that means that the ratio is 1 system per 3.67 million population.

Back up, and instead of choosing "Canada" choose your state - in my case, I live in PA. Get the results again.

In the state of PA, there are 30; but since one is a VA Hospital, let's say there are 29 hospitals with the da Vinci system.

That means that there is 1 system for every 420,000 people in the state.

Los Angeles County has more Da Vincis than all of Canada.




The best argument against canadacare would be the fact that a Canadian MP, Belinda Caroline Stronach, went to California for cancer treatment.



For Prostatectomies, there are 2 surgeons listed in Canada. There are 6 in UTAH.


There are more MRI machines in Philadelphia than in Canada.



All Americans need to know is that every British and Canadian politician who runs for office claims, "I will reduce hospital and medical wait times".
Having to wait 18 months for surgery (If it's allowed by the National Service) will be quite a shock for Americans.


Anyone who thinks Canada is a good model for healthcare needs to visit a hospital in a border state.
You don't even need to go in....just cruise the parking lot, counting Canadian license plates. 'Nuff said.

But Obama will figure it out...HE's AN EXPERT! or maybe he'll dish it to his wife who has the all hospital experience....diversity coordinator???:rotf2::rotf2:...$300,000...no wonder medical care is so expensive with high paying no-show useless jobs like that!


I like this one..."Capitalism is what brought the banks down" :rotf2:

We can't afford not to address this issue. It's like a leak eroding the foundation of your house.

-spence

I agree it has to be addressed but a quick patch of sand to fix the foundation
will just lead to more problems. I worked in the medical field for 34 years
and have seen the problems develop.

Like FB said, a large part is due to high malpractice insurance $$$ but also new technology.
Twenty years ago if you went to the Doc with a stomach ache he would RX some Mylanta and send you home. Now because he is afraid of malpractice
he'll order an ultrasound, maybe an upper GI or CAT scan or whatever. $$$$$$$

First, before anything ,we need strict TORT reform. Won't happen though, as 90% of Congress is made up of lawyers.

Government could help with some regulations, but if it takes over health care it will be a disaster making medicare and social security look like a well oiled machine.
A quick fix, emergency, emergency as played out in Obama's first 5 months is not what we need. Haste makes waste.

i have decided that my ability to feel what's going on
inside my own Body is a better assessment of my health
than a Doctors 5 minute opinion and corresponding
pill recommendation.

FB is right on the malpractice and also the costs of Drs. ordering many unnessary tests to protect themselves from suits.


Check out this link for a long article in the New Yorker for another reason.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande?printable=true

Johhny,
A huge part of the crazy cost of healthcare is malpractice insurance for doctors. These costs have to be passed on to patients by doctors and hospitals. I know you work or worked in the medical field, so you must have some knowledge about this. Many of the best doctors coming out of medical schools now go into research because it's almost financially impossible to go into private practice and make a living while paying off student loans. That's why you see so many doctors trained outside of the US practicing medicine here.

On the other hand, an entire industry has been created helping American patient's travel to other countries for medical operations because the costs in the US are too high.

You are absolutely right that malpractice suits and the cost of insurance are a huge issue for doctors. Another part is the ridiculous price of pharmaceuticals.

Limitations need to be put into place with regards to malpractice suits and doctor liability. The slightest mistake and the doctors are found guilty and ordered to pay insane fines, where as only gross negligence should make them liable for amounts over $125k.

You are absolutely right that malpractice suits and the cost of insurance are a huge issue for doctors. Another part is the ridiculous price of pharmaceuticals.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Cost of pharmaceuticals is a 2 edge sword that most don't want to see.

On one hand people look at the price and say "you have to be kidding me" not
realizing the cost effectiveness of keeping them out of the hospital and increasing their quality of life and reducing mortality.

They are expensive and people don't want to pay $5 or $10 a day but are willing to pay $7.50 a day for a pack of cigs or who knows how much for booze or illegal drugs that are killing them.

These drugs are very costly to discover, research, do clinical trials and get FDA approval. Pharm will not be willing to develop new life saving drugs if we go with a government controlled health care program.
Pfizer has already discontinued their cardiovascular research as they see the handwriting on the wall. So the new and best pharmaceuticals in the world will certainly become few and far between.

That leaves generics of existing drugs as a mainstay, which many will be manufactured by companies that do nothing to improve health care or provde the quality drugs made by the large Pharms.

The FDA used to issue The Green Sheet which showed drug recalls each month.
In almost every case the FDA inspections initiated the recalls for the generic companies where as the Pharmaceutical Companies would initiate recalls on their own before inspection. There aren't enough FDA Inspectors in the world to inspect every batch of generic drugs coming off the line.

Government controlled health care will take the best medicine in the world and at the very least make it mediocre.

it already has everywhere but here....so far...we'll get there...soon...

Back in the 1960s, Claude Castonguay chaired a Canadian government committee studying health reform and recommended that his home province of Quebec — then the largest and most affluent in the country — adopt government-administered health care, covering all citizens through tax levies.
Four decades later, as the chairman of a government committee reviewing Quebec health care this year, Castonguay concluded that the system is in "crisis."-
"We thought we could resolve the system's problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it," says Castonguay. But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: "We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice." these are extraordinary views, especially coming from Castonguay. It's as if John Maynard Keynes, resting on his British death bed in 1946, had declared that his faith in government interventionism was misplaced. IBD

In 2006, a Canadian court threatened to shut down one private clinic because it was planning to start accepting private payments from patients. According to The New York Times, although privately funded clinics are illegal in Canada, many clinics are opening anyway, because patients don’t like the long waiting lists in the government system.

In a 2007 interview on ABC News, Professor Regina Herzlinger of Harvard Business School said, “Many clinics all across Canada are illegal for-profit… They know they can’t get the health care they need from the legal system, so they’re complicit in creating an illegal system that’ll give them what they need.”


Americans have been conditioned to believe that someone else should provide a magic card that they can flash at any doctor, hospital, dentist, optometrist etc.. and recieve whatever they are in need of...for free...for life...this is insane...

Cost of pharmaceuticals is a 2 edge sword that most don't want to see.

How about the doctors I know personally that have been fired from their jobs because they wouldn't sign off on new drugs because he (and the pharma companies) knew the drugs were unsafe for the public?

Big pharma has more skeletons in the closet than the public will ever know about. The corruption, lobbying and back-alley deals are more than can be discussed here.

Some cancer medications can cost up to $17,000/month.

if you get the chance check out the PBS Documentary "Sick Around the World"

they explore the various alternatives already in practice around the world..the top two they determined were Taiwan and Switzerland....Taiwan was engaged in huge deficit spending to keep theirs afloat because the politicians refused to tell the public they had to pony up more to support the system for fear of being booted from office, my favorite quote regarding Taiwan was when an administrator was asked how they handle people that "overuse " the system..it was explained that they "go to their house or call them in and have a little talk with them";)...Switzerland was dealing with a population of only 7 million people...Germany and Japan were also near the top of the list..

Most comparisons to other countries appear to be fear mongering for the most part. While you certainly hear the horror stories you rarely hear the positives, and speaking with many people in other countries over the years they're often very satisfied with their health care.

Besides, the US is a unique country and as such any health care reforms will probably not look exactly like a EU or Canadian model.

Most people have dramatically different views on this subject whether they have insurance or not. I know my father certainly had his eyes opened when his work sponsored retirement health care was cut and he they had to go on Medicare.

