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
- LonnythePlumber on Jail consultants straining patience
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
Open thread 8/25
- By Phillip Brownlee
- Posted Aug. 25, 2007 at 1:04 a.m.
- Filed under Open thread
- Permalink
- Comments RSS
- Both comments and trackbacks are closed
54 Comments
I have a feeling it’s gonna be one of those days!!! But then, maybe not!!
I recently attended a health care conference.
I learned that by 2015 or so, American health care costs will account for over 18% of the Gross National Product of the USA.
Insurance companies, who handle most of this money keep about 18% as their profit.
Imagine getting to pocket 18% of 18% of the largest economy in the world.
That’s 18% of health care expenses that DO NOT go towards healthcare.
46 million Americans have no health insurance at all, including millions of children.
Clearly, corporate for-profit medical care is not working to the benefit of America. We need a revolutionary change in the way America’s health care money is used.
Watch it David B, what you posted makes too much sense.
Be prepared to be labeled a Socialist or even earn the dreaded COMMUNIST title.
In the words of the totally weirded out Prez… Bring em on!!
The truth will not exactly set you free:
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/08/24/ap4052736.html
When you have health insurance, do you really receive adequate “health care.” Can you get any information in writing from your doctors or hospitals?
A couple acquaintences have died recently, one from complications from surgery for throat cancer, the other from some sort of treatment for prostrate cancer. I didn’t see their doctors at their funerals … don’t they have responsibility in these cases?
Perhaps the 46 million Americans who have no health insurance and presumably minimal health care are the lucky ones.
“Perhaps the 46 million Americans who have no health insurance and presumably minimal health care are the lucky ones.”
JWink, you’re today’s winner of….
MOST RIDICULOUS STATEMENT EVER!
You don’t really have any idea about how heathcare for the uninsured works until you’ve experienced it up close and personal when you or a loved one goes through it. Unless you’re a totally callous unfeeling beast, it’s obvious something needs to change.We’re supposed to be the richest most advanced country in the world. That all Americans can’t have health care is a crime. Making employers furnish health insurance puts us at a competitive disadvantage. It’s time for a change.
I have a revolutionary idea- why not just everybody drop their health insurance and just show up at the ER when ill. I figure if 80 to 90% of us don’t have any insurance, they will reform it alot faster!
I am having trouble with 18% of 18%. Do you have any reference for that number.
I know that yesterday someone was throwing out numbers on the cost of healthcare but I do not think there was any hard numbers there either.
If there is an 18% profit what is the cost incurred? Another 18% plus?
You know with 36% we could change the world.
Even if you have insurance, sometimes it won’t help you. For example a co-worker of mine was injured while in Las Vegas and the insurance only paid a very small part of the bill because he was “out of network” because the carrier is not in Las Vegas. He was left with about $12,000 in unpaid bills! The thing I don’t get is this- if you have car insurance and you have a wreck in another state, you are covered so why is health insurance any different?
Jwink, I’m sorry about your friends, but I question why you’d expect doctors to attend funerals. As a healthcare provider in my history I had a policy, all or none attendance of funerals…and since I couldn’t do all obviously, I chose none. All surgery and treatment has risks, even if minimal. You had two aquaintances who were simply unlucky probably…or had other issues to work through too. Pregnancy has risk. We discuss this during abortion debates when the antis go nuts over a death from complications. ALL medications and treatments and surgeries carry risk of death. WHen you question it, you have to be sure that the doctors did minimize risks as much as possible.
For example…my father recently had surgery. He has many risk factors on top of what the actual surgery carried…which was risky too. You bet I was extremely concerned because I knew this could turn out badly. And I knew it wouldn’t likely be the doctor’s fault if it did.
When I did my clinicals for surgery, I had a patient getting ready for surgery. She had a bad reaction to the pre-surgical medication and coded, right there in pre-op. Yes she was brought back fine, but that just shows you…anything can happen. When I had my first surgery later- all I could think of was her. I was a complete basket case. You tell yourself risk is low…but you know what you know, and it’s scary.
Everything is weighed, risk vs benefit.
