Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Pro-con on Obama’s China visit
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
Open thread 7/6
- By Phillip Brownlee
- Posted July 6, 2007 at 1:05 a.m.
- Filed under Open thread
- Permalink
- Comments RSS
- Both comments and trackbacks are closed
135 Comments
Four days after the lowlife criminals attacked Burger King, we now see, through WPD photos, that these perps were black men. The Eagle’s descriptions, which included weight, height, sweatshirt and jeans, omitted this glaring fact. Most of us readers suspected it, based on the site’s location. Nevertheless:We should not have to make assumptions, one way or another, about a crime. Giving me the description without the (obvious)race is useless, if you want me to be aware, prepared, on the lookout, or report anything. In other words, why does the Eagle give a description without race? The answer would be that they don’t want to offend, impugn, or malign any particular group. Well, sorry, it seems the perpetrators have already lead by example on that one. To deny us, the reader, of a fact that could result in the eventual capture of a criminal only aids and abets that very lawbreaker. So Eagle, from now on, if you know the person is black, white, or green, please tell us!
I just had another (very dark) afterthought: Maybe the Eagle feels that “black people crime” is not news, nor of interest enough to stir reading. Maybe they feel that by leaving the details ambiguous, they will generate more reading, thus more sales? If that’s true, then the Eagle itself is racist, in presupposing how the reader is going to react to a story. Hmm?
If anyone wants to know what’s wrong with our health care system, see “Sicko”. We are suffering from parasite infestation, in the form of avaricious insurance industry executives and their hoards of lackey underlings who divert billions of dollars that should be going to healthcare providers into their own pockets. They should be sent packing to other careers.
Unfortunately, this parasitism is sponsored by our own government, because part of the purloined monies are disbursed to key members of Congress to buy their votes. The fact that the Congressmen are collaborating in the perpetration of despicable harm upon the American people whom they are supposed to be representing according to the Constitution, doesn’t even faze them.
Election year rhetoric is hot and heavy. Some republicans APPEAR to be pulling away from Bush but they only want to be re-elected but I say send them home for the problems they created with Bush.
Tax dollar wastelands = Iraq War/Luxury Iraq Embassy/Homeland Security Department…there must be others.
Construction Woes Add to Fears at Embassy in Iraq – washingtonpost.comHe defended First Kuwaiti and accused the embassy and KBR — a Texas-based company that runs many facilities in Iraq and discovered the wiring problems …www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/ 2007/07/04/AR2007070401685.html?nav=rss_email/components – Jul 4, 2007 -
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Iraq+Embassy+Problems&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
======================================
Oil Oil Oil So how much are american citizens willing to pay for a barrel of oil? This war is doing nothing but increasing the cost.
http://www.icta.org/press/release.cfm?news_id=12
http://www.progress.org/gasoline.htm
http://www.icta.org/doc/Real%20Price%20of%20Gasoline.pdf
http://www.iags.org/costofoil.html
Let’s be blunt. It’s no longer the Sunni insurgents, Shiite militias, or al Queda bombers killing our troops in Iraq. Washington is killing them.
George W – still clinging to his disgraced neo-con fantasies – and the congressional leaders of both parties – unwilling to use their budgetary and oversight authority – are the ones who have 150,000 American men and women trapped in Iraq’s civil war. The troops are doing all they can, yet they have been betrayed by a White House and Congress that has no strategy to make “victory” possible and is unwilling either to provide the massive troop strength it would take to secure that country… or to bring our troops home.
So, our men and women are locked in a gruesome shooting gallery by U.S. politicians who apparently intend to keep them there for the year and a half or so left in Bush’s term. Hundreds of them will die, thousands will be horribly maimed, and all will suffer trauma. They are not victims of the “enemy,” but of America’s own failed “leaders.” It is immoral to do this to them, but there they are.
Meanwhile, Bush keeps saying that his war is essential to America’s own security and is the “challenge of our generation.” But he is obviously lying to us. If it was true, all Americans would be enlisted in the cause. If it was true, we’d have half a million troops in Iraq, or more.
But that would mean that the families of the elites would have to be called to duty – and this is politically unacceptable to Washington. As one Bushite, Sen. Jeff Sessions, put it: “We have a limited number of men and women we can send to Iraq.” In other words, don’t call on his family or friends to make any sacrifices for this “essential” war.
They are killing Americans in a war they know they can’t win – and a war their families won’t join. This is a dishonorable sham, and only We the People can stop it. Protest more. Protest louder.
Harold,I’ve often wondered the same thing. When you’re talking about a “perp”, why does race seem off limits since it’s a major identifying factor? Is it racist to say that a gang of blacks attacked a Burger King?
Of course we’ll hear howls of anger from the local chapter of the NAACP.
Of course race can be a category to be included in identifying the culprits.
But what about the people who stepped over the victim and entered the store as if nothing had happened?
And what was the race of the vicitm? Did white people step over a writhing victim so they could get a Whopper?
Perhaps it’s not the job of the newspaper to promote the racial differences of the perps and victims and “innocent” bystanders. Perhaps the lesson to be learned is that *people* treated *people* in an abhorant fashion.
One can be almost certain official police directives included the race of the perps. But it’s not the job of the newspaper to report everything the police know. It’s common practice for police to retain information of crimes, all the better to help indentify a guilty party who knows elements of a crime “not revealed to the public.”
C’mon, “Harold.” You’re being too cute by half. Just let loose with what you believe; that the Wichita Eagle staff are a bunch of “nigger-lovers.” That’s what you really feel, isn’t it?
Plenty more white people commit crimes than African-Americans or Hispanics. Maybe you were afraid the Eagle’s description of ” weight, height, sweatshirt and jeans” might have — horror of horrors! — implied that *white* people might have been the culprits. And you seem to be placated now that you know some “others” committed the crime.
Racism is a subtle demon. It aflicts us all, deep down. The closer to the surface it appears reveals our bigotry. Your post, “Harold,” speaks volumes.
In another setback to President Bush’s increasingly unpopular war strategy, Republican Party stalwart Sen. Pete Domenici said he wanted to see an end to combat operations and U.S. troops heading home from Iraq by spring.http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/06/politics/main3022937.shtml
The wheels on the bus go round and round….
Just like the stupid duck story, the Eagle is sensationalizing a perfectly normal human reaction in order to sell papers. What would you do if you were going somewhere and suddenly saw someone laying in a pool of blood on the floor. You only have a few seconds to react. Chances are, most people would just step over the body. That doesn’t mean they are not compassionate; it simply means they didn’t have time to mentally change course.
There are too many gaps in this b.s., and as far as I know, only the cops and the reporter have seen the tape.
Given the fact that the Eagle recently made a huge deal out of the stabbing of a “wild” duck, I would no longer put anything past them.
I swear, I thought wild ducks could fly. Just how does someone stab one with a pencil?
Harold, why does it matter to you what color the person was who committed the crime? Is that something YOU personally need to know or want to know? Because it has no bearing on the story. A PERSON robbed ANOTHER PERSON. I don’t care about their weight, their eye color.
Now if you’re talking to dispatch, then that’s another story. I applaud the Eagle for not reporting race.
DK, that’s absurd. It takes me all of 1 second to stop, evaluate the situation and ACT appropriately. There should have been NOBODY walking around that scene. And especially over the dang body. There IS NO EXCUSE.
You haven’t seen the tape, p.m., so you have no idea what actually happened. The Eagle has played you like a fish by manipulating your emotions to sell papers.
The movie SiCKO is a loser from the start. Let us be realistic about this.
How many medical professionals are going to take a cut in pay to become Government controlled lackeys?
A move like this will severely reduce the number of people interested in attending Medical School. Or is the nanny Government proposed by SiCKO going to pay for their education as well?
How about paying for the education of Nurses, X-Ray Techs, Lab Techs, Hospital Administrators, etc. etc.
The financial investment amount of Medical Research done in this country just by itself dwarfs the total Health Care budgets in most countries. If we went socialized, guess what? Our taxes go up again to pay for that research.
There are so many unplanned events that would take place with this Nanny-State Health Care plan, it would literally rip the current, highly effective health care system out of its very roots.
Then, we would get what we pay for, just like the old Soviet Union. Everything would be free, but rationed. Everything would be free, but of lower quality. Everything could be accessed, but with huge waiting times.
Imagine having to call some government bureaucrat to beg for an elective surgery you need. Think its funny, look at all the tragic cases in nanny state government health care plans that get turned down or have to wait “years” to get such procedures done.
The last person I want to take health care advice from is Michael Moore, the morbidly obese conspiratorial who is a pack leader of the “Blame America First” crowd.”
While he’s getting rich from all you suckers listening to his tripe, you’re getting duped.
If doctors had to be real doctors like in the good old days – they would be making house calls, taking chickens, eggs, vegetables and other food stuff in lieu of cash for their services.
I don’t see any doctor nowadays doing that kind of doctoring.
So maybe the current system is based TOO much on money and profit. We need to pull the greed factor out of the healthcare system and return it to what it should be – a service. Then those that truly want to be doctors, nurses, technicians and etc. will continue to do and we will get rid of those that are only in it for the ‘money’.
just curious Republican – how much do you weigh? Do you smoke, drink, eat too much or engage in unsafe health practices? Why just pick on Moore for being fat.
“If doctors had to be real doctors like in the good old days -”
That’s a real good idea. Let’s move the practice of medicine to the 1800’s.Libs, you gotta love ‘em.
How much do you weigh sam?