I agree that TORT reform is needed, and liked John Kerry's 2004 campaign idea to get malpractice cases into Federal courts. People complain about malpractice but remember the big corporations have used malpractice to snuff out the neighborhood doctor. Join my HMO or else :rtfm:

The simple fact is that living under a system where so many people have insurance (or taxpayer funded insurance) has allowed the system get incredibly expensive, without any incentive to streamline...and we have an aging population that's consuming a disproportionate amount of the services...and the AARP is a very big voting block.

I'm not for single payer systems, but I also recognize there's plenty of money in the system to improve it. The path we're currently on isn't sustainable even for those with good insurance.

-spence

Most comparisons to other countries appear to be fear mongering for the most part. While you certainly hear the horror stories you rarely hear the positives, and speaking with many people in other countries over the years they're often very satisfied with their health care.
-spence

fear mongering

appear to whom?

WHERE IS YOUR PROOF

how many people Spence? which countries?

...I've talked to many Americans and haven't talked to anyone yet who is unsatisfied with their healthcare...

you can cite occasional horror stories from the American healthcare system but rarely hear the positives....

seems to me we went through an entire presidential campaign and the only stories cited were both bogus...one brought up in a primary debate by Edwards about a denial of care in Cali. that turned up to be a very premature report of the facts and was never heard from again as well as the whopper that Hillary was running with that she supposedly heard and was repeating on the trail that turned out to also be false....this is not about providing healthcare for every American, they already get it if they need it(and the illegals too) this is about the government taking over and controlling a sector that represents 17% of GDP...this is a WHOLESALE CHANGE...not simply tinkering to improve what is the best and most advanced healthcare system in the world and assured to be a disaster on the scale of all the other social programs begun under the same auspices that now have us 65 trillion in the red in unfunded obligations...
it doesn't matter whether the world's citizens say they are satisfied or not...it's all that they know for the most part...who do they complain to, they have no options once govt. takes over? their systems by and large are unsustainable and collapsing and rationing has begun....do some reading Canada, Greece, England, Spain, France and on and on...better yet, look at the US states that began their own little versions of socialized medicine and the strain on their budgets....

two of the best supposedly

The Japanese healthcare system
The issue is to solve the "tragedy of the commons" without making another

The Japanese medical insurance system has a unique combination of characteristics that has led to the overuse of tests and drugs, unconstrained demand from patients, and an explosion of costs. Unless the system of medical insurance and reimbursement of healthcare providers changes, the combination of increasing technological advances, an ageing population, and unconstrained demand will produce a crisis in Japanese health care. Japan is only belatedly waking up to this crisis.

Is the German healthcare system setting the right incentives to provide the best patient care?
Posted by eucomed on 29/05/09

An exclusive roundtable hosted by Johnson & Johnson during this year’s Hauptstadtkongress debated the question whether the current healthcare system in Germany should compromise between the need to standardize treatments due to scarce resources and increasingly informed patients demanding the best treatment possible. Although panelists agreed that Germany may be leading in terms of standards of treatment when compared with similar sized systems across Europe the group felt there was still room for improvement.

Rolf Koschorek, member of the German Parliament, made the point that the uptake of innovations could be faster. This would help ensure patient access to the best treatment possible. Professor Carsten Perka of renowned university hospital Charité made clear that price is currently the decision-making driver in hospitals. Perka believes that price of products is not the main thing that hospitals and healthcare systems should be concerned about. As long as physicians continue to be measured based on cost per patient treatment (and product) other crucial aspects that might ultimately benefit the patient such as physician training will fall short. A shame, really, isn’t it?

Almost a month now since Obama promised Health Care reform info on plans so
the public could have input. :huh:

All that apply for Government Health Care, and are not working, should have the same rules that apply to those seeking Unemployment.
-- Ongoing prove where they are seeking work.

Being many American workers are required to take random drug tests in order to work, and therefore pay taxes,
it should be the same rule for Government Health Care applicants, take random drug tests to get and keep the insurance.

Seems only fair, but it's probably not PC.

Being many American workers are required to take random drug tests in order to work, and therefore pay taxes,
it should be the same rule for Government Health Care applicants, take random drug tests to get and keep the insurance.

Seems only fair, but it's probably not PC.

West Virgina is working on (or has passed, I can't remember) a law requiring any person taking state assistance to agree to random drug testing.

A policy like that needs to be nation-wide. I'm tired of paying for some sh*tbum to sit at home and smoke crack all day while hard-working people work their tail off in hopes of keeping their job.

Drive down Blue Hills Ave. in Mattapan any day during the week and it's like a Sunday afternoon with all the people sitting on their porches drinking from paperbags or walking around the streets. The same could be said for 90% of people in the City of Springfield.

I can't imagine a policy like that would fly in a hard Left state like MA though.

West Virgina is working on (or has passed, I can't remember) a law requiring any person taking state assistance to agree to random drug testing.

A policy like that needs to be nation-wide. I'm tired of paying for some sh*tbum to sit at home and smoke crack all day while hard-working people work their tail off in hopes of keeping their job.

I can't imagine a policy like that would fly in a hard Left state like MA though.



Being it would be a Federal program, it could become a plan requirement and
should be, illegal drug abuse is a costly health problem.

Being it would be a Federal program, it could become a plan requirement and
should be, illegal drug abuse is a costly health problem.

Exactly. A government that will fine tobacco agencies for public health costs should also protect *my* interests by testing people on public assistance for drugs - because of the public health costs of course. The government has to justify policies like that as them protecting people from themselves.

We all use drugs, it's the Feds and lobbyist money that decide which are legal

Pretty interesting, just returned from a Town Hall Meeting with my Congressman on Health-Care.

Main concerns from the people were, afraid company plans will fold and leave it all up to the government plan with no choice, the speed at which this plan is being pushed on us, and where the money is coming from to pay for it in this economy debacle.

A poll was taken on:
Are you willing to have your taxes increased to pay for it?
Are you willing to pay an extra $1000/yr ?
Are you willing to pay an extra $2500/yr ?
Are you willing to pay an extra $4000/yr ?

70% said they were unwilling to have a tax increase to pay for it.

People are starting to wake up to the fact this is going ahead way to fast, questioning what quality of care they will get compared to private plans , and howand where the $$$ are coming from to pay for it.

that our PCP PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIAN

is booked thru the middle of 2010 already
for physicals. :hs:

McDonald's, Wendy's, Burger King, KFC - They're profiting off contributing to heart disease and diabetes while not offering health care to most of their employees. This is where many of the 50 million without health care are working. The uninsured eventually get sick and the taxpayers pick up the bill. The profits and the jobs are outweighed by the social liabilities they incur. So F-them - they're one click above tobacco companies.

McDonald's, Wendy's, Burger King, KFC - They're profiting off contributing to heart disease and diabetes while not offering health care to most of their employees. This is where many of the 50 million without health care are working. The uninsured eventually get sick and the taxpayers pick up the bill. The profits and the jobs are outweighed by the social liabilities they incur. So F-them - they're one click above tobacco companies.

I'm not going to defend fast food joints, but what does the employee without health insurance have to do with the customer eating the unhealthy food?

Don't most people who eat a lot of fast food know the health risks associated with it? Smokers know that what they do is most likely going to eventually kill them. The fat guy chowing down on a 6,000 calorie meal at McD's probably realizes that it's not so good for him when he's breaking a sweat while tring to button his pants.

If people took responsibility for their own actions instead of blaming the companies that provide the products, there wouldn't be so many health problems. As a society, we've given people too many excuses and they feel like they can do whatever they want and blame someone else.

Freedom. Choice. Personal Responsibilty. How's all this working out with respect to the healthcare crisis?