The fist time I lost a patient, a young man who was only 32, who had a heart attack. When they performed the angioplasty, he had a reaction to the dye they injected into his arteries and they lost him right on the table. Humans aren’t machines..all sorts of things can go wrong and it’s no one’s fault. Anytime someone has any kind of preocedure, there is risk. Health care professionals have to weigh the risks of intervening vs not intervening.
I had recent surgery as some of you may have concluded. It is somewhat scary only if you don’t know where you will spend eternity. One of the nurses in the ward commented on my blood pressure and said “My! You are cool as a cucumber! Your blood pressure is 110/60!” I laughed and told her I wasn’t awake yet.
The thing about health insurance is that you can’t have just one policy no matter who covers you. If you have Medicare, private health insurance, you need supplemental insurance or a medical savings account. I have the latter of the aforementioned, along with catastrophic coverage and it makes it nice to pay for these big costs.
You can make a choice, you can buy that big screen TV and get rowdy with all of your Monday night friends or you can be satisfied with the $400.00 27 inch TV.
It’s quite simple actually. Mind your pennies and your dollar savings will add up over the long run.
Why do when hospital bill families when the patait dies in their care, i go in for surgery and dont make it why should my family pay for failure. I dont pay the mechanic if he messes up my car.
Because Tom, that’s the way it is. Why should the hospital and doctors go without pay because of something they couldn’t help? All of the items they use are expensive. We bill a code blue higher on the ambulance than we do regular runs, even if the patient dies, because they require more stuff.
Unless there was malpractice of course. There are standards to be adhered to. It wasn’t the medical staff that killed the patient. It was just how it is. We all are going to die.
Mary Caruso
This is just for you.
Gun Control’s Twisted Outcome
Restricting firearms has helped make England more crime-ridden than the U.S.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html
The following was posted by Max| August 24, 2007 at 09:31 PM
>Why would a surviving spouse be owed ANY benefits from their spouse’s Social Security?
If you agree spouses should have OWNERSHIP of their deceased spouses Social Security, then you are for some Privatization of Social Security. And the Gay and cohabitant issues then needs to be resolved.
If you agree spouses should NOT have any ownership of their deceased spouses Social Security, then we can save some money just by cutting this off.
Either way would be an improvement.<
MY RESPONSE USING MY REAL-LIFE EXPERIENCE (which the person above obviously does not have):
The benefits paid to an elderly surviving retired widow is EITHER her SS benefit OR her late husband’s SS benefit, depending on which is the higher amount. She is NOT paid both. Plus the widow cannot begin collecting the SS benefit until she is at least 60 years old (unless she has children under age 18). As a 51-year old widow, I lost my husband’s income and I will not qualify to receive his SS benefit for at least nine more years. I lost 2/3 of my household income when my husband died. So I will struggle for many years to come before I will be able to draw my late husband’s SS benefit. Yet, you people think I should just be cut off simply because I had the misfortune to lose my husband at a young age. Do you have any idea how cruel and callous your attitudes are toward other people? Before you make broad, brushstroke assumptions and snap judgments, you ought to think about how it would be to walk in my shoes.
L.P.
We do need a change to our system. If National Health Care comes into our system, that’s ok, so long as people are still allowed to have private practices and people are allowed to go to these private practices and pay out of their own pocket for that care.
What I disagree with about National Health Care is that they often times make it illegal for any doctor to set up shop and accept only patients who pay out of pocket. Most all national health care plans make that illegal and force doctors to care for patients regardless.
I don’t think there is a Right to Health Care. A Right to Health Care means that you can force a person to give up their time and labor to care for you.
I believe that doctors should be able to choose and reject to care for people as they see fit.
“A Right to Health Care means that you can force a person to give up their time and labor to care for you.”
Joe, their JOB is caring for sick people… It isnt like they are being called off the golf course, to see a sick patient… What time and labor are they giving up?? They get paid for it!!
I dont see what the heck you are talking about…
“If National Health Care comes into our system, that’s ok, so long as people are still allowed to have private practices and people are allowed to go to these private practices and pay out of their own pocket for that care.”
I disagree. A nationalized system and a private system means I have to pay for health care twice. Once to the “it’s the best we can to government services” and again to the customer sensitive private practice.