I’m average weight for my height, 220 plus or minus a few pounds, six foot four inches tall. I don’t smoke or drink alcohol. I’m unsure what you mean by unsafe health practices. I don’t take unnecessary risks with my life if that’s what you mean.
It’s obvious that Michael Moore is morbidly obese. By definition of medical based obesity, Michael Moore fits that category.
=================Right shoveit, you’ll “get rid of those that are only in it for the money.”
How are you going to do that shoveit? Have a Stalin type purge and send them to death camps?
Wake up to the real world shoveit, your simplistic pie in the sky ideas are indicative of Socialists who want to turn the U.S. into another Soviet Union. That is, where everything is free, but nothing really works.
Still commenting on a documentary you say you haven’t seen or will not see Republican? Makes your posts about Sicko irrelevant.
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/07/04/sicko_inspires_grass.html
Another Republican “cuts and runs” from Iraq.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003607658
GOP Congressman Tells ‘Sac Bee’ Board: Time to Start Iraq Pullout
By E&P Staff
Published: July 05, 2007 10:30 PM ETALBUQUERQUE
Rep. John Doolittle, a conservative California congressman, today joined others in his party rapidly deserting the president on the Iraq war.
At a town hall meeting in Rocklin and then in a meeting with the editorial board of the Sacramento Bee he questioned whether the conflict was worth the loss of more American lives. He said U.S. troops should be pulled back from the front lines “as soon as possible” and the fighting turned over to Iraqi forces.
A longtime supporter of the war, Doolittle called the situation in Iraq a “quagmire” on Thursday. “We’ve got to get off the front lines as soon as possible,” Doolittle said at Rocklin City Hall, the Bee reported. “And in my mind that means something like the end of the year. We just can’t continue to tolerate these kinds of losses.
“I don’t want to keep having our people dying on the front lines. I am increasingly convinced that we never are going to succeed in actually ending people dying (in Iraq). I think it’s going to be a constant conflict … and if that is going to happen … it needs to be the Iraqis dying and not the Americans.”
Later he told the Bee’s editorial board: “My belief is that the majority of my colleagues on the Republican side have become skeptical of all of this. And that’s a big change.”
Doolittle said colleagues in Congress — including an increasing number of Republicans — believe the war “is something different than we believed it to be. And we’re gravely at risk by constantly having our troops exposed.”
Earlier today, Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) also called for a change in course in U.S. military strategy in Iraq — without waiting for the September report on the “surge.” He joined other Republican senators as Richard Lugar who have recently broken with the White House on this issue.
Domenici said he supports a bipartisan Senate bill which backs the recent report by the Iraq Study Group and would create conditions that could allow for a drawdown of U.S. combat forces in Iraq by next March.
Parents of New Mexico’s military war dead in the past told him the U.S. should stay in Iraq as long as it takes, Domenici said. Those same parents are asking him to do more to bring troops home sooner, he added.
His office released the statement below.*
Pointing to his profound disappointment in the Iraqi government, U.S. Senator Pete Domenici today called for a redirection of U.S. military policy in Iraq and announced his support for bipartisan legislation to create conditions by which American combat troops can be removed from that nation.
Domenici, who serves on the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, announced his decision to support the legislation, the Iraq Study Group Recommendation Implementation Act (S.1545), at a news conference in Albuquerque Thursday.
“I want a new strategy for Iraq. I continue to completely support the men and women in the American Armed Forces. They have not failed us. It is the Iraqi government that is failing to make even modest progress to help Iraq itself or to merit the sacrifices being made by our men and women in uniform,” Domenici said. “I am unwilling to continue our current strategy.”
“I have carefully studied the Iraq situation, and believe we cannot continue asking our troops to sacrifice indefinitely while the Iraqi government is not making measurable progress to move its country forward,” Domenici said. “I do not support an immediate withdrawal from Iraq or a reduction in funding for our troops. But I do support a new strategy that will move our troops out of combat operations and on the path to coming home.”
S.1545, introduced by Senators Ken Salazar (D-Colo.) and Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), embraces the recommendations in the Iraq Study Group Report issued by the bipartisan Baker Hamilton Commission. The bill makes the Iraq Study Group’s 79 recommendations the policy of the United States, and asks the Bush administration-working with military and diplomatic leaders-to implement those recommendations.
The bill is intended to create conditions that could allow for a drawdown of American combat forces in Iraq by March 2008. Under S.1545, the U.S. military could maintain a long-term but more limited presence in Iraq-focused on protecting American personnel and interests, training and advising Iraqi forces, and carrying out counterterrorism and special operations missions.
Domenici indicated that the provisions in S.1545 could be debated as part of the FY2008 Defense Authorization Bill that the Senate will take up next week.
Kscitydude,
The troll’s longest posts always tend to be about those subjects it knows the least.
WE Blog would be easier to use if nics were posted at the top of an entry instead of the bottom…it would identify scroll-overs that much more quickly.
I read about the robbery at Burger King in the paper this morning, the perps were descibed as black males, along with their photo. I don’t see that identifying someone by their race is hands off at the Eagle, they do it all the time when it matters in order to ID someone.But pointing it out when it doesn’t matter WOULD be feeding into those who are racist and love any opportunity to justify their prejudices.
One thing about National Health Care we might need to take in consideration is what is happening in the UK.
NPR had a story on the terrorist doctors in the UK. The UK is so desperate for doctors and nurses to fill vacant positions that they are willing to hire anybody and so they have waived a lot of background checks and hired thousands of doctors and nurses from the Middle East. They said they let in over 900 Iraqi doctors this year so far and they let them all practice medicine without a competency exam or thorough background check.
Why are they hiring so many foriegn doctors? Because all the British doctors and nurses are moving to the United States. Why? Much greater pay, working conditions and seeking knowledge of advance medical equipment, devices, techniques and etc. The British Doctors and Nurses are leaving in droves to come here.
Trudy Rubin wrote an informative editorial this morning concerning Iraq. She’s seems to be honest and very knowlegable about what’s really going on over there. I trust her to know what she’s talking about.
Are you sure, Joe? I have yet to meet any doctors or nurses from the UK, but we have plenty from the Middle East.
See the movie _Sicko_ – it disputes all of the points made by Republican who surprisingly happens to be a consumer of free health care.
How do ya spell hypocrite?
Agreed, Tom.
You know one place in the world where doctors still make house calls?
France.
Michael Moore went with one of them during his rounds all night long.
As for the canard that we’ll get “rationed” health care . . . WRONG!
Rationed health care is what we have now. If your “for-profit” corporate insurance provider doesn’t want you to get that expensive chemo or transplant, guess what, you don’t get it.
That’s what Moore’s movie was all about–how our system makes money by DENYING needed health care.
Are people dying needless deaths because of it? Hell, yes.
9-11 rescue workers went to flipping CUBA and got way better health care than they got under our “system.”
Oh . . . and it cost them nothing.
Although I didn’t find anything specific on British Doctors coming to the U.S., the Brits do have a problem keeping Doctors.
BBC News Report
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6584403.stm
Statistical research on the problem
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=534439
9-11 rescue workers went to flipping CUBA and got way better health care than they got under our “system.”
Oh . . . and it cost them nothing.
Posted by: CapnAmerica | July 06, 2007 at 09:43 AM
Yeah Capn, let’s send Americans by the tens of thousands to Cuba for free health care. See how long that lasts okay?
What a maroon. That stunt pulled by Moore may not only be illegal, but it was a huge propaganda boost for the Communist country lead by a dictator.
Republican, according to the information you provided the Brits have a glut of docs and the majority who want to live simply want to have a differently lifestyle and live outside the UK. Only a small minority attributed their leaving medicine to poor working conditions, and those who worked outside the UK later returned to the UK.
Perhaps it’s best to read the links you post.
See the movie _Sicko_ – it disputes all of the points made by Republican who surprisingly happens to be a consumer of free health care.
How do ya spell hypocrite?
Posted by: | July 06, 2007 at 09:41 AM
Too scared to post under your real nic troll?
Oh and it’s part of every military person’s contract when they retire or are medically retired, to get health care. Any veteran can get military related injuries or illness treated at V.A. hospitals and do.
Another spew monkey on the blog is the cowardly blank.
Obviously Repub has not seen Moore’s movie, SiCKO, since every issue RRpe brings up is sensibly addressed in the film. He also has not done any research, since his assertions are untrue. CNN did a fact check can reported that Moore’s facts check out as accurate.
SEE: http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/06/28/sicko.fact.check/index.html?imw=Y
I looked at the World Health Organization’s statistics online. It is clear we spend more than any other country per person on healthcare, but we do not get a good value.
No one checks with a government bureaucrat to get care. But only we US citizens have some faceless guy in a cubicle overrulling treatments a doctor recommends.
Why does Republican wish for Americans to continue with a broken healthcare system that is far below the level of service in every other industrialized country in the world.
Why should 15 – 30% of our health care dollars go to a middleman (insurance companies) that do not add value or service?
Repub.. maybe you should have that knee-jerk thing looked at!!!
I didn’t say one way or the other Doug, I just posted the links and stated that the U.K. had a hard time keeping Doctors.
Or perhaps you should learn to read what I actually wrote.
“That stunt pulled by Moore may not only be illegal, but it was a huge propaganda boost for the Communist country lead by a dictator.”
Posted by: Republican | July 06, 2007 at 09:52 AM
Yes, Cuba is a terrible country, but it is a safer place than the U.S. if you are and infant. And what does that say about us?
David B,
Nice attempt at attacking me personally and not the issues.