What about "Promote The General Welfare?" That is widely interpretted as to work together for the common good.

The fast food industry is contributing to the health crisis on two-fold front: By not insuring employees who in turn become a burden on the health system, while producing a harmful product to society. The fast food industry is clearly detrimental to the common good.

Freedom. Choice. Personal Responsibilty. How's all this working out with respect to the healthcare crisis?

What about "Promote The General Welfare?" That is widely interpretted as to work together for the common good.

The fast food industry is contributing to the health crisis on two-fold front: By not insuring employees who in turn become a burden on the health system, while producing a harmful product to society. The fast food industry is clearly detrimental to the common good.


Are you advocating putting them all out of business? That's a great idea.:smash: Then, the former employees can all go work for convenience stores for minimum wage. Oops, have to close them too because they sell tobacco products. How about supermarkets? Sorry, they sell unhealthy food and cigarettes. Liquor store? How about Walmart? Where do you want to end? Are you going to hire all these people to come and work for you making t-shirts? Will you provide them with a decent wage and benefits?

Think about the people who work at fast food restaurants and retail stores. Most of the employees are younger and work part-time. They don't need health insurance because they are covered by their parents. Many of the older ones have a spouse who has insurance or are on a program like Rite Care. They don't have to go without insurance in most cases. Don't blame an industry for the countries problems.

If your argument is just that the food is unhealthy, you're right. But there are alternatives for people. No one is forced to go to a fast food restaurant. Just like no one is forced to smoke or drink or do drugs. Clearly many people don't want to take personal responsibility for their own actions or their health.

Good luck to you if you feel that the governement is best equipped to decide what's best for you and your family when it comes to your health.

I'm not advocating putting them out of business, but I don't think you can have a discussion about health care without incorporating the causes.
I don't want them slobbering grease over my tee shirts. Plus I've noticed a lot 2X & 3X sizes going out the door - that can't be good for my customers. Fat fishermen dropping dead from heart attacks don't come back in the fall to buy a hoodie.

I'm not advocating putting them out of business, but I don't think you can have a discussion about health care without incorporating the causes.
I don't want them slobbering grease over my tee shirts. Plus I've noticed a lot 2X & 3X sizes going out the door - that can't be good for my customers. Fat fishermen dropping dead from heart attacks don't come back in the fall to buy a hoodie.

There are just way too many causes nowadays. Also, people just don't care about their health as much because they are raised to be selfish gluttons. It's o.k. in society to be fat and out of shape. There will always be someone there to tell you that you look great.

People have to decide that they want to live a healthy lifestyle. Most private pay health plans incorporate incentives for people to get in and stay in good shape. My company's plan offers money off gym memberships for employees. Wanna guess how many people take advantage of it? Out of 85 people in our BCBS plans, 4 people use the fitness reimbursement (and that includes me).

Now I see your agenda against fast food. If one of your customers dies from a heart attack, you lose sales. If you can keep em' healthy and alive, you get repeat business. It's harder to get new customers than it is to keep current customers, correct?

Well, I have a great idea for you, Joe. "Fish Hard, Live Short" tee's with a picture of a cheeseburger on the front. Only sell them in double and triple XL and charge a premium. For the rest of your customers, start selling "Fish Hard, Live Long" Muscle shirts for men and sports bras for women. It's a win-win situation for you.

McDonald's, Wendy's, Burger King, KFC - They're profiting off contributing to heart disease and diabetes while not offering health care to most of their employees. This is where many of the 50 million without health care are working. The uninsured eventually get sick and the taxpayers pick up the bill. The profits and the jobs are outweighed by the social liabilities they incur. So F-them - they're one click above tobacco companies.

This isn't an issue about Fast Food joints making people fat. It's an issue of fat people making themselves fatter.

In this day, there is no scarcity of evidence that fast food in excess is terrible for you. That going to any of the above mentioned locations for meals regularly is putting you on the fast track to heart disease.

However, people need to take responsibility for their own actions. People know the food is bad for them. For example, I was at a Wendy's once and the guy in line in front of me was easily tipping 300+ on the scale. He ordered 2 large-sized Value Meals, then asked for a diet coke with each. After laughing about the diet coke, I assumed he was ordering for someone else. Until he sat down with both and finished them within 5 minutes.

I don't need the government to tell me what's good for me, and what's not good for me. All I need is the government to regulate companies so that they cannot be deceitful as to the contents of their food. *Then* I can make decisions for myself.

This is like the person who successfully sued McDonald's after she spilled coffee on herself because it was too hot.

I don't need the government to tell me what's good for me, and what's not good for me.

:agree: But big government is going to tell a lot of us what we can and cannot
do when Health-Care is approved.

The Pentagon is already saying that military personnel should not be allowed
to smoke. Like that is dangerous compared to training for battle and being
in an active military zone.

Where is the freedom of choice?

The Pentagon is already saying that military personnel should not be allowed
to smoke. Like that is dangerous compared to training for battle and being
in an active military zone.

Where is the freedom of choice?

Could be when you consider the respiratory ramifications that come with smoking and the decreased oxygen uptake capable by the lungs. I'd prefer our soldiers to be of the utmost physical capabilities and smoking with prevent that.

Not to mention that the military is their employer and pays the bills for their medical. Employers are being allowed to discriminate against smokers, why should the military?

There is no freedom of choice in the military.

My father was a lifer in the Navy. He saw some bad stuff even in peacetime - lots of training deaths and severe injuries.
There's a big tobacco culture in the military, it's going to be a tough one to break. I think if you can serve, you should be able to have a beer and some cigarettes regardless of your age, or whether or not it pisses off the Muslim population.
The Pentagon should concentrate on making sure all humvees are armored and that each serviceman has adequate body armor before dictating lifestye.
Let the military provide services to help vets quit after their tours are over if, they're still alive - active servicemen have more immediate concerns.

I agree, Joe. If a guy who volunteers to go overseas and protect me and my family from people who want us all dead decides he wants to smoke a cigarette, by all means smoke up buddy! Any little enjoyment they can get while out on the front lines is o.k. by me. They have the most important job I can think of.

Employers are being allowed to discriminate against smokers, why should the military?



JD, correct me if I'm wrong, but i thought employers required their employees to smoke outside, not require them to quit?

Joe i agree. While I'm not a smoker, i believe that as an American putting your life on the line for your country you should have the choice.

If employees of the military are not allowed to smoke for health reasons, then people signing up for Govt. Health Care shouldn't be allowed either for the same reason.

The Govt. taking away choices, with the coming of Health-Care, and deciding what is good for you ,is just beginning.


Make sure you wear your mittens in the winter. ;)

JD, correct me if I'm wrong, but i thought employers required their employees to smoke outside, not require them to quit?
An employer can fire you for just about anything, as long as it is not directly related to you being in a protected class. In Massachusetts, if they fire you within 90 days of being hired, an employer can fire someone without having to worry about paying for Unemployment benefits.

Here's a story from 2006. Nothing has changed since then:
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/9959391/detail.html

If employees of the military are not allowed to smoke for health reasons, then people signing up for Govt. Health Care shouldn't be allowed either for the same reason.
I completely agree. I don't care what people do in their private lives, until it affects my wallet or quality of life. Now, considering the long-term health care costs for smokers, people smoking in the military or any other government job is costing me money in increased health insurance costs for those people.

And I still believe soldiers smoking can become a possible risk due to respiratory issues.

An employer can fire you for just about anything, as long as it is not directly related to you being in a protected class. In Massachusetts, if they fire you within 90 days of being hired, an employer can fire someone without having to worry about paying for Unemployment benefits.