>I believe that doctors should be able to choose and reject to care for people as they see fit.<
What about this statement from the Hippocratic Oath?:
…I will treat without exception all who seek my ministrations, so long as the treatment of others is not compromised thereby…
http://www.sandersresearch.com/index.php?option=com_content%26task=view%26id=1286%26Itemid=97
FYI – The above link is to a Sanders Research Assoc.(www.sandersresearch.com) article called, “Who Speaks for the American Military?” Dr. Paul has more contributors to hos campaign who are in the Armed Forces or veterans than any other GOP candidate. Only Sen. McCain comes close to Dr. Paul in this regard.
SOL — What will it take to get Dr. Paul OUT into the Media circus?? Nobody is paying attention to him, in national media… I like him too!!
Unless there was malpractice of course. There are standards to be adhered to. It wasn’t the medical staff that killed the patient. It was just how it is. We all are going to die.
Posted by: political_mom
And proving malpractice is extremely difficult. Any lawyer will tell you that it will take a minimum of $100,000 to even start a medical malpractice lawsuit. And who has that kind of money to pay their lawyer? There are those cases that are so obvious that many law firms will take the medical malpractice on the risk of winning and then the lawyer’s fee will be taken from the settlement. BUT – these cases are few and very, very hard to prove.
And every healthcare provider has their own built-in lawyers that will drag the case on for years in the court system. So where is the justice? Unless you have alot of money, the average patient is screwed.
Before you make broad, brushstroke assumptions and snap judgments, you ought to think about how it would be to walk in my shoes.
L.P.
Posted by: LP Cox | August 25, 2007 at 11:11 AM
Actually LP, I was advocating partial privatization of Social Security which would give you some ownership of the 15.3% of YOUR income contributed to Social Security.
When your husband died, there would be a cash distribution to his estate for the owned portion of his Social Security.
As his wife, and assuming you received your husband’s estate, then you would have IMMEDIATELY benefits from the owned portion of Social Security money your husband paid into the system over his entire working career.
Under today’s rules, your husband didn’t collect a dime, nor did his estate. Fair?
Many males in my family died before reaching age 62. I would like at least some of what I’ve paid into Social Security to go to my family, in the event I don’t live long enough to collect it myself.
Today, if you make $100,000/year, $15,300 is squandered away into Social Security. And if you die before age 62, then it was just a nice gift you gave to the Socialists of America.
Oh, and LP, personal attacks on my life experience will get you no where. If you really just want more gov’t handouts, and want to personally attack conservatives because we are NOT Socialists, make my day.
If you want a chance to get some of your own money back, then jump on the conservative bandwagon.
They contend that a preacher could face criminal liability if a follower were to go out and commit a crime against a gay person after listening to a fiery sermon denouncing homosexuality.
“What I’m talking about is my right to preach what I believe,” said Bishop Harry Jackson, pastor of Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, Md., who joined three dozen black pastors to buy a full-page ad in USA Today denouncing the proposed federal hate crimes law. “We preach love and acceptance, but I don’t believe the Bible condones gay lifestyles. Yet the way these laws would be invoked would be that whoever is a commander or director of this kind of action can be brought up on the same charges as the actual perpetrator of a crime.”
Proponents of the expanded hate crimes law dismiss such concerns as exaggerations and say that nothing in the legislation would infringe on freedom of speech.
“For ministers to say that on Sunday morning they are going to get arrested because they make a speech against homosexuality is an unfair assessment of the law,” said Martin Cominsky, Houston regional director of the Anti-Defamation League. “It’s not about thought, it’s not about speech. The law only comes into bearing against someone who takes a violent action.”
If sexual preference is genetic, then it is no longer a preference:
Study of gay brothers may find clues about sexualityBy Robert Mitchum | Tribune staff reporterAugust 12, 2007
In Gregg Mierow’s family, there were six boys, brothers who grew into two groups as they reached maturity: Three are gay, and three are straight.
“It seems innate to me,” Mierow, who works in advertising and as a yoga teacher in Chicago, said of his homosexuality. “It doesn’t seem like there’s any choice involved, and it seemed very clear even when we were very young.”
Mierow stumbled upon a chance to help prove that hunch at the Northalsted Market Days festival four years ago. Spotting a banner reading, “Wanted! Gay Men with a Gay Brother,” he stopped by the booth and volunteered for what he thought would be little more than a survey.