Socialized medicine is for Socialized countries. The U.S. has not nor will ever become a Socialistic country.
Step into reality David B.
We really need to change our system of health care. It is so idiotic to have insurance companies running health coverage.
It’s like paying insurance companies a thousand dollars a month for you car, but with that hefty insurance premium they cover gas and repairs on top of collision. Why would you do that?
Insurance is for low-probability events under catastrophes or emergencies situations. It doesn’t work for standard and routine care.
The bad thing is that people think if the government forms national health care you can dance around saying “my health care is free! my health care is free”.
It’s not free folks. You will pay for it.
I don’t think we need a full blown national healthcare plan, in the sense of how Canadiens, UK, Australia, and others have it.
I think tax breaks for employers(strictly monitored) who are providing health care would be good and then for those unemployeed or whose jobs(small business type, fast food, etc) don’t provide insurance then have free to very low cost insurance(similar to Healthwave maybe) to help those families out.
The two fold benefit here, is employers then are not eating all the cost of health insurance entirely, and those unemployed, or not offered insurance at their places of employment could still access some form of insurance even if it isn’t the greatest in the world.
My two cents.
Then you get good healthcare
Yes, Cuba is a terrible country, but it is a safer place than the U.S. if you are and infant. And what does that say about us?
Posted by: Steven Davis | July 06, 2007 at 09:59 AM
In the U.S. you are allowed choices. If you choose to be slovenly and live in poverty as a street person, you can do so. If you choose to never see a Doctor because you hate or fear doctors then you can. Some of these statistics provided by Moore are just that. That is, some people won’t go to a Doctor even if it was free and it most cases could be free if they applied for Medicaid.
It is really sad that so many people are duped by the Cuban adventure in Moore’s film.
Go talk to some Cuban Americans who have fled Cuba about the health care there.
You will find it is very highly selective and if you are considered an enemy of the State in Cuba, you won’t get health care. An enemy of the State can be anyone that practices Christianity or wants to keep a wee bit more profit on the things he sells.
What naivety among some people.
“It’s not free folks. You will pay for it.”
Joe, the point of Moore’s movie is that we are paying for it now and NOT getting it. Managed care makes (retains) your (their) money by denying care. It is a very broken system. Moore’s movie also points out that socialized medicine works well in other countries.
Something has to give, we have too many who can’t afford insurance and health care costs are way out of control. I’ve had cancer, so if my husband loses his job (which is a real probability since Clear Channel is selling channel 24), I won’t be insurable. I don’t qualify for Medicade, so I’ll be one of the millons without insurance.I’ve told this story many times. My grandson swallowed a nickel that lodged in his throat, his dad had just switched jobs and didn’t qualify for benefits yet, so they were uninsured at the time. It took all day to get him care, the doctors wouldn’t do it in the office unless they came up with cash first, so he ended up in the emergency room and had to be admitted to the hospital, it ended up costing over $8,000 to get the nickel out.There is something really wrong with this picture. We have to change the system to make thinsg more affordable for the average American. Just saying that people need to buy insurance dosn’t cut it. Most can’t afford it.
Sorry, nameless one, but if you look at infant mortality rates, Cuba is ahead of us. Call it naive if you want to, but the numbers speak for themselves.
By the way, the UK is way ahead of us in nearly all health outcomes, too.
Yeah, that socialized medicine is really a bad thing.
Woah, woah, hold on folks!
We don’t dignify ReplagiarCon’s posts with a response, remember?
Otherwise, the Blog will quickly degenerate into being about ReplagiarTroll and its disruptions.
*****
Now, as for Joe Williams: DING DING DING DING!!!
Ringing that Joe Bell.
Here’s what the NPR story said:
World: U.K. Terror Suspects Tied to National Health Service
Jul-03-2007, All Things Considered
…help fill a desperate need in the U.K. for health care professionals. Many British doctors, nurses and technicians moved to the U.S. or Australia, where the pay is better.
http://www.npr.org/search.php?text=health+care%2C+british
Wow. “Many” move away.
How many? 100? 500? a thousand?
Doesn’t say.
What another article DOES say is that under Tony Blair, NHS funding was kicked up and that created a need for more health care workers.
As for Joe’s concern that free care won’t be free . . . well, duh.
But it isn’t free now, is it? A medical crisis is the leading cause of bankruptcy in the United States.
We also pay more in administrative costs–some 18 percent–for private health care than any other comparable country.
By comparison, medicare pays 2 percent in administrative costs.
But that’s CONs for you. They don’t mind people wasting their money on filthy rich CEO’s. It’s the POOR people who need to be punished, dammit!
I agree with that Steven. Under our managed health care system with reliance of insurance companies has been a bad deal. That is from Ted Kennedy and Democrats in NE states with Insurance Companies have headquarters in.
Insurance Companies have better lobbyist. And they successfully hooked politicians on their system.
I read an article about “minute clinics”. These are small clinics that Wal-Greens, CVS and etc are starting up. It’s staff by nurses and no doctors. If you have a flu, upset stomach, and itch or other aliments you can go in, pay very little, like $20 to see a nurse and you can a prescription and whatever. A very economical, cost effective way to deliver routine care to people. Many times people don’t need a doctor, and you have to remember that nursing education is so high, they are basically general practitioners now.
Guess who hates these clinics? Insurance Companies. Because you don’t need them. It’s a treat to their business.
I can see it now, all the insurance companies and physician owned hospitals in their meetings saying, “Okay folks, let’s give it all up, close up shop and let the Michael Moore’s re-invent the way we practice medicine in the U.S. No matter than millions of people will be left unemployed when we shut down and it will completely destroy some University Medical Education programs that have relied on us. Let’s just shut it all down.”
Breaking News?
Rupert Murdoch has succeeded with his $5 billion bid for Dow Jones, owners of the Wall Street Journal, according to sources acting for the Dow Jones board. Negotiations have been completed and the board is confident the terms of the deal will be accepted by the Bancroft family, which controls a majority of voting shares in Dow Jones, over the next few days. A formal announcement is expected next week.
Then move to the U.K. Steven Davis. There’s only 61 million people crammed into the space less than the size of Oregon. I’m sure you’ll enjoy it there.
“Too scared to post under your real nic troll?”
OMG, now THAT’s funny, and I dont care who ya are…
Uh, the nameless one DEFENDED nic switching and trolling. Now he doesnt like it?
Where is the icon for the world’s tiniest string quartet to play “cry me a river” for repuke?
“That is, some people won’t go to a Doctor even if it was free and it most cases could be free if they applied for Medicaid.”
Well, ol’ public dole repuke certainly ought to know about free health care. He milks that public teat from HOW many sources?
Maybe he has carpal tunnel from “repetitive motion” of his right hand? Military disability indeed..
“David B,
Nice attempt at attacking me personally and not the issues.”
OMG, Pot, meet kettle. He can dish it out as the KING of personal attacks, but he cries like a little girl when his own tactics are used on him.
(Sorry to little girls..)
I know, I know.
Walk on by. He isnt worth it. But what a MAROON!
Republican, if there’s a glut of doctors and you claim they are scarce, then you don’t know what you are talking about. It’s not my fault you have poor reading comprehension. Where is the links you provided is there any statement of a shortage? As usual you have no idea what you are talking about.
“That is from Ted Kennedy and Democrats in NE states with Insurance Companies have headquarters in.”
Actually Joe, the midwife for managed care was Richard Nixon. That was in Moore’s movie also. I highly recommend this movie, by the way. As I said earlier, SICKO is Moore’s best work by far.
“Then move to the U.K. Steven Davis.”
And that is ALWAYS the blank one’s ultimate response. Unless he goes into a full self pity tirade about how we abuse him, a disabled veteran. Do we know he is a disabled vet? He’s lied about so many things, why do we believe him on that?
Maybe he just slipped on a banana peel while walking and reading the moonie times?
Ya know, I havent got the bot here lately, so that removes the blank’s excuse for not posting links.
Unless he doesnt post them ’cause he uses selective cut and paste.
AND he’s a proven liar…
You can despise it, laugh at it, sneer at it, or pity it.
Just don’t respond to it.
“Then move to the U.K. Steven Davis.”
Now, that is debating skill that impresses the hell out of me. So, I’ll take that as an admission that you don’t have shit. That would be a new situation, wouldn’t it?
Republican! That won’t happen. Even under National Health Care. Hell! We are already half way there already with Medicaid and Medicare.
Companies profit heavily off the government and they will continue to do so. I’m not liking National Health Care, because I believe it would cost much more than what we are paying now. Regardless of all the European models saying they deliver health care cheaper. It’s not going to work that way here.
Lets just use prescription drug benefits under medicare as an example. Pharma companies issue prices without controls. When it was pushed as a $700 million dollar plan a year has know ballooned into the hundreds of billions and will become the most expensive national health care cost of the government when it runs in the trillions over a decade. Parma’s are laughing all the way to the bank with your tax dollars.
You know how much fraud has been committed under Medicare and Medicaid? Billions of dollars every year. I’m not talking about people faking disability. I’m talking about people who sell wheelchairs and scooters and etc.
Perfect Example: A good friend of mine mother under medicare to a medical supply company they sold a walker to her for $700, charge to the Medicare. It’s free right? Well my friend found the exact same walker at another place, street price $80.
Companies are selling $80 walkers for $700 to the government. The old Military Contractor scheme. The $800 hammer and etc.
Under National Health Care! Oh Gawd! It will be much, much worse.
Funny Steven, he says just the opposite about Mexicans. He thinks THEY should stay where they are and fix their own country.