The 90 day period is called "Employment at Will" and it's true that an employer can terminate an employee for any reason or no reason at all during that period. But, a person can still be eligible for unemployment benefits. The first 90 days is for all intents and purposes a "probationary period". If someone leaves a job for a new one and then gets laid off by the new employer after 60 days, they can collect unemployment benefits.

The smoking thing is becoming more popular with employers, especially cities and towns. Firefighters in many towns aren't allowed to smoke because being exposed to toxic substances and smoke as part of someone's job raises the risk of lung disease. Insurance for risky jobs is more costly than insurance for some lazy goof sitting at a desk visiting fishing forums all day.

If someone leaves a job for a new one and then gets laid off by the new employer after 60 days, they can collect unemployment benefits.

This is the only part I think you are off on. My understanding of the law is if a person *leaves* their job, they are not eligible for unemployment from that employer in the future. Also, if they are laid off by their next employer within 90 days, the new employer is not on the hook for the unemployment either.

I have won 3 different unemployment appeals based on the above experience.
One said "I'm outta here. I don't have to take this," when a customer complaint was brought to his attention. I told him fine, I accept your resignation, at which point he tried to double back. The arbitrator stated his exclamation was essentially an "I quit".
Second was for a person rightfully fired within 90 days. I had proof he had stolen something and the arbitrator basically said it didn't matter because he was a probationary employee.
Third, the person quit their job with us for another job, was then fired 30 days later from that job and tried to file for unemployment from us. Arbitrator stated that because he quit, he wasn't eligible.

Now, that is all from an employer's standpoint. A person very well may be able to collect unemployment benefits if they leave a job and then are laid off after 60 days. But I know neither of those two employers are liable to pay for it.

Johhny, I'm about 99.9% sure on this since it's my job to be sure about it. Check the Mass DOL website. I terminated a manager after 7 weeks on the job and he was able to collect unemployment from our account. It was a percentage of what he got and the rest came from the "balancing account". The balancing account is just what they call the pool of money collected from all employers for unemployment insurance. So even when a company is not the chargeable employer, they really are still paying a small amount into it.

Did you appeal it?

My appeal came at the advice of our lawyer and resulted with a decision in our favor.

However, this wouldn't be the first time MA DOL made a decision that went against current regulations. So maybe I just lucked out. I do know that I never paid an additional cent for it.

Did you appeal it?

My appeal came at the advice of our lawyer and resulted with a decision in our favor.

However, this wouldn't be the first time MA DOL made a decision that went against current regulations. So maybe I just lucked out. I do know that I never paid an additional cent for it.

I called someone at DOL and they said it was unlikely it would get reversed because it the termination was not for "disqualifying reasons". I don't really have the time to go to appeals anymore and when I send Mangers or Operations Managers, they usually lose because they don't know what to say.

I called someone at DOL and they said it was unlikely it would get reversed because it the termination was not for "disqualifying reasons". I don't really have the time to go to appeals anymore and when I send Mangers or Operations Managers, they usually lose because they don't know what to say.

Makes sense. Even my business partner was somewhat useless at one of the meetings and initially, I wasn't going to go. A good thing I had gone because I'm sure we wouldn't have won the decision.

The only reason any other country's medical systems still work is because of the US medical system and profitable research. If the US goes to a government-controlled system, research will die, and so will billions around the world.

0bamacare may appear to be a decent short-term solution 9if you are a commie) but it is certainly not a long term solution.

the 19 TRILLION price tag isn't doable either unless capitalism is crushed.

The only reason any other country's medical systems still work is because of the US medical system and profitable research. If the US goes to a government-controlled system, research will die, and so will billions around the world.

0bamacare may appear to be a decent short-term solution 9if you are a commie) but it is certainly not a long term solution.

the 19 TRILLION price tag isn't doable either unless capitalism is crushed.

What part imagination land did you get your "facts" from?

Looks like the Congressional Budget Office disagrees with Obama's costs
saying the current plans would add to the nation's long term Health Care costs rather than reduce them.

A bi-partisan group of Governors are not to happy saying the plan would call on their state Medicare plans to pick up 30% of the costs.

I wish something like this was being handled by a more bipartisan Congress.

we have a super computer
or two...

why are they not being used ?

to help us Mortals... with these grand decisions

I wish something like this was being handled by a more bipartisan Congress.

I agree JD.
This is a far reaching issue that deserves a well thought out program rather than
a one party push for political reasons.

These Programs keep growing in time until there is nothing left to fund them.

Pushing 30% of the cost of Health Care on the States, a plan originally meant to
help women with children making less then $10,000/yr, is a typical example of how these programs grow.

Meantime, the Social Security Program, the biggest Ponzi Scheme ever put over
on the American People, has grown close to extinction.

Super computers, don't get votes, Rav. :)

If Obamacare comes to be, how long before the government starts to dictate the other parts of our lives ?

You can't smoke (it is hazardous to your health).

You can't drink alcohol (it hurts your liver).

You are overweight, so no more McDonalds

No more fossil fuel powered vehicles

no more,no more......

Let's hope this hits a wall.

I do agree that healthcare costs are spiraling out of control. But Obamacare isn't the solution.

How about we DO AWAY with ambulance chasers who advertise on TV...

Limiting these types of law suits would go a long way in making health care more affordable IMHO.

The problem isn't in the foundation of the health care system. It's a broken implementation at the state level.

What's the difference if people are getting government subsidized health care or the current system where the feds pay a hospital direct for taking care of people without health care?

preservatives and additives have created poor health in this country..... we call the USA

We have the highest level of agriculture
and yet the lowest level of Nutritional health
with our citizens ....

health care:

it didn't get done during the Clinton Administration
or the Bush Administration

So i don't expect it to get done now........
going on vacation is much more important.

I do agree that healthcare costs are spiraling out of control. But Obamacare isn't the solution.

How about we DO AWAY with ambulance chasers who advertise on TV...

Limiting these types of law suits would go a long way in making health care more affordable IMHO.

Bingo Mac, pass Tort reform to limit malpractice law suites which will
eliminate unnecessary medical tests and reduce the cost of medical malpractice insurance and you'll lower medical costs immediately.

JD, if i am reading your question right, here in lies the rub.

We don't know what is in the current bill so we can't compare the cost
of the two. Which is the least costly, what is the scope of the plan, how
will we pay for the plan, what will be the effect on current private plans,
will companies do away with their plans to their employees?

We were promised transparency and yet the only thing we
have to go on is Obama's word that this is another emergency and
you will be able to keep your own current plan if you choose.

Not for nothin, but even he doesn't know everything that's in the plan.

No axe to grind here, but this is Obama's plan and it is ALL of us who will end up paying for it. I just want a fair shake with knowing as much
as my senators do before a vote is taken.

What's the rush. :huh:

I can alleviate much of the costs for health care.

My friends know me as a calloused bastard when it comes to my opinion of people who are a waste of life and have/will never contribute to society. 4 years working 911 in Hartford, CT and 2 years in the Boston area give you an insight to the medical field that many haven't a clue about.

I have two proposals:
First the "If you did it to yourself, I'm not helping you" proposal. People in the hospital due to drug abuse, alcohol abuse, "attempted" suicide, effects from smoking and other self-inflicted "medical" conditions get one shot at assistance. Reform yourself or you get nothing. This way, good money isn't thrown at people who have no ambition of improving their lives.
You smoked for 50 years and now you have lung cancer but no insurance? Sorry, game over.
Instead of getting a job, you sat at home putting back a fifth of vodka every day and now your liver doesn't work, sucks to be you.

