Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    10 Aug '09 15:36 / 2 edits
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/10/have_you_heard_ken_gladneys_story_97836.html

    http://www.nypost.com/seven/08102009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/hidden_reform_costs__the_health_cops_183774.htm?page=0

    http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/08/10/pharma/





    The Dem leadership seems afraid of the rising tide.

    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-pelosi-hoyer-health11-2009aug11,0,3211297.story

    http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/10/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5229738.shtml




    Many neutrals seem unimpressed.

    http://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/blog/can-hr-3200-be-fixed

    http://www.vawatchdog.org/09/nf09/nfaug09/nf080709-1.htm

    http://sumfolio.com/does-h-r-3200-ban-private-insurers-012/





    HR 3200 may be a great bill, for all we know. But the message is not being put out there very effectively right now by the WH and Congressional Dems.





    The phone is ringing. It's 1993 calling.





    De ja vu all over again?
  2. 10 Aug '09 16:54
    Originally posted by sh76
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/10/have_you_heard_ken_gladneys_story_97836.html

    http://www.nypost.com/seven/08102009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/hidden_reform_costs__the_health_cops_183774.htm?page=0

    http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/08/10/pharma/





    The Dem leadership seems afraid of the rising tide.

    http://www.latimes ...[text shortened]... Dems.





    The phone is ringing. It's 1993 calling.





    De ja vu all over again?
    The main problem is that there's only a two year window where the Dems have filibuster-proof "control" (if they can all agree on something among themselves). Who knows when the next chance might be? And no one wants to have anything controversial on the plate next year (a campaign year). So as Freddie Mercury once put it, most of the Dems are saying "I want it all, I want it all, I want it all... and I want it NOWWWW!!!!"

    The problem is that there is no easy solution that will give everyone access to affordable coverage AND reduce the spiraling healthcare costs, while ALSO minimizing any "rationing" or "tax increases", or adding to the national debt.

    We all need to admit that we can't expect the Wright Brothers to invent a Boeing 747 from scratch. We must first build something relatively simple and modest that can get off the ground for a few seconds and land in one piece. Something that people can understand.

    THEN - we must be able to come back in a year or two, evaluate how well the plan is working (or not working) and make small improvements. Then Rinse and Repeat.

    We shouldn't have to wait until special windows occur where one party has all the power. Both parties need to be able to work together in pursuit of common goals. Set aside the major differences, figure out what most can agree on and do it. Don't worry who may or may not get "credit".
  3. 10 Aug '09 19:45
    Originally posted by sh76
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/10/have_you_heard_ken_gladneys_story_97836.html

    http://www.nypost.com/seven/08102009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/hidden_reform_costs__the_health_cops_183774.htm?page=0

    http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/08/10/pharma/





    The Dem leadership seems afraid of the rising tide.

    http://www.latimes ...[text shortened]... Dems.





    The phone is ringing. It's 1993 calling.





    De ja vu all over again?
    Healthcare is a tough, tough battle to fight because there is so much money involved.

    And unfortunately it's twice as difficult to push the boring truth than it is to push sensational fear mongering.

    Why is healthcare so expensive? Well, lets look at all the industries that support it, only one of which is the insurance companies. The biotech industry is worth BILLIONS. Big pharma is worth BILLIONS. The health insurance industry is worth BILLIONS. Even such things a surgical tools, medical billing service companies, etc. are all huge money making enterprises.

    In the end who pays for ALL of it? Everyone who receives healthcare. With all these multibillion dollar companies reaping huge profits on healthcare - they have great interest in keeping the status quo, and they have the money to lobby for keeping it.

    So how do we get around that at this point? We can't just let these companies crash and burn, they're already ingrained into our economy. But they're also the reason why healthcare costs are so high. Hell, even HOSPITALS are money making enterprises.
  4. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    10 Aug '09 19:47
    I really can't understand anyone, except the incredibly rich, not wanting universal health care.

    It's baffling.

    Free choice? Yeah, let's hear about free choice when you're dying of cancer and the small letters in your health insurance deny you Dr. House.
  5. 10 Aug '09 19:53 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    I really can't understand anyone, except the incredibly rich, not wanting universal health care.

    It's baffling.

    Free choice? Yeah, let's hear about free choice when you're dying of cancer and the small letters in your health insurance deny you Dr. House.
    but Dr. House can (usually) only treat one patient per episode and there are only a couple dozen episodes per season. So how do we determine which patients get to see Dr, House?
  6. 10 Aug '09 19:57
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    I really can't understand anyone, except the incredibly rich, not wanting universal health care.

    It's baffling.

    Free choice? Yeah, let's hear about free choice when you're dying of cancer and the small letters in your health insurance deny you Dr. House.
    good point.here is another one,you got cancer or need a liver transplant and cant get the services you need under universal health care because you dont fulfill the guidelines.example,too old,too young,not quite sick enough.like the young man in britan last month who died (needed a liver) because he did not go to the required AA meetings before he was allowed a transplant. thats universal health care in action. People come to the states everyday needing surgery because their socialistic governments have denied them.
  7. 10 Aug '09 19:58
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    I really can't understand anyone, except the incredibly rich, not wanting universal health care.