It really pisses him off when WE stay to fix our own country. Even if it is slow going.
Or “hard work” as the bushies might say, to undo all their heinous acts.
Steven Davis! Nothing works without Congress. You are talking about during the Nixon era, the Health Maintenance Organization and Resources Development Act.
Well! What Moore forgot to add who was the chief sponsor of the law? Ted Kennedy! Yep! You got it.
Ted Kennedy Quote! “HMOs were first step for universal care.” It was he who created the HMO system. And Congress was majority Democrat!
A little detail! That is why it’s always good to diversify your sources and not rely exclusively to leftist websites.
I’m going to watch his movie though!
But go look it up! Ted Kennedy and Democrats are the ones that created HMO’s.
You might be right, Joe. I will look it up.
I wanted to say one more thing that was covered in Moore’s movie; the U.K. doctors get paid bonuses if their patient loads adopt health preserving behaviors – like quiting smoking. So, healthy outcomes are incentifized in that system. And, in the socialized medicine programs covered in the movie, preventative medicine activities are encouraged. To argue that our system of health care is superior to those of socialized programs is just completely divorced from reality. But, I think there are plenty of posters here who are single, virgins, and never once married to reality.
Other than Michael Moore being overweight…. Please post some real facts about why his film is off-base.
See the facts on the for-profit US healthcare system vs. public health oriented systems in all the other industrialized nations:
http://www.whhttp://www.who.int/whosis/en/index.html
Check out: Health financing. We spend 15% of our gross national product on a sub-standard health care system.
I know facts can be confusing and can sometimes upset one’s carefully nurtured opinions……
But in the UK the wait is so long for treatment that 20% of colon cancer patients becoming incurable during their wait for treatment.
I’ll bring more stats later.
And the whole infant mortality figures that people like to compare other countries and the USA? Places like Cuba and Europe and the rest do not count babies that are delivered pre-term and die. They have cutoff weeks. Like babies born before 28 weeks are not counted as infant mortality if they die soon after birth.
In the USA, we count them all, regardless. No cutoff weeks or anything.
So figures are skewed all the time. It’s better in America! Trust me!
I’m against national health care. It will be a disaster. But I am for revamping the system, with governments help and lets see if we can change it for the better and make it more affordable and also provide for those who cannot afford it.
Steven Davis
Did Moore cover how private health insurance companies are popping up in Canada despite being banned?
I don’t have links, I do have friends who are doctors, both here and over seas. Those over seas(Australia) actually do complain about a shortage of doctors and much lower pay.
However, at the same time, not against things that may help to address the need for covering those whose jobs don’t provide insurance. I’m not against getting better coverage for those who can’t work(disabled, retired, etc). To help employers here provide health insurance, why not offer tax breaks?
It seems to me, we don’t necessarily need this “national healthcare” in the sense other countries have it. In response to the “better health care systems of other countries”. Have we looked at our society and our own ways of living? Obesity is pretty high in our country and I’d be willing to wager that plays a large part in our health problems also. I’d like to see statistics that take things that are controllable by the individual to an extent and then compare our health care systems.
Joe,Check this link. Kennedy is flip flopping. He used to be an advocate of HMOs and is not so much, now.
http://www.forhealthfreedom.org/Publications/Choice/ThenAndNow.html
Heckler,Got any evidence? Since seeing Moore’s movie, I am inclined to think that the bad mouthing of soicalized systems we have heard so much about – is B.S.
Being socialized does not automatically mean it is a bad thing. I believe the ideologues have won this debate prematurely and that is a bad thing in terms of what people deserve and need.
Danny,
I think you have a point. I think one reason U.K. health outcomes are better is that culturally things like walking places are not scorned like they are in this country. I think to fairly compare health care systems, one does have to control for those extraneous sources of variance.
It is so nice to hear a dissenting opinion that is couched in terms of logic and reason. Thank you.
“I’m average weight for my height, 220 plus or minus a few pounds, six foot four inches tall. I don’t smoke or drink alcohol. I’m unsure what you mean by unsafe health practices. I don’t take unnecessary risks with my life if that’s what you mean.” — Quoting republican
Every male on the internet is at least 6-4, and a wonderous specimen. I suppose the reason is that the best looking, most healthy, and toughest men on the planet are attracted to forums and chat rooms, after all that hard, body-building activity. Is Republican on Medicare. Most wingers are old phucks.
Hey Steven,
Last time Joyce and I went to Crufts we stayed in an old castle near Birmingham.
Beautiful country and lovely people!
One morning the castle brought in a very nice lady that knew the surronding area and all the walking trails. The one I remember was a little jaunt to a nearby village that she recommended we do for breakfast at the local pub.
15 miles one way!
Hank
Actually I am Door King and no I’m not a hard body by far. Just an average smoe. In my prime, I was a slender 190 and looked rather skinny according to some.
==============
Steven Davis, the issue about private health care and insurance popping up in Canada is true. I’ve posted this at least twice in the threads here.
===============David B, yeah health care is good in UK if you have normal stuff. However if you have cancer like breast cancer or prostate cancer, you are twice as likely to die from it than here in the U.S. I’ve also posted this previously in the threads here.===================Troll eh KFG?
Yeah, like I was trying to hide who I was, J M Walker’s name and my link to Typepad. I even admitted it right after I did it, because it was a joke.
Unlike you KFG who constantly trolls under many names including “Blank.”
Yeah KFG, I do get free health care for most procedures. That’s right free, it’s free KFG
I have free health care KFG and you don’t.
It’s free.
Want to trade my screwed up intestines and spine for free health care KFG? Be my guest please.
Joe Williams,
“But in the UK the wait is so long for treatment…
I’ll bring more stats later.”
What are the DATES of those stats?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/30/AR2007063000367.html“A tripling of British government spending on health care in over the last decade to $187 billion, has meant that patients are treated quicker.”
The U.S. health care system is BROKEN!
A good CNBC video interview of Moore,http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pcuw-_AOk6g
At about 1:40, Moore says we should take the one thing they do right in Canada, the one thing they do right in Britian, the one thing they do right in France, and put it together and call it the American system.
Just don’t do the things they do wrong.
Steve Davis
The link is to Walter Williams, certainly not unbiased, but he cites his Canadian sources.
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4271
By the way, my personal physician grew up in Brittain. He says we’d be phucking nuts to want the British health care system.
“A tripling of British government spending on health care in over the last decade to $187 billion, has meant that patients are treated quicker.”
Yeah, tripling costs, that’s the way to keep a viable economy.
I guess taxes increases are a favorite thing for those who support nanny governments.
Cosmos
That article you posted certainly does not paint a great picture of British health care.
What’s your point?
Republican,”However if you have cancer like breast cancer or prostate cancer, you are twice as likely to die from it than here in the U.S. I’ve also posted this previously in the threads here.”
And you have NOT provided the DATES of your claims. WAS it before, or after Britian reduced the wait time?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/30/AR2007063000367.html“A tripling of British government spending on health care in over the last decade to $187 billion, has meant that patients are treated quicker.”
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/06/sicko-offers-gl.html#comment-74499476
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/06/sicko-offers-gl.html#comment-74503306
Links to what I previously wrote on Canadian and British Health care.
Quote from my links above:
“Take breast cancer. In Britain, which is famous for its socialized system, close to half of all victims die of the disease, according to a recent Cato Institute study by John Goodman, head of the National Center for Policy Analysis. In Germany and France, almost one-third do. In Canada, the figure is 28 percent — and here, it’s 25 percent. Our mortality rate for prostate cancer is 67 percent lower than Britain’s and 24 percent lower than Canada’s.”
Just pass a law against being sick……problem solved.
Heckler,
Moore does not say the U.S. should use the entire British system.
Watch this interview of Moore,http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pcuw-_AOk6g
At about 1:40, Moore says we should take the one thing they do right in Canada, the one thing they do right in Britian, the one thing they do right in France, and put it together and call it the American system.
Learn from their mistakes, and don’t do the things they do wrong.
al-Qaida is expanding, as it now has links to sausage.
{ “terrorism” always was a dead end street }
Health care should not be a business. The Frist family has made their fortune from health care, for- profit hospitals. When hospital went from non-profit to for-profit in this country all Americans lost.
Some for-profit insurance companies (HMOs) can tell you what Doctor you can go to and restrict what tests you can have, all insurance companies should be non-profit.
What happened to the people who wanted to go into medicine to help people? When did their bank account become the only reason they decided to go into medicine?
Greed has taken over our medical system. If our medical system is left up to the capitalists to control, as they do now, we are all screwed.
A physician’s criticism of the AMA’s position on health care access/socialized medicine:
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/11781.html
Heckler,I have to agree with the guy above who wrote this AMA article – physicians are entitled to: 1) argue for their personal interests, and 2) argue for public health care; just don’t say you’re doing number two, you’re when actually doing number one. My point being is that I can’t know for sure (and I would submit, neither can you) if your physician is arguing for number one or number two. One thing you can be sure of is that your HMO is going to be arguing for the financial interests of their stock holders – and it is fair question, does that make much sense? My health care interests and my HMO’s financial interests are direct opposition to each other. Guess who is going to win that contest, nearly every time.
cosmos
“Learn from their mistakes, and don’t do the things they do wrong.”
The problems they have are indemic with a “free” health care system. How do you fix them? Spend even more money?