This has a two-fold benefit. Decreased costs for hospitals serving the uninsured (thus decreased reimbursements from the feds) and a possible decrease crime for obvious reasons.

Second the "We're not paying for your drugs" policy, mandatory drug testing for every person on Welfare, Medicaid or any other government assistance, be it subsidized diapers for your baby or free prescriptions. Fail two drug tests in a 12-month period - Game Over. Why should I pay to help people that refuse to help themselves?

What's the rush. :huh:
The rush is that unless Obama can do this this year it probably won't get done. Considering it's going to take a decade to roll out, he can declare success moving forward simply because something has been done about the situation.

I agree with the above that this should be a bi-partisan bill simply because of how important it is. While I think a lot of what I'm hearing about the plan from the usual pundits is a lot of fear mongering, there does appear to be a lot in it that's not very desireable.

I don't think tort reform is the magic bullet, but it's a necessary component. There has been some constructive talk in the Senate about working towards rewarding doctors on the quality of care rather than the quantity of care. This is a good model that they should play out.

If Obama is smart he'll put Pelosi in a box on this one and look towards the Senate to find common ground with the GOP. He's already stretched with independent voters on the stim bill and this has the possibility to just kill the Dems in the 2010 cycle as I've mentioned before.

-spence

The rush is that unless Obama can do this this year it probably won't get done.

-spence

Your probably right, what he wants may not get done, but when it is properly
thought out, debated with both parties on board it will be a better plan for the American people.
Tort is one of the few things that can be done to save $ immediately imho.

Health care reform was one of the "big 3" issues Obama said he was going to address right off the bat. He's trying to push it through because he made such a big deal about it and he doesn't want it to come back and bite his rear end.

If you want to read something very interesting about health care costs and have a lot of time, check out this article from the New Yorker. It's legnthy but interesting in revealing one of the many reasons for the sky high costs of health care today. The article focuses on one extreme case, but you could probably find a trend if you looked at other towns in the US.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=all

As The New York Post has aptly pointed out, ObamaCare is a sick joke. Here are some facts that refuse to be ignored...

By 52 percent to 40 percent, voters are opposed to the healthcare bill introduced on July 14 to the House of Representatives.

Independents now oppose ObamaCare by a ratio of almost 2:1.

The World Health Organization ranked the United States No. 1 out of 191 countries for being responsive to patients' needs, including providing timely treatments and a choice of doctors. Among those currently insured, 84% are satisfied with their healthcare. But if you're happy, don't get too comfortable: ObamaCare will force people to change their insurance.

Americans recognize now that the Kenyan Kommunist is a left wing radical...I truly enjoy his childish rants and condescension when he fails to get his way, many democrats are backing away but the dem. leadership are committed radicals as well, this is not what many (the hypnotized) voted for and the ONE is slipping into Jimmy Carter territory where he belongs... when your entire foundation and career has been built on little more than hype...it's just a matter of time, enjoy the slide Obama...you can join Carter as a another whiny, failed, angry, bitter, Marxist, dictator hugging ex-President...

The World Health Organization ranked the United States No. 1 out of 191 countries for being responsive to patients' needs, including providing timely treatments and
"a choice of doctors".

i have to dispute that statement because your health insurance provider dictates to you which Doctors you may choose from.

Then, you have to determine whether or not they are accepting
new patients ESPECIALLY when seeking a new primary care physician....

the worst thing about health care as i see it...

is the referral system which is left entirely up to the patient to follow up on to make sure they received it or you are billed IN FULL by the specialist's services. It's almost completely worth it to wait for a written referral letter and give the specialist's staff a copy to avoid this billing issue.

i have to dispute that statement because your health insurance provider dictates to you which Doctors you may choose from.

Then, you have to determine whether or not they are accepting
new patients ESPECIALLY when seeking a new primary care physician....

the worst thing about health care as i see it...

is the referral system which is left entirely up to the patient to follow up on to make sure they received it or you are billed IN FULL by the specialist's services. It's almost completely worth it to wait for a written referral letter and give the specialist's staff a copy to avoid this billing issue.

Raven, he's using a statement from W.H.O. that compares health care in the US to other countries. Do you really think you would have more choices of physicians in another country? I haven't looked into it, but I'd be willing to bet my plug collection that there are more doctors to choose from with major health insurance companies here than there are in other countries.

and in a free country you may change healthcare providers if you don't like the doctors in their particular network, would prefer to have the government and it's bureaucrats determining who, when and for what treatments you may seek medical care...DO ANY OF YOU ACTUALLY READ WHAT IS HAPPENING IN OTHER COUNTRIES WITH GOVERNMENT ADMINISTERED SYSTEMS....or do you simply trust Obama's brilliance..OBAMA IS A LIAR....he has to constantly hold these "press conferences" to continually reinforce his lies...it's tough work...

yes it's a free country.... but in our case it is not really our choice.

the company my wife works for makes the decision for us
and recently switched from Tufts to Blue cross...

so, you basically follow what they provide you.

yes it's a free country.... but in our case it is not really our choice.

the company my wife works for makes the decision for us and recently switched from Tufts to Blue cross...

so, you basically follow what they provide you.


It's still your choice. Your wife can quit her job and go somewhere else that offers the insurance you prefer ,or she can decline coverage and go to whatever doctor you want and pay out of pocket. It's really pretty simple. No plan is going to make everyone happy.

How do you think other countries have it better than us?

that is an option true

just not realistic.... for us.

i made no comparison between the USA
and other countries

yes it's a free country.... but in our case it is not really our choice.

the company my wife works for makes the decision for us and recently switched from Tufts to Blue cross...

so, you basically follow what they provide you.

or you opt out of what your company provides and go get your own...I listened to a caller to a show who was a small business owner whine that he couldn't afford healthcare yesterday...appparently it was not high on his priority list...there ARE options...46% of the so-called uninsured 18-64 can afford health insurance and chose not to purchase it, probably in lieu of a nice car...

I've been self employed or more than 20 years, when BC/BS reached 1000/month to insure my family I began to look around, at the time in RI the options were BC/BS and United, everyone else had left the state probably due to the level of corruption exitsing between the dems in the state house and BC/BS making it impossible to compete..

I've been with Midwest National Life for years...my monthly premium for a family of 5 is 300/month...I pay for dental visits, checkups, persciptions up to a reasonable deductible out of pocket...hey, just like car insurance...I have relatively high deductibles for major medical but they are a fraction of the difference in yearly premiums that I was paying...allowing me to save

bottom line...if you want healthcare provided to you anytime, anywhere with low or no deductibles and co-pays simply flash a card....it is going to cost you...very attractive on it's face...never going to happen...this "reform" is a disaster if it is passed...

Obama claiming that he can provide the above at low cost is a joke...

the emergency room fee's just changed from 50 dollars per visit
to 150 dollars per visit and that's just ridiculous....


seems like the Doctors are all adamant to get you to go get a cat scan or an MRI (someone told me they get a kick back)
and then they don't seem to care about following up on the results after wards. :huh:

Orin Hatch just announced today: He's out and no longer going to debate health care...