    It's baffling.

    Free choice? Yeah, let's hear about free choice when you're dying of cancer and the small letters in your health insurance deny you Dr. House.
    The trouble is the people who want universal health care are like you shav, they're not the ones who are actually going to pay for it, people with jobs are.
  8. 10 Aug '09 20:07 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    good point.here is another one,you got cancer or need a liver transplant and cant get the services you need under universal health care because you dont fulfill the guidelines.example,too old,too young,not quite sick enough.like the young man in britan last month who died (needed a liver) because he did not go to the required AA meetings before he was ...[text shortened]... e to the states everyday needing surgery because their socialistic governments have denied them.
    okay -- there are 100 patients and 50 livers.

    You don't like programs like the one in Britain because they impose some sort of guidelines when determining who gets the livers. So do you have a better plan? Seems to me that no matter how much you shuffle the livers and the patients, you end up with 50 people not getting a liver.
  9. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    10 Aug '09 20:09
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    I really can't understand anyone, except the incredibly rich, not wanting universal health care.

    It's baffling.

    Free choice? Yeah, let's hear about free choice when you're dying of cancer and the small letters in your health insurance deny you Dr. House.
    Everyone wants universal healthcare.

    The question is what's the best way to get there without sacrificing quality.
  10. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    10 Aug '09 20:10
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    okay -- there are 100 patients and 50 livers.

    You don't like programs like the one in Britain because they impose some sort of guidelines when determining who gets the livers. So do you have a better plan? Seems to me that no matter how much you shuffle the livers and the patients, you end up with 50 people not getting a liver.
    Maybe there are only 50 livers because of poor bureaucratic management of the program. Maybe a well run private program would have generated 100 livers.
  11. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    10 Aug '09 20:10
    You all seem to fail to grasp the irony.
    I couldn't care less if you have universal health insurance or not.

    As for people going to the US? What about all the pregnant women coming to the UK?
    How about all the US citizens who travel to Thailand (Bumrungrad hospital), because it's cheaper for them... and at the same time denying Thai people health care?

    Up to you. Wallow in it.
  12. 10 Aug '09 20:12
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    okay -- there are 100 patients and 50 livers.

    You don't like programs like the one in Britain because they impose some sort of guidelines when determining who gets the livers. So do you have a better plan? Seems to me that no matter how much you shuffle the livers and the patients, you end up with 50 people not getting a liver.
    the reports i got said nothing about a shortage of livers it said he did not go to x amount of AA meetings required, via his hospital bed dieing of scherossis.Thats what you get when buerocrats are determining who gets health care and who does not
  13. 10 Aug '09 20:14
    Why this hostility against Obama? If the majority of the citizens of USA voted for Obama, then obviously he was the best choice! Isn't USA a democracy?

    In Irak during the Saddam era, when people voted for him with 96% majority, then it wasn't a good election, but still Irak wasn't a democracy at those days.

    Are you Obama haters saying that USA is not a better democracy than Irak was during Saddam?

    I say that Obama is doing a great job. People around the world are growing a freindship with USA nowadays, people are starting to respect USA. That wasn't the case during the Bush era. USA is better nation now with Obama than USA has been for a long time.

    Give Obama a rest. Let him do what he is supposed to do, what he was elected to do. Let him run USA!
  14. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    10 Aug '09 20:21
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    Why this hostility against Obama? If the majority of the citizens of USA voted for Obama, then obviously he was the best choice! Isn't USA a democracy?

    In Irak during the Saddam era, when people voted for him with 96% majority, then it wasn't a good election, but still Irak wasn't a democracy at those days.

    Are you Obama haters saying that USA is no ...[text shortened]... ma a rest. Let him do what he is supposed to do, what he was elected to do. Let him run USA!
    It's not hostility towards Obama. It's hostility towards HR 3200. Failing to make that distinction seems to be a favorite tactic of the left (not that Bush didn't use similar tactics when he was President). Olberman, Maddow Pelosi and Co would have us believe that anyone who expresses concerns over provisions in HR 3200 mus be a racist who hates Obama because he's black. That tactic is embarrassing and is doomed to fail.

    All that other stuff is fine and good, but has nothing to do with HR 3200.
  15. 10 Aug '09 20:28
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    Why this hostility against Obama? If the majority of the citizens of USA voted for Obama, then obviously he was the best choice! Isn't USA a democracy?

    In Irak during the Saddam era, when people voted for him with 96% majority, then it wasn't a good election, but still Irak wasn't a democracy at those days.

    Are you Obama haters saying that USA is no ...[text shortened]... ma a rest. Let him do what he is supposed to do, what he was elected to do. Let him run USA!
    Why this hostility against Obama? If the majority of the citizens of USA voted for Obama, then obviously he was the best choice! Isn't USA a democracy?

    Actually,this is a democratic republic not a democracy.
    Approx. 63% of the eligiable voters voted and of that 63% he got about 53% of them.