Steven
I’ve known the guy for over ten years. He serves his medical advice cold and he serves his political opinion cold. I realize you have no reason to buy what I’m saying, it’s only one former Britt’s opinion anyway.
yeah, tripling costs, that’s the way to keep a viable economy.Posted by: Republican | July 06, 2007 at 11:43 AM
Done by Gordon Brown, new UK PM, mainly to beef up Britain’s social safety net to help Britons who suffered or might suffer in the future, displacement and financial shocks due to free trade.
This is something the US should have done a decade ago, too.
As I’m sure you’ll note in the next Congress, when GATT and NAFTA will come under *enormous* pressure.
Also, your Brit doctor is hardly representative of British doctors practicing in the UK today (post-$187B in increased spending).
He can’t be because he’s already opted out. Of course he’s not going to like less-profitable practice.
Hee hee hee hee!
The blank one accusing ME of trolling and posting over another nic?
hee hee hee hee hee!!
Never once, repuke. Never once.
And the last time I checked? YOU posted as the blank one and admitted so.
Geez, republican logic where up is down, black is white, and you accuse someone else of your weakness.
All is well in wingnuttia.
Heads up. I can’t post a link because (a) this David Brooks OpEd piece is gated, and (b) it’s also archived. So I’ll just paste it all here.
Brooks is *the* conservative gate through which the Left will convince the Right of the moral value of national healthcare in the US, I think.
Here’s the key takeaway. It isn’t Brooks idea, it’s Lipset’s. It’s undeniably true, though.
‘when achievement and equality clash in America, achievement wins. Or to be more precise, the achievement ethos reshapes the definition of equality. When Americans use the word “equality,” they really mean “fair opportunity.” When Americans use the word “freedom,” they really mean “opportunity.”’
Here’s Brooks’s entire column:**************************************The American Way of Equality
By DAVID BROOKSPublished: January 14, 2007
Income inequality is on the rise. The rich are getting better at passing their advantages on to their kids. Lifestyle and values gaps are widening between the educated and uneducated. So the big issue is: Will Americans demand new policies to reverse these trends — to redistribute wealth, to provide greater economic security? Are we about to see a mass populist movement in this country?
Nobody was smarter on this subject than Seymour Martin Lipset, the eminent sociologist who died at 84 on New Year’s Eve. Lipset had been a socialist in the hothouse atmosphere of City College during the 1940s, and though he later became a moderate Democrat, he continued to wonder, with some regret, why America never had a serious socialist movement, why America never adopted a European-style welfare state.
Lipset was aware of the structural and demographic answers to such questions. For example, racially diverse nations tend to have lower levels of social support than homogeneous ones. People don’t feel as bound together when they are divided on ethnic lines and are less likely to embrace mutual support programs. You can have diversity or a big welfare state. It’s hard to have both.
But as he studied these matters, Lipset moved away from structural or demographic explanations (too many counterexamples). He drifted, as Tocqueville and Werner Sombart had before him, to values.
America never had a feudal past, so nobody has a sense of social place or class-consciousness, Lipset observed. Meanwhile, Americans have inherited from their Puritan forebears a sense that they have a spiritual obligation to rise and succeed.
Two great themes run through American history, Lipset wrote in his 1963 book “The First New Nation”: achievement and equality. These are often in tension because when you leave unequally endowed people free to achieve, you get unequal results.
Though Lipset never quite put it this way, the clear message from his writings is that when achievement and equality clash in America, achievement wins. Or to be more precise, the achievement ethos reshapes the definition of equality. When Americans use the word “equality,” they really mean “fair opportunity.” When Americans use the word “freedom,” they really mean “opportunity.”
Lipset was relentlessly empirical, and rested his conclusions on data as well as history and philosophy. He found that Americans have for centuries embraced individualistic, meritocratic, antistatist values, even at times when income inequality was greater than it is today.
Large majorities of Americans have always believed that individuals are responsible for their own success, Lipset reported, while people in other countries are much more likely to point to forces beyond individual control. Sixty-five percent of Americans believe hard work is the key to success; only 12 percent think luck plays a major role.
In his “American Exceptionalism” (1996), Lipset pointed out that 78 percent of Americans endorse the view that “the strength of this country today is mostly based on the success of American business.” Fewer than a third of all Americans believe the state has a responsibility to reduce income disparities, compared with 82 percent of Italians. Over 70 percent of Americans believe “individuals should take more responsibility for providing for themselves” whereas most Japanese believe “the state should take more responsibility to ensure everyone is provided for.”
America, he concluded, is an outlier, an exceptional nation. And though his patriotism pervaded his writing, he emphasized that American exceptionalism is “a double-edged sword.”
Political movements that run afoul of these individualistic, achievement-oriented values rarely prosper. The Democratic Party is now divided between moderates — who emphasize individual responsibility and education to ameliorate inequality — and progressive populists, who advocate an activist state that will protect people from forces beyond their control. Given the deep forces in American history, the centrists will almost certainly win out.
Indeed, the most amazing thing about the past week is how modest the Democratic agenda has been. Democrats have been out of power in Congress for 12 years. They finally get a chance to legislate and they push through a series of small proposals that are little pebbles compared to the vast economic problems they described during the campaign.
They grasp the realities Marty Lipset described. They understand that in the face of inequality, Americans have usually opted for policies that offer more opportunity, not those emphasizing security or redistribution. American domestic policy is drifting leftward, but there are sharp limits on how far it will go.
What would you do if you were going somewhere and suddenly saw someone laying in a pool of blood on the floor. You only have a few seconds to react.Posted by: Door King | July 06, 2007 at 07:27 AM
I have never seen someone laying in a pool of blood on the floor, but I did witness a guy beating up his girlfriend in a bar parking lot, and went to her aid. The funny thing is, my boyfriend tried to stop me. And when I took her into her friends, I had to convince them NOT to let her go home with him that night. They didn’t seem to get that when a man has a woman on the ground kicking the sh** out of her, that he REALLY was trying to hurt her.
Anyway, I would stop and help someone who was lying on the ground bleeding, I think THAT is human nature, and it’s inhuman to step over a dying woman!!!!
“…it’s only one former Britt’s opinion anyway.”
Good point.
To another point on why I think a single payer will come into being is that corporate employers are getting sick of messing with insurance and we don’t compete well on the prices of goods with countries/corporations that don’t have to worry employee medical costs.
Steven
“we don’t compete well on the prices of goods with countries/corporations that don’t have to worry employee medical costs.”
Are you saying that corportations are going to be exempt from the costs of health insurance??? You mean that they will not be repuired to pay “their fair share” of the taxes required to pay for your scheme???
Are you serious?
Steven
Just where is the money to pay for it to come from?
Steven
Who’s going to pay for medical care for all the illegal aliens here who either pay little taxes because of their income level, or no taxes because they work off the books?
Steven
Can you say “economic disaster”?
I will look for a link [found one, see below], but I recall consistently hearing that we have to figure in 10% cost increase on our goods due to our current structure of employers paying health insurance. I am thinking that individual tax payers would support a government supported health care system and corporations would not.
So, yes, I am thinking it would be a benefit to corporations for this to happen. The head of GM agreed with me on that:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15828-2005Feb10.html
Heckler, if we cut insurance companies (the middleman) out and go to _an_ “insurance company” (ie, single payer), then you’re asking the wrong question.
The whole point of moving to a single payer system is to save money and ensure potability.
It’s not that companies won’t pay. Of course they’ll pay, but they’ll pay less. If they pay less, then they can pass on some of the savings to their customers. And of course become more competitive as a result.
Talk of an economic disaster at this point is just fearmongering designed to unsettle or muddy a clear discussion.
Steven
GM screwed themselves by giving the unions what they wanted 20 years ago as far as health coverage is concerned. Are they going down because of health care costs? Yes. They are paying health benefits to dependants of former workers who’ve been dead for 15 years.
Heckler,I think you raise a point that is pertinent to why our health care costs are so high in this country – namely, that we have 45 million + uninsured people in this country. When those folks seek health care – it often is the most expensive variety – in Emergency Rooms. Those costs don’t get paid – the burden is passed on to those who can afford insurance. We’re having double digit inflation annually on medical care costs – with no end in sight.
Heckler, our current system medical care is a financial disaster and it gets worse every year.
The newest Impeach Cheney Video is out…
http://impeachcheney.org/
Steven
Oddly, there is truth in what you say.
Read an article some years ago that blamed our current woes on the double edged sword of widespread health insurance coverage. More people could afford the best medical coverage money could buy. In turn there was more money to spend on research and better treatments and improving facilities and technical equipment.
We now have medical treatments and technology we never would have had without widespread health insurance coverage. But it’s at a cost that cannot be accessed without good insurance.
OK,
Almost every thing that is wrong with our health care system today is because of the government, directly or indirectly.
That being said, we still have the best in the world. You can’t equate our system with any other in the world. You can’t say Britain’s or Canada’s is better in any particular area without taking things into cansideration that I don’t hear anyone talking about.
First of all, people say drugs are cheaper in Canada or where ever. Most of the drugs in other countries were developed in the U.S. Capitalism.
Then they say MRI’s are free in G.B. So what? You can’t get one. Furthermore, MRI’s equipment is made and developed in the U.S. The rest of the world wouldn’t have MRI’s without capitalism in the U.S.
I could go on, Medicare and Medicade are a cruel tax on our system. Even without all the fraud and abuse that goes on Medicare is little more than a festering, cancerous sore on our medical system. Because of government mandates and caps on pay health care providers must charge other patients more. It’s not enough that the elderly are paying three times greater percentage of their income now for health care than they were before Medicare, it couldn’t exist without being supplemented by every one else that accesses the system.