:point: that's what his JOB is....

what if all politicians suddenly took his position. :hs:

Generally it takes a team of wild horses to drag me to a Doctors office in the first place.

have you checked different emergency rooms or clinics for prices? this is part of the problem, people will drive miles out of the way to get 10 cent cheaper gas or buy in bulk at BJ's but never "shop" for perscriptions, Dr. visits or other health care in general, it's because they've been conditioned to believe that they can just go get whatever they want or need and someone else will take care of everything...

and now they're told "healthcare(insurance) is a right", when in fact what you are losing is all of your rights as a user of the healthcare system to a large and oppressive government

would you prefer $10 per visit and Larry, Mo and Curly for doctors?:rotf2: "calling Dr. Fine, Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine"

would you prefer $10 per visit and Larry, Mo and Curly for doctors?:rotf2: "calling Dr. Fine, Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine"


I called Blue + Shield and got sent around the merry go round
with the Autobot recordings ... 6 times

Same thing when i called the hospital just to see what an emergency room visit costs.... and i was transfered 5 times
then i got this DAN characters voice mail and he ain't there.

:wall::rotf2::fury: :rotflmao: i guess i lacked a siren.... :confused:

So, aside from the fact that the millionaires will pay for health care, :rolleyes:
what did the American people learn from the President's infomercial/ press conference
on Health-Care?

Almost damaging to your brain to try and figure this stuff out. :)

"It will be at a lower cost" which really means what healthcare you get will be rationed so don't get old or really sick....

Why get government involved? If we could drive down the cost of the insurance Dr's pay, we could cut healthcare costs... Oh, I forgot all the lawmakers are lawyers how stupid of me.

Interesting information I got from another source:
The biggest argument for healthcare reform is the uninsured. The number reform advocates like to use is 46 million or a little over 15% of the population. The reformers never tell us who these people are or why they are uninsured. Doing so would damage their attempt at wholesale changes. According to the Census Bureau in 2007, 9.7 million or 21.0% are non-citizens. There are 18.3 million or 40% of the uninsured are young adults in the 18 – 34 age range. Many of these people don’t see the necessity of paying a health care premium when they are young and healthy. In 2005, the Kaiser Foundation found out that 6 million of the 8 million uninsured children were eligible for existing Federal health insurance, but were not enrolled. 3.1 million parents of these children were also eligible for Federal programs, but were not enrolled. These groups compose over 70% of the uninsured. If you don’t believe that age should be a determining factor in health insurance cover!age, the Census Bureau breaks down the income range of the uninsured. 17.5 million have incomes of $50,000 or more, which goes against the advocates’ picture of everyone being poor, and thus unable to afford coverage.

Why get government involved?


That's what i say. Ford just posted a 2 billion dollar profit with 0 government help.

Just let capitalism do it's job.

Interesting information I got from another source:
The biggest argument for healthcare reform is the uninsured. The number reform advocates like to use is 46 million or a little over 15% of the population. The reformers never tell us who these people are or why they are uninsured. Doing so would damage their attempt at wholesale changes. According to the Census Bureau in 2007, 9.7 million or 21.0% are non-citizens. There are 18.3 million or 40% of the uninsured are young adults in the 18 – 34 age range. Many of these people don’t see the necessity of paying a health care premium when they are young and healthy. In 2005, the Kaiser Foundation found out that 6 million of the 8 million uninsured children were eligible for existing Federal health insurance, but were not enrolled. 3.1 million parents of these children were also eligible for Federal programs, but were not enrolled. These groups compose over 70% of the uninsured. If you don’t believe that age should be a determining factor in health insurance cover!age, the Census Bureau breaks down the income range of the uninsured. 17.5 million have incomes of $50,000 or more, which goes against the advocates’ picture of everyone being poor, and thus unable to afford coverage.


Yes, when you dig a little deeper you find statistics that don't support the 47 million people they say are not insured.

The Urban Institute reports 25% of the uninsured already qualify for some medical insurance program.

The National Bureau Of Economic Research says, "Based on plausible definitions and assumptions, health insurance is affordable for
between 3/4 and 1/4 quarters of adults who are NOT insured.

Those #s go along with what i heard on the news todaythat 43%
of the 47 million can afford insurance but choose not to buy it for whatever reasons.

That would drop the # of uninsured who can't afford insurance to 27 million people.

While there is a need for Health Insurance for the unemployed looking for work, and those that are truly disabled, imho there is no reason to revamp and change our whole current medical system for 277 million people to accommodate 27 million people.

JR may need to check my math, as usual. ;)

New Rasmussen Poll-- 54% polled said they don't want Health Care passed
this year.

The American people are catching up realizing the Administration's Emergencies
are a ploy to, among other things, takeover 1/6 th of the nation's economy
with Health Care.

New Rasmussen Poll-- 54% polled said they don't want Health Care passed
this year.

The American people are catching up realizing the Administration's Emergencies
are a ploy to, among other things, takeover 1/6 th of the nation's economy
with Health Care.


I'd bet that the only ones who do want it are the ones who have no insurance.....

I'd bet that the only ones who do want it are the ones who have no insurance.....

Huh? One question for everyone, when you were between 18 and 24 did you have or give a crap about health care? I didn't, and I know alot of you didn't either. Why should someone in that age group spend a lot of $$ on health care they are almost certain not to need. They do like I did save the monthly health care costs and pay for that 1 time a year visit that you may get sick and pocket the rest for beer and women.....

CB, that is one of the dumbest things I have heard said (I mean that in a nice way...)

What happens when you are 22 and you have a major car accident or cancer or something else catastrophic happens and you don't have the resources to pay your bills... you either go deeply in debt, or you suck of the gov't teet somehow...

almost certain.... :smash:

CB, that is one of the dumbest things I have heard said (I mean that in a nice way...)

What happens when you are 22 and you have a major car accident or cancer or something else catastrophic happens and you don't have the resources to pay your bills... you either go deeply in debt, or you suck of the gov't teet somehow...

almost certain.... :smash:

Almost certain NOT TO HAPPEN, which is why 22 year olds aren't concerned.

Almost certain NOT TO HAPPEN, which is why 22 year olds aren't concerned.

Aside from there always being a chance for something to happen, the reason 22 year olds aren't concerned is because they don't know better. They've probably been s#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g from the parental teet for the last 22 years and don't realize the consequences until something *does* happen.

People in their 20's aren't immune from sickness, disease or stupidity. They statistically take more chances than people older, have a higher level of activity and as such, are at a higher risk of injury.

22 year olds do get sick, they do have injuries and vehicular accidents don't only involve soccer moms or the elderly. Then, if they do get injured or a sickness, good luck getting insurance to cover a pre-existing condition.

Huh? One question for everyone, when you were between 18 and 24 did you have or give a crap about health care? I didn't, and I know alot of you didn't either. Why should someone in that age group spend a lot of $$ on health care they are almost certain not to need. They do like I did save the monthly health care costs and pay for that 1 time a year visit that you may get sick and pocket the rest for beer and women.....

When I was 18 I had insurance. It came with the green uniform...

When I was 18 I had insurance. It came with the green uniform... :uhuh:good response. :D

detbuch, my circle of people I know is not huge, but I can think of a few people who would have been seriously screwed if they didn't have insurance in the early 20's....

:uhuh:good response. :D

detbuch, my circle of people I know is not huge, but I can think of a few people who would have been seriously screwed if they didn't have insurance in the early 20's....

As stupid as this sounds, when I was 23, I got a plantar's wart on the bottom of my foot. Took 4 attempts of laser removal in a hospital until it finally never came back - no including the 3 attempts by my primary to freeze it off. Cost me about $60 when everything was said and done. Actual cost: about $2500 *per surgery*.

At 23, how exactly would I have paid for a $10,000 medical bill? I wouldn't have. The wart would have spread and got worse, and I'd probably still be dealing with it today.