Health care in Cuba? Give me a break! Tell me one piece of medical equipment that was ever made in Cuba. Show me one drug that wasn’t produce and imported from another country. In Mr. Moore’s great movie did he tour the Havanna Medical College? Did he show all of the great manufacturers of medical equipment? Did he visit Fidel’s surgeon that was imported from Spain?
No my friends when we take capitalism away from medicine we’ll have no country to supply us with the medicines and equipment with which we currently prop up every other health care system in the Western world.
Hank
Steven,
It is so nice to hear a dissenting opinion that is couched in terms of logic and reason. Thank you.
Posted by: Steven Davis | July 06, 2007 at 11:15 AM
Your welcome.
Hank,
I’ve read similar findings myself. I’ve heard from friends who are doctors, that we do much of the research or capital investment and the other countries benefit. So, does that then beg the question to be asked, are we subsidizing other countries medical practices through our paying more for health care?
One of the biggest problems with the current multiple-payer system is that insurance companies see a huge incentive to steal customers from each other.
Why is this a problem?
Because they only steal the healthiest customers.
Isn’t that what American companies do? Why is it a problem?
If ABC by low premiums steals enough healthy (low- or no-use) customers from DEF, then DEF is left with a customer base of relatively high-use (high expense) customers. So DEF raises premiums to meet it’s state-sanctioned profit margin (this is perfectly legal; in Kansas insurance companies go before the State Insurance Commissioner and argue that they should be able to increase premiums to cover cost AND a “normal” rate of return).
Insurance companies eat first at the revenue trough, you see. This fact alone may lead to a reduction in total healthcare costs by moving to a single-payer system.
What happens next is that some of DEF’s customers — DEF’s least-healthy customers — can’t afford their premiums any more and drop their insurance. Some of them can’t be insured any more at all. In the meantime they get sick and consume hospital/healthcare services.
Because they’re not insured, they pay about 40% than a patient who is insured. If a BC/BS hospital patient pays $1.00 for an aspirin, an uninsured patient will be charged $1.40 for the very same aspirin.
Some uninsured patients can absorb the cost by using personal savings or borrowing. Not many can afford another trip to the hospital, though. Of course the most ill among the uninsured will very likely require more than one hospital trip.
In any case, when they can’t pay at least 2 things happen:1) We have another American personal bankruptcy.2) We have hospital expenses which can only be absorbed by passing on the unpaid revenue to all future patients.
In this way multiple-payer systems lead to more and more health insurance plans at higher and higher premiums (can’t get new policyholders without an expensive marketing plan), fewer and fewer health insurance policyholders, more and more American bankruptcies, and higher and higher healthcare costs.
“Want to trade my screwed up intestines and spine for free health care KFG? Be my guest please.”
Posted by: Republican | July 06, 2007 at 11:31 AM
Figures it would be an “intestinal” thing and lack of spine.
Republican,
“I’m average weight for my height, 220 plus or minus a few pounds, six foot four inches tall.”
Body fat ratio is more important than height/weight. A person with those stats, and not enough muscle mass can have a too high body fat ratio, = overweight.
Or if very large muscle mass (bodybuilder) can have a too low body fat ratio, also unhealthy.
lack of spine.Posted by: XXX | July 06, 2007 at 02:56 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
XXX, thanks. I need a good laugh today!
Good post, flike.
“Because they’re not insured, they pay about 40% than a patient who is insured. If a BC/BS hospital patient pays $1.00 for an aspirin, an uninsured patient will be charged $1.40 for the very same aspirin.”
I have wondered how this is even legal.
Dear Danny,
Yes, in many respects. Many of the doctors in third world nations are either trained in the US or they are trained in their own countries with equipment and instructors from the US.
I was in an emergency room in Greece once, all of their equipment was either Russian or US. The working US equipment was sitting on the Russian. I asked the one doctor that could speak English if the Russian stuff was broke. No, he said, we were trained on the American stuff.
Hank
Republican,
“…for free health care KFG? Be my guest please.”
It’s not “free health care”.We would pay taxes for it — instead of premiums to for-profit private companies, who waste 15 to 30% of it on non-health care costs.
Last time my BMR was measured, my body fat was around 14 percent. I think that’s pretty good for my age. Have no idea what it was when I was younger, lower I’m sure.
No cosmos, I was referring to my “free” health care that I get, even though it’s not free because I have to pay monthly premiums and there is always a co-pay. I also pay for additional health insurance.
Don’t even bother responding.
We know it’s a lie.
Just walk on by . . .
I liked the part in SiCKO where the 9-11 responder bought the exact same drugs that cost 120 dollars a month in the USA.
In Cuba and they cost a nickel.
So you right-wingers are correct. It wasn’t entirely free.
She did have to pay a nickle.
Today’s Bush Family Evil Empire: Scandal Du Jour comes from the Pensito Law Review.
Remember how Bush claimed that the thirty month sentence for his pal “Scooter” Libby was “excessive” and so he had to commute it?
Remember that?
Well, it turns out that that same Mr. Bush intervened against a 24 year Marine vet to argue exactly the opposite, that Victor Rita deserved 33 months in prison for the exact same conviction of perjury and obstruction of justice.
Read it here–
Tony Snow said that President Bush decided to commute Scooter Libby’s two and a half year-prison sentence for perjury and obstruction of justice, because it was “excessive.”
Yet last year the Bush Administration filed a “friend-of-the-court brief” with the Supreme Court, in an attempt to uphold a lower court’s ruling that a 33-month prison sentence for Victor Rita, who was convicted of the same exact charges, perjury and obstruction of justice, was “reasonable.”
Pres. Bush cited Libby’s “years of exceptional public service” in commuting his prison sentence. But Libby is the classic Bushie chickenhawk — a neocon bureaucrat with no service record whose fingerprints are all over the worst military planning in American history.
Conversely, Victor Rita is the real deal:
Victor Rita is a very sympathetic defendant: he served 24 years in the Marine Corps, had tours of duty in Vietnam and the first Gulf war, and has received over 35 military metals and awards. Also, he is an elderly gentleman who suffers serious health problems.
The Supreme Court ruled on the case last month:
The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that criminal sentences within guidelines set by a federal commission are generally entitled to be upheld on appeal, a decision that limits legal options for defendants who feel that they have been punished too harshly.
By a vote of 8 to 1, the court held that, even though it recently ruled that the sentencing ranges set by the U.S. Sentencing Commission are no longer mandatory, judges who follow them may be presumed to have acted reasonably…
*****
So there you have it, folks. When a serving Marine commits perjury, he gets the book thrown at him. The conservative justices on the Supreme Court support it. And President Hypocrisy intervenes to demand that the full penalty be exacted.
But when it’s one of the pResident’s personal FRIENDS, someone who is likely covering up crimes of Mr. Bush himself, well, then, the sentence is . . . uh . . . you know . . . excessive.
This has been your BFEE: Scandal Du Jour.
Capn,
Even _Nixon_ didn’t pardon or commute the sentences of his co-conspirators. Nor did Clinton pardon Susan or Jim (died in prison) McDougal.
It’s obvious to anyone with A) a brain who B) pays attention that this is payoff. The radicons can deny, deny, deny all they want. It helps to remember that these are the same radicons who believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old.
Nevermind the facts, just give ‘em dogma!
Interesting reactions to the movie in Dallas — a redneck Texan behind author badmouthed Moore for a bit, then did a 180, and supported Moore. And the audience had a “town hall” meeting after the movie.
‘Sicko Spurs Audiences Into Action’http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Sicko-Spurs-Audiences-Into-Action-5639.html
And also read Tyler’s review, link on above page.
Yeah, Cuban healthcare is free or almost just 5 cents for that drug.
I wonder who is paying the rest of the cost?
SOCIALISTS for National Healthcare – expect top 50% of taxpayers to pay for the bottom 50%.
I wonder how much the doctors are paid? Doctor shortage? Hmmm….
Great program.
Those who think National Healthcare is a free lunch, are most certainly not paying much if anything for taxes. Or they would know that there is no such thing as a free lunch.
Someone has to pay for it. Whether it is someone else or there’s a reduction in services, the price has to be paid.
Free lunch, it just kills me that people think any Government handout is free!
I knew it. These Republican who are speaking out about Iraq are more worried about loosing their Senate seats. Knowing the people of Kansas, I don’t think Roberts has to worry about loosing his seat. Weasels one and all.
GOP Defections on Iraq: Who’s Next?ANNE FLAHERTY | July 6, 2007 05:21 PM EST |
WASHINGTON — After the recent defection of prominent Republicans on the Iraq war, the big question in Washington is who might be next.
More than a dozen Republican senators who are running for re-election next year head the list of lawmakers to watch. But others, too, have expressed concerns that the GOP has grown increasingly vulnerable on the issue. As the clock ticks toward Election Day, voter pressure is building against any lawmaker still standing with President Bush on the war.
Potential wildcards include members up for re-election who have broken with the president on other issues such as immigration or who face growing anti-war sentiment in their home states. Those include Sens. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Ted Stevens of Alaska, Pat Roberts of Kansas, Michael Enzi of Wyoming, James Inhofe of Oklahoma and Jeff Sessions of Alabama.
Norm Coleman of Minnesota already has expressed grave doubts about the president’s Iraq policies, but he hasn’t signed on yet to legislation calling for a change in strategy.
Support among Republican senators is considered crucial to Bush’s Iraq policy. Democrats hold a narrow 51-49 majority and routinely fall shy of the 60 votes needed to cut off debate and advance most anti-war legislation.