But people in their 20's don't need health insurance, right?

Almost certain NOT TO HAPPEN, which is why 22 year olds aren't concerned.

I'd wager there are a lot of 22 year old dying of cancer right now wishing you well in your health.

What's next, kids with leukemia?

-spence

Why do some of you find it so hard to understand that many younger people decline health insurance? I work in a company with mostly young employees and we offer BCBS for ALL full-time workers. Most of our younger employees decline it because they don't think they're going to need it. The money is more important than the security to them. I know this because I have to ask all employees who decline coverage why they are declining. And when I mention younger employees, I mean the group from about 18 to 30 years old. Maybe it's hard for some of you to believe, but there are a lot of people out there willing to roll the dice when it comes to their health. When you were in your early 20's did you lie awake at night thinking you were going to be in a serious accident or get a serious illness? Probably not.

And Bryan, your car accident scenario sounds great, but most car accidents resulting in injury are covered by auto insurance. Check your policy for a PIP clause. And injuries and in some cases, illnesses caused by work are covered by workers compensation.

Keep in mind also that if someone is enrolled in college and take full-time credits, they are covered under their parents health insurance up to age 24 in some states. These people are naturally going to decline insurance from their employer.

The problem is we don't know what the real # of people who can't afford health care is.

Obama says it's 47 million, but as mentioned above, other estimates make it around 27 million when taking into account the 43% of people
who can afford it but choose not to buy it.

In addition the Congressional Budget Office said today 10% are illegal aliens.

We need a plan under our current system, the best in the world, to cover our citizens that are unemployed and truly disabled.

To change everything and come up with a new government run plan that will afffect everyone is ridiculous to cover 9% of the population.

The problem is we don't know what the real # of people who can't afford health care is.

Obama says it's 47 million, but as mentioned above, other estimates make it around 27 million when taking into account the 43% of people
who can afford it but choose not to buy it.

In addition the Congressional Budget Office said today 10% are illegal aliens.

We need a plan under our current system, the best in the world, to cover our citizens that are unemployed and truly disabled.

To change everything and come up with a new government run plan that will afffect everyone is ridiculous to cover 9% of the population.


Well said JPI. But in all reality its the government control of the system they are looking for, not improving the current system.

Why do some of you find it so hard to understand that many younger people decline health insurance? I work in a company with mostly young employees and we offer BCBS for ALL full-time workers. Most of our younger employees decline it because they don't think they're going to need it. The money is more important than the security to them. I know this because I have to ask all employees who decline coverage why they are declining. And when I mention younger employees, I mean the group from about 18 to 30 years old. Maybe it's hard for some of you to believe, but there are a lot of people out there willing to roll the dice when it comes to their health. When you were in your early 20's did you lie awake at night thinking you were going to be in a serious accident or get a serious illness? Probably not.

Everything you said is exactly my point. Younger people don't know any better. One major sickness could medically bankrupt a person and screw them over for the next 10+ years.

ok - so lets educate people instead of dumping trillions into forcing people to have insurance and forcing me to pay for it.

ok - so lets educate people instead of dumping trillions into forcing people to have insurance and forcing me to pay for it.

Welcome back, Jim! It's been very quiet in here without you. I hope things are better.

As for your point about educating people, I don't think that's possible. The politicians don't want educated citizens. They want everyone to need the govenment to do their thinking for them.

The politicians don't want educated citizens.

That is why the administration is pushing these programs through at warp speed.

They know if the people had enough time to digest them they wouldn't support them.

They already have government control of the banks and car companies with the big apple being Health Care and the control over 1/6 th of our economy.

Hey, they don't even want the Congress to be educated with proposing1100-1600 page bills with 5 hours to read them before voting.

Meantime polls show 80% of our Citizens are happy with their Health Care.

Everything you said is exactly my point. Younger people don't know any better. One major sickness could medically bankrupt a person and screw them over for the next 10+ years.

So, because the young sometimes make stupid decisions, we should take away there ability to choose?

So, because the young sometimes make stupid decisions, we should take away there ability to choose?

Where exactly did I say anything like that?

Are you so used to bitching about and trying to find something wrong with everything I say that you're completely blind to the fact that I'm against the Health Care Reform that's being proposed?

Edit: If you've paid any attention to my posts over the past few months, you'd know I'm against increased social welfare in all aspects and we should be cutting people off for making stupid decisions instead of rewarding them.

close to 100.000 people are dying each year due to staff infections
contracted in the hospital... from non standardized
health practices as reported on the news tonight....

this is costing us 40 BILLION a year :wall:

so any health reform has to include provisions to
prevent this from happening.

close to 100.000 people are dying each year due to staff infections
contracted in the hospital... from non standardized
health practices as reported on the news tonight....

this is costing us 40 BILLION a year :wall:

so any health reform has to include provisions to
prevent this from happening.

Good point Rav, and in addition there is more and more nosocomial
resistant staph which won't respond to current antibiotics and is killing people.

Why will Pharma research and develop new antibiotics if they can't make a decent
profit.

Are they addressing non standardized health practices in the HC Bill?
We don't know and chances are your Congressmen don't know either.

it's sooo much better under socialized medicine...



British Hospitals Struggle to Limit ‘Superbug’ Infections

Britain has one of the worst rates of hospital-acquired M.R.S.A. bloodstream infections in Europe, second only to Greece, and the problem is getting worse. The National Audit Office, a government watchdog organization, announced this month that there had been an 8 percent increase in the number of all staphylococcus aureus, or staph, infections in the bloodstream, to 19,311 in 2004 from 17,933 in 2001. Of those, 40 percent were resistant to the antibiotic methicillin.

But that reveals only a slice of the problem because the Department of Health, which began to keep figures on the infections in 2001, does not track the existence of staph infections outside the bloodstream, in wounds or in the urinary tract.

One in 10 patients contracts a staph infection while staying in England’s hospitals, which rank among the oldest and most crowded in Western Europe. Because superbugs multiply easily in unhygienic surroundings, dirty hospital wards and unclean hands contribute to their spread from patient to patient.

standing operating procedures


my wife has to deal with those on a daily basis
because they work with Hospital tubes
that have to be exact sizes and all that

but to learn that hospitals don't have the same
procedures... or s.o.p's blows my mind :confused:

Why will Pharma research and develop new antibiotics if they can't make a decent profit.
Last time I checked, a few years ago, the average margin on Pharma was around 25%...that's not a bad profit.

Two opposing factors:

1) The current pharma environment drives companies to invest in category killer drugs that will produce massive returns.

2) The potential for litigation will prevent companies from moving on high-risk R&D investments.

So there's a lot more $$$ by producing the next Viagra rather than the staph-killing antibiotic that will rot 1 in 10:000's organs.

-spence

Last time I checked, a few years ago, the average margin on Pharma was around 25%...that's not a bad profit.



-spence

No, not a bad profit for drugs after the years of research and the amount
of compounds studied to produce one, then the cost of studies to prove it is safe and effective before it goes before the FDA for final approval.

Then there are, of course, the many drugs that now keep patients out
of costly hospital stays and increase length and quality of life.

What do you think the government will consider a fair profit for development
of a new drug and why shouldn't a company develope a product where there
is a profitable market for it?

Barney Frank.."I've had people come to us and complain, "Well, if you do that, I can't make any money." The answer is that's not my job. We're not here to help you make money. We are here to help have a system in which you will make money as an incident of your providing funds(or drugs) to those who will use it productively(or to those who need them)."

didn't you read Newsweek...."we're all Socialists now"....Americans, American corporations and small businesses exist for the sole purpose of funding the government which is growing at exponential rates...they don't care about profits for any of these businesses because they simply take/tax whatever they think they need regardless of the damage, if the business fails it just leaves one more area for another newly created government entity to fill the void....