But new cracks in Bush’s support base have begun to show. In the past two weeks, three Republicans _ Sens. Richard Lugar of Indiana, George Voinovich of Ohio and Pete Domenici of New Mexico _ have announced they can no longer support Bush’s Iraq war strategy and have called on the president to start reducing the military’s role there.
Their announcements took many by surprise because most Republicans have said they are willing to hold out until September to see if Bush’s troop buildup is working.
“I have carefully studied the Iraq situation and believe we cannot continue asking our troops to sacrifice indefinitely while the Iraqi government is not making measurable progress to move its country forward,” Domenici told reporters from New Mexico this week. Instead, Domenici embraced a bipartisan bill by Colorado Democrat Ken Salazar that would put U.S. troops on track to leave by the end of March 2008.
A spokesman for the White House, Tony Fratto, said that position amounts to the same approach sought by the Democrats, “which is, in fact, a precipitous withdrawal.”
“We think that’s absolutely the wrong way to go,” Fratto said Friday. “It would be dangerous.”
Domenici’s remarks were a switch for the 34-year Senate veteran and GOP stalwart. Just three months earlier, he scolded Democrats for a proposal to fund the troops but order them home this fall. While he is still likely to oppose such legislation, Domenici’s rhetoric has changed substantially since April when he said he was committed to giving the military the “time and resources to try to calm Baghdad.”
Domenici’s term in Congress expires next year, alongside 20 other GOP senators. Of those, a dozen or more are expected to run for re-election. Four have signed on to Salazar’s legislation: Domenici, Susan Collins of Maine, John Sununu of New Hampshire and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee.
Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon, also running for re-election, came out earlier this year in support of separate Democratic legislation ordering troops home this fall.
The wildcards in the debate are senators, like Roberts, Stevens and Chambliss, who have staunchly defended Bush but are watching his poll numbers drop.
Others include senators like Christopher Bond of Missouri who won’t face voters next year but want to take back control of Congress from the Democrats and have expressed concerns about the lack of progress in Iraq.
Sen. John Warner, whose term is up in 2008 but who is undecided on whether to run again, is expected to propose legislation this month calling for a new strategy.
Sensing the shift, administration officials have reached out to Republicans posing alternative scenarios in Iraq to gauge political support, according to one Senate aide.
Sen. Olympia Snowe, among the first Republicans to call for a phased withdrawal of troops, said she wouldn’t be surprised to see more of her colleagues follow suit because the Iraqi government has failed to live up to most of its political promises. She is not up for re-election next year.
“I think (Domenici) is reflecting that depth of frustration” among all members, said Snowe, R-Maine, in a phone interview Friday. “The big question is exactly what everyone’s going to be able to support that represents a change in course.”
As pressure builds for a change in Iraq policy, a top U.S. commander there warned Friday that drawing down troops too soon would create more problems.
“You’d find the enemy regaining ground, re-establishing sanctuary, building more” roadside bombs, Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch told a Pentagon news conference. “The violence would escalate. It’d be a mess.”
I knew it. These Republican who are speaking out about Iraq are more worried about loosing their Senate seats. Knowing the people of Kansas, I don’t think Roberts has to worry about loosing his seat. Weasels one and all.
GOP Defections on Iraq: Who’s Next?ANNE FLAHERTY | July 6, 2007 05:21 PM EST |
WASHINGTON — After the recent defection of prominent Republicans on the Iraq war, the big question in Washington is who might be next.
More than a dozen Republican senators who are running for re-election next year head the list of lawmakers to watch. But others, too, have expressed concerns that the GOP has grown increasingly vulnerable on the issue. As the clock ticks toward Election Day, voter pressure is building against any lawmaker still standing with President Bush on the war.
Potential wildcards include members up for re-election who have broken with the president on other issues such as immigration or who face growing anti-war sentiment in their home states. Those include Sens. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Ted Stevens of Alaska, Pat Roberts of Kansas, Michael Enzi of Wyoming, James Inhofe of Oklahoma and Jeff Sessions of Alabama.
Norm Coleman of Minnesota already has expressed grave doubts about the president’s Iraq policies, but he hasn’t signed on yet to legislation calling for a change in strategy.
Support among Republican senators is considered crucial to Bush’s Iraq policy. Democrats hold a narrow 51-49 majority and routinely fall shy of the 60 votes needed to cut off debate and advance most anti-war legislation.
But new cracks in Bush’s support base have begun to show. In the past two weeks, three Republicans _ Sens. Richard Lugar of Indiana, George Voinovich of Ohio and Pete Domenici of New Mexico _ have announced they can no longer support Bush’s Iraq war strategy and have called on the president to start reducing the military’s role there.
Their announcements took many by surprise because most Republicans have said they are willing to hold out until September to see if Bush’s troop buildup is working.
“I have carefully studied the Iraq situation and believe we cannot continue asking our troops to sacrifice indefinitely while the Iraqi government is not making measurable progress to move its country forward,” Domenici told reporters from New Mexico this week. Instead, Domenici embraced a bipartisan bill by Colorado Democrat Ken Salazar that would put U.S. troops on track to leave by the end of March 2008.
A spokesman for the White House, Tony Fratto, said that position amounts to the same approach sought by the Democrats, “which is, in fact, a precipitous withdrawal.”
“We think that’s absolutely the wrong way to go,” Fratto said Friday. “It would be dangerous.”
Domenici’s remarks were a switch for the 34-year Senate veteran and GOP stalwart. Just three months earlier, he scolded Democrats for a proposal to fund the troops but order them home this fall. While he is still likely to oppose such legislation, Domenici’s rhetoric has changed substantially since April when he said he was committed to giving the military the “time and resources to try to calm Baghdad.”
Domenici’s term in Congress expires next year, alongside 20 other GOP senators. Of those, a dozen or more are expected to run for re-election. Four have signed on to Salazar’s legislation: Domenici, Susan Collins of Maine, John Sununu of New Hampshire and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee.
Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon, also running for re-election, came out earlier this year in support of separate Democratic legislation ordering troops home this fall.
The wildcards in the debate are senators, like Roberts, Stevens and Chambliss, who have staunchly defended Bush but are watching his poll numbers drop.
Others include senators like Christopher Bond of Missouri who won’t face voters next year but want to take back control of Congress from the Democrats and have expressed concerns about the lack of progress in Iraq.
Sen. John Warner, whose term is up in 2008 but who is undecided on whether to run again, is expected to propose legislation this month calling for a new strategy.
Sensing the shift, administration officials have reached out to Republicans posing alternative scenarios in Iraq to gauge political support, according to one Senate aide.
Sen. Olympia Snowe, among the first Republicans to call for a phased withdrawal of troops, said she wouldn’t be surprised to see more of her colleagues follow suit because the Iraqi government has failed to live up to most of its political promises. She is not up for re-election next year.
“I think (Domenici) is reflecting that depth of frustration” among all members, said Snowe, R-Maine, in a phone interview Friday. “The big question is exactly what everyone’s going to be able to support that represents a change in course.”
As pressure builds for a change in Iraq policy, a top U.S. commander there warned Friday that drawing down troops too soon would create more problems.
“You’d find the enemy regaining ground, re-establishing sanctuary, building more” roadside bombs, Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch told a Pentagon news conference. “The violence would escalate. It’d be a mess.”
On Britain’s need to import doctors, why not look closer to home? Wichita has a significant number of doctors who received their medical degrees from Third World countries. This is due to Congress’s decision in the 1960’s to “break the stranglehold” of the American medical profession. At the time, the largest cost component of medical care was physician fees. The government outlawed physician fee-information sharing, calling it collusion. Bringing in doctors from the poorest countries in the world, and giving them “finishing training” (post-MD residency training) was supposed to create open competition. But the imported doctors found out it was much more attractive to try to earn American doctor incomes than help the nation reduce healthcare costs.
Today, doctors’ fees are a drop in the bucket compared to drug costs. But Congress has no serious intent to bring them down to other (First World) nations’ levels. Big Pharma has paid off the politicians. Even Hillary Clinton who spearheaded a universal healthcare campaign, capitulated and took the money.
According to Ralph Nader, a lawyer who is very careful to check his facts, says that we are wasting $200 B annually in fraud, waste and abuse. Medicare–the government–pays for more than half the cost of American medical care, and that percentage is rapidly rising as the population ages.
Canada and Australia have Medicare. That’s what they call their healthcare program for people of all ages.
Government per se isn’t the problem. Politicians’ collusion with avaricious “health industry” businessmen, who hire 4 K Street lobbyists for every member of Congress, is the problem.
Doctors who think that medical practice is a big-buck-making business are the problem. MM asked a British GP how much he made. $200,000. That’s enough to serve other people and live comfortably. Several doctors in the practice are all government employees. That’s very different from the American businessman-doctor model of a senior practice owner hiring a young associates, PA’s and nurse practitioners, who all bill at doctor fee rates, but are paid a fraction of them. So the businessman doctor makes $500,000. He’s not devoted to helping people, he’s motivated by greed. Greed is incompatible with helping people to the best of one’s ability.
Finally, on government, who do you think pays for the education and training of our doctors, and drug-industry scientists? Who approves or disapproves new drug applications? The question is what do the American people get for their investment? Right now, they are getting rapidly-diminishing returns.
Now that was one heap of filler on this post.
If I only had a brain like the dude…..