Welcome back, Jim! It's been very quiet in here without you. I hope things are better.

As for your point about educating people, I don't think that's possible. The politicians don't want educated citizens. They want everyone to need the govenment to do their thinking for them.

nope, no better, still in limbo, just waiting. Thank god for Hospice.

Jim:
thoughts are with you and yours bud...

if you need a night out and want company, give me a shout.

Take care, Jim. My P+T are with you.

these assclowns are going to tell you how to raise your kids...SUUUUUUUURE

http://townhall.com/columnists/ChuckNorris/2009/08/11/dirty_secret_no_1_in_obamacare

Had the opportunity to watch the Arlen Specter Town Hall Meeting in Lebanon Pa. and the NH Obama Broadway Show today.

Imho, the PA. citizens took Senator Specter to the wood shed with their
knowledge of the HC Bill. They knew their stuff and stood and exercised their their freedom of speech.
The Senator had admitted previously he needed himself and 10 lawyers to know what was in the Bill.

When the President in NH, was asked how they would pay for the bill he admitted
they were exploring ways. Buy something then figure out how to pay for it?

When he was asked how they would attract new Doctors and Nurses he said
they would help finance education for Primary Care Physicians. No mention
of the additional costs to educate the Specialists that can require another 2-4 years of training or that the HC Bill Sec 1501 pg. 659-670 - Doctors in Residency calls for the government to tell the Physician where he will do his residency.
A lot of fine print hidden in this bill.

Imho today's score:

Gun/Bible clinging, astroturf, status quo, American citizens -1
Elitist intellectuals_______________________________-0

Imho, the PA. citizens took Senator Specter to the wood shed with their
knowledge of the HC Bill. They knew their stuff and stood and exercised their their freedom of speech.
The Senator had admitted previously he needed himself and 10 lawyers to know what was in the Bill.

When the President in NH, was asked how they would pay for the bill he admitted
they were exploring ways. Buy something then figure out how to pay for it?

When he was asked how they would attract new Doctors and Nurses he said
they would help finance education for Primary Care Physicians. No mention
of the additional costs to educate the Specialists that can require another 2-4 years of training or that the HC Bill Sec 1501 pg. 659-670 - Doctors in Residency calls for the government to tell the Physician where he will do his residency.
A lot of fine print hidden in this bill.

Imho today's score:

Gun/Bible clinging, astroturf, status quo, American citizens -1
Elitist intellectuals_______________________________-0

I didn't see that one, but from the one's I have seen, it's been people just screaming propaganda. Repeating the same paranoid stuff I hear on Conservative radio.

Like Newt and Palin talking about how terrible the "Death Panels" will be, even though there is nothing like that in the bill. But like Newt said, "The bill is 1000 pages long. No one knows what is in it."

I didn't see that one, but from the one's I have seen, it's been people just screaming propaganda. Repeating the same paranoid stuff I hear on Conservative radio."

I keep hearing about paranoid Conservative radio. There are a lot of different shows accross the country that I have no knowledge of, but the few that I have access to seem quite reasoned. I hear reasoned, well thought-out objections to the national plan, expressing, I assume, many of the valid points that you allude to (though you have not yet expressed them here, so I don't know if they're the same valid points that you have). Also, the shows that I listen to, have many Liberal callers and they are given time to express their opinions. A couple put Liberal callers on first. One host can be gruff to what he considers stupidity, but the others are quite civil.

I keep hearing about paranoid Conservative radio. There are a lot of different shows accross the country that I have no knowledge of, but the few that I have access to seem quite reasoned. I hear reasoned, well thought-out objections to the national plan, expressing, I assume, many of the valid points that you allude to (though you have not yet expressed them here, so I don't know if they're the same valid points that you have). Also, the shows that I listen to, have many Liberal callers and they are given time to express their opinions. A couple put Liberal callers on first. One host can be gruff to what he considers stupidity, but the others are quite civil.

While they may be reasoned, well thought-out objections (and I have no doubt many are), I have also heard a large number that leave out part of the facts to suit their political agenda or completely misconstrue the facts to get their target audience fired up.

Now, I'm not saying the Dems are innocent of this behavior. They do the same thing. Just about every Dem Congressman/woman I have heard in a radio or tv interview is also guilty of this. The difference is that there is hardly a following for left-wing radio media - and also that they are infrequently referenced as a source.

the best thing that has happened politically in 2009 for Republicans was Arlen Spector becoming a democrat....he represents his new party very well:rotf2:

leave out part of the facts to suit their political agenda or completely misconstrue the facts


like when Obama says he's not for single payer?

btw, Blowhard Obama keeps talking about what "IS" and "IS NOT" in his plan...can we actually see the Obama plan? We have the house plan, which Obama clearly hasn't read....are we just supposed to take his word when he TELLS us what his plan contains and does not contain or should he present something in writing...his is a constant liar after all.....

I didn't see that one, but from the one's I have seen, it's been people just screaming propaganda. Repeating the same paranoid stuff I hear on Conservative radio.



JD, if you get a chance, listen to one the whole way through. I'm fortunate to have the time.
I believe you will find the majority of the people have genuine concerns about
the HC Bill , Cap and Trade, The Stimulus, as well as concerns for the direction our country is heading.

The news always shows the sensational excerpts of these meetings so it is slanted towards the angry screamers rather then a group of average American Citizens who have done their homework and want answers to the tough questions.

JD, if you get a chance, listen to one the whole way through. I'm fortunate to have the time.
I believe you will find the majority of the people have genuine concerns about
the HC Bill , Cap and Trade, The Stimulus, as well as concerns for the direction our country is heading.

The news always shows the sensational excerpts of these meetings so it is slanted towards the angry screamers rather then a group of average American Citizens who have done their homework and want answers to the tough questions.

I wish I could. Hell, I'd even be interested in attending one if I had the time. I have watched 10-15 minutes here and there on CSPAN. In those 15 minutes, I noticed two things: a majority of people have no idea what they're talking about(on both sides of the argument), and much time was wasted in educating people, and the people that appeared to know what they were talking about were spouting questions that have already been answered 100 times on any of the major news stations.

This is pretty consistent with my previous experiences with "Town Hall" type meetings. My company has provided equipment for a ton of town meetings in towns like Westwood and Mansfield, places where the residents are a part of the legislative process.

While they may be reasoned, well thought-out objections (and I have no doubt many are), I have also heard a large number that leave out part of the facts to suit their political agenda or completely misconstrue the facts to get their target audience fired up.

As I said, many liberals call in to the shows that I hear, and they give their perspective and fill in what the host leaves out. Some are very knowledgeable and, occaisionally get the better of the host. Some of the programs (e.g. Michael Medved, Dennis Praegur, Dennis Miller, and others) periodically invite notable liberals to debate their views on a segment of the show. "Right Wing" talk radio is not as one sided and bombastic as you perceive it to be. It is, actually, an alternative media outlet for information and opinion that is hard to come by (for those like you and I) that don't have the time to scour.

It is, actually, an alternative media outlet for information and opinion that is hard to come by (for those like you and I) that don't have the time to scour.

I can agree with this. I try to be critical of just about information I come across - my own included. Conservative radio is readily available. If there was a similarly based source and following for Liberal radio, I guarantee people's criticism of polar views with conveniently left out information would translate fully to Liberal hosts.