And now for the Inconvenient Truth about Victor Rita – I bet Capn didn’t even know this case involved guns. :)
http://www.coldheartedtruth.com/index.php/main/2007/07/04/victor_rita_vs_scooter_libby
Victor Rita has been mentioned quite a bit from the left over the past couple of days and for specific reason. You see, Victor Rita was (like Scooter Libby) found guilty of Perjury and obstruction charges and sentence to 33 months in Prison. Like Scooter Libby, Victor Rita argued that the sentencing was excessive. His argument went all the way up to the Supreme Court before ending with a judgement on the side of a judge. Of course, as I have mentioned quite a lot, an appeal isn’t always just about an appellate court overturning the judgement, but rather making an assessment as to whether that judgement is within certain boundaries. The appellate Judge may personally have judged it differently themselves, but uphold the original decision because they can see the judges decision as reasonable.
What the left is suggesting, however, isn’t exactly quite true (surprise, surprise). The case against Victor Rita and Scooter Libby are not identical, and in many ways are not even similar other than the fact that we are dealing with the same crime.
What happened in the Rita case was that Rita had purchased a gun kit that the federal government deemed might be used to create a machine gun. Rita agreed to allow the feds to inspect the kit. But between the time of the request and the time that the feds came to inspect the kit, Victor had contacted the gun company and exchanged the kit for a different one. He then proceeded in lying under oath about his original purchase, his conversation agreeing to the inspection, and his subsequent exchange.
Now to tie this together and to debunk the misleading nature of the left… Victor Rita had been convicted in 1986* of making false statements about a purchase of guns. In THAT case, he was sentenced to five years probation. Not 33 months. So contrary to what the left is telling you, Victor Rita was not a good citizen with no brushes with the law. He was in fact a guy with a history of purchasing guns and lying about those purchased to the federal government. What would seem to be “more” relevant to this case was the five years probation that Rita received the first time he was convicted of making false statements to the government.
Secondly, the judge in that case correctly bumped the level from the base level of 14 (15-21 months) to 20 (33-41) because in fact Rita’s false statements and perjury were directly related to the outcome of the federal investigation. By trying to mislead the federal government about which kit he purchased, he was indeed thwarting the main focus of the investigation. In fact, Rita himself (and his kit) was pretty much the entire basis of the investigation.
On the flip side… Scooter Libby was never the focus of the original investigation into the leak. Fitzgerald knew (or should have known) upfront that the original leak came from Richard Armitage. Scooter Libby’s testimony regarding his conversations with Russert and Cooper had little or nothing to do with the main goal of the investigation (if there even was one). I was (as were many legal experts) amazed that Walton deemed these conversations so important to the case that they needed to be classified as extraordinary to the point of nearly doubling the sentence.
Maybe the most significant difference however was the federal sentencing office suggested a lesser (not higher) punishment then the level 14 (15-21 months) for a first time offender in the Libby case. This office is an objective third party who work with sentencing guidelines full time. They felt Libby deserved a break.
I will also note that the USSC findings in the Rita case suggest that there are indeed 6th amendment issues with a judge who uses specific “facts” in determining sentencing that were not presented to the jury during the course of the trial. They only found that in this case (Rita) that the issue did not apply. One could certainly argue that they would apply in the Libby case since Fitzgerald came out after the trial to make certain arguments (such as the status of Plame) that he never proved during trial. Walton’s ruling on sentence clearly took some of these Fitzgerald arguments into consideration with his sentence.
The rest is pure nonsense. Of course Rita’s attorneys will argue that he was a good guy in bad health who should be given a break. But unlike the Libby case, there was no sentencing board recommending a shorter sentence than the level 14 (15-21). There were no cries that the Machine Gun investigation became politically motivated. There were no letters from prominent people on Rita’s behalf. There were really no extenuating circumstance for the judge to consider in the case of Victor Rita.
*Rita conviction – Cornell University – Rita vs United stated – Part B – third paragraph
NOTE: – Tom Maguire just put up a similar post on his cite and offered one other significant difference. The Rita case ended up with indictments for the criminal activity that was being investigated. The Fitzgerald investigation found no underlying crime.
http://www.coldheartedtruth.com/index.php/main/2007/07/04/victor_rita_vs_scooter_libby
Posted by: True Grit | July 06, 2007 at 05:49 PM
True Grit, is John Wayne your hero? Then you should watch this video. And read the transcript for the last part the video dropped.
‘Keith Olbermann’s Special Comment: You ceased to be the President of the United States’http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/07/03/keith-olbermanns-special-comment-you-ceased-to-be-the-president-of-the-united-states
It looks like the article attacking Al Gore that Republican posted,http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/07/open-thread-71.html#comment-74531658
has a fabricated quote, and other falsehoods.http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/07/glenn_reynolds_calls_al_gore_a.php
But that’s not surprising, considering that Republican posted lies using J M Walker’s nic.http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/05/open_thread_28.html#comment-71041282
There are a number of reasons why American medical care including:
1. Johns Hopkins University laid a foundation for scientific medicine. This was adopted by a growing number of medical schools in the early 20th century.
2. For-profit diploma mill medical schools were shut down in the wake of the Flexner Report of 1912. Academic-achievement-based admissions standards were widely imposed.
3. The federal government created civilian taxpayer-funded medical research after WWII.
4. America received Europe’s most talented scientific minds after WWII, because they couldn’t do research in their war-wrecked home countries.
5. America’s WWII victory gave it cheap access to world natural resources at low cost, booming the American economy, enabling it to afford to fund research, including the invention of revolutionary new treatments, and largescale health insurance.
6. Up through the early 90’s, health insurance companies “bought into” the research-based ideology, and paid for cutting-edge treatments.
These factors have eroded. Under managed care, cutting-edge treatments are not funded, and without their testing on patients, medical progress will be impeded.
So people who say, “We have the best healthcare in the world,” do not understand that this is due to reaping investments of the past that are now being scuttled by fast-buck artists.
Specifically, if health insurance were provided by the government, or non-profit corporations whose CEOs earned $200,000, as administrators, rather than $2,000,000 (and a whole lot more) as money-grabbing shysters, we could afford to give cutting-edge treatments to patients with cancer, crippling heart disease and the like. This wouldn’t put things into the red, it would merely create a monies put into healthcare = health services costs balance.
This is the criminal con game folks. When we were younger, we poured a lot of money into health insurance, without getting any return, since we didn’t need healthcare services. Now, with the embezzlers running things, as we age and need care, we are denied it. Our past contributions constitute nothing. They’re just down the drain.
It wasn’t wrong for our payments providing care to older people who needed it. But there was a social contract: when we later needed care that exceeded our premiums, it was supposed to be covered by younger people’s contributions who paid into the system, but didn’t need its services. That social contract has been voided by greedy pigs who don’t care if they ruin our healthcare system, and who actually don’t care if we go to a national healthcare system like the rest of the First World has long enjoyed–so long as the conversion occurs AFTER they have siphoned their own millions and tens of millions (or even billions in one managed care CEO’s case).
Is this what makes America a great country, or what?
cosmos,
Thanks for the links. I am sort of shocked that we were fibbed to, though. [/sarcasm]
shocked??? oh nooo tell me it aint so!!!
Good post, MPS.
This has been an unusually good open thread it seems to me.
The thing that frosts me the most about managed care is that they were able to insert themselves under some 1960’s era legislation that workers benefits were not subject to law suits. Thus, as I understand it, one could have proof that a decision by an HMO case manager directly caused the death of a loved one, the agrieved family member could not sue the HMO. However, suits against managed care companies have been ajudicated in California – but unfortunately those cases are sealed.
Another good thing about the Moore film was that he spoke to people who used to do those dreaded HMO jobs. One couldn’t help but feel sorry for those HMO employees. I have more than once said the only thing worse than dealing with managed care staff, was being one – from Moore’s film that looked to be a more true sentiment than I ever knew.
Almost everyone who has health insurance in America has the plan that their employer has chose for them, or one of the few plans made available for them.
And the employer pays for all or a large part of the premium.
Does anyone see this as a problem? For most folks, if they don’t like the insurance their employer provides — say it won’t cover their unmarried partner — they don’t have an alternative.
To me, it makes as much sense for employers to provide and pay for health insurance as it does for them to provide auto insurance for their employees.
And, most people think their employee-provided insurance is free. It isn’t. Employees pay the full cost of it.
Very few insurance providers cover for an unmarried partner… And I dont know where you figure the employee pays for employer paid insurance… The only time I pay my own health insurance, is when I am on leave… like I am now… Any other time, my employer pays all of my health insurance, and pension payments…
Showing some more of your intellect cramit?
Our mortality rate for prostate cancer is 67 percent lower than Britain’s and 24 percent lower than Canada’s.”
Posted by: Republican
And that is because our current healthcare system is going broke paying for these catastrophic diseases. There is total access to healthcare in the US if you have health insurance and/or have enough private funds to pay for any and all cancer treatments.
Take it from someone who has gone through a cancer diagnosis – it is horrendous. The bills are out of this world. I had to question when my cancer doctor submitted a claim for $10,000 for one treatment. And then on top of that, he charged me a co-pay for when I went in just for lab. The current healthcare system is based on profit and greed. Until we get those factors out of the equation, all healthcare costs will be inflated and will continue to get worse.
Any attention you receive makes you feel like a big man? Even when the attention you create for yourself arises from your stupidity? Seriously, grow up.
Good grief… we have been attacked by an anti-intelligence BOT tonite!! Yikes!!
Looks like its time to walk… on… by…
They said my first Chemo treatment was $52,000… I had a co-pay of $1,200…. I about fainted!!