Instead, Mierow found himself part of the Molecular Genetic Study of Sexual Orientation — the most extensive study yet to search for a genetic basis for homosexuality — embarked upon by a team of Chicago researchers from local universities.
The scientists hope that by gathering DNA samples from 1,000 sets of gay brothers like the Mierows they will be able to find genetic linkages smaller studies failed to detect. They’ll be recruiting brothers again at the Halsted Street festival this weekend.
The results may ignite controversy, the researchers acknowledge, both by providing ammunition in the raging cultural war over homosexuality and by raising fears about ethically questionable applications like genetic profiling and prenatal testing.
But, they argue, the research is essential to our biological understanding of sexual behavior.
“If there are genetic contributions to sexual orientation, they will not remain hidden forever — the march of genetic science can’t be stopped,” said Timothy F. Murphy, bioethicist adviser to the study. “It’s not a question of whether we should or should not do this research, it’s that we make sure we’re prepared to protect people from insidious uses of this science.”
Although the question of whether homosexuality is a choice remains a hot topic for pundits, scientists are largely in agreement that sexual orientation is at least partially determined by biology.
Studies that compare identical and fraternal twins for the frequency of a particular behavioral trait have consistently suggested there are both genetic and environmental causes of homosexuality. Identical twins, who share 100 percent of their genes, show a higher chance of both being gay compared with fraternal twins, who typically share the same family environment but only half their genetic code.
Researchers also have found physical traits that correlate with homosexuality, from the relative size of certain brain areas associated with sexual behavior to seemingly irrelevant characteristics like hair whorl direction and finger-length ratios.
Inspired by the accumulating circumstantial evidence of genetic factors, researchers in the early ’90s began trying to narrow down the wide expanse of DNA to a few promising regions. By comparing the genetic codes of gay brothers, who also share 50 percent of their genes, a “linkage study” tries to detect areas that show up in both men at a frequency higher than chance, suggesting one or more genes in that region might be linked to sexual orientation.
In 1993, geneticist Dean Hamer announced his group had found such a region on the X chromosome, which males inherit from their mothers. But the number of brother pairs used in the study was small and subsequent studies failed to replicate Hamer’s findings, throwing the result into question.
“In complex gene scenarios, people figured out that you need a larger sample size in order to get reasonable statistical power,” said Dr. Alan Sanders, a psychiatrist at Evanston Northwestern Healthcare and the leader of the current study.
To increase the chances of finding genetic areas associated with homosexuality, Sanders proposed assembling almost 10 times the sibling pairs of previous studies. The project received funding in 2001 and began recruiting subjects at gay pride festivals, through gay-oriented publications and on the Internet.
So far the Chicago researchers have obtained blood or saliva DNA samples and survey data from more than 600 brother sets, with several hundred other volunteers in the process of submitting one or the other. Sanders hopes to publish his findings from the first wave of DNA samples in a scientific journal sometime next year.
Sanders cautioned a linkage study can single out only regions of the genetic code, not individual genes.
“One of the advantages of linkage studies is that we don’t have to know those things ahead of time,” Sanders said. “It’s a big advantage here because we don’t know about the biology of sexual orientation yet, so we can find the genes first and then study the biology.”
At this point, the researchers do not know what types of genes they may find; they could be related to hormones, sexual development or a completely unexpected system.
“The genes would probably be doing their work by affecting sexual differentiation of the brain during prenatal life,” said J. Michael Bailey, a Northwestern University psychology professor involved with the project. “But what scientists are increasingly appreciating is that genes can affect a trait in ways you could never have guessed.”
The hunt for specific genes that affect sexual orientation may take several years, but the implications of this eventual finding are being fiercely debated already.
“I think this kind of research receives a lot more criticism and attention because people often think it has profound implications for social and moral decisions,” Bailey said. “This is a controversial area. Even though it fascinates people, it scares people from the research end.”
Researchers involved with the project believe finding a genetic linkage will help settle arguments over whether homosexuality is a choice or an innate trait.
Chicago Tribune
Let’s go to Canada for some FREE healthcare:
Under the terms of the Canada Health Act, the provinces and territories provide all residents with health insurance cards, which entitle the bearer to receive free medical care for almost all procedures. Health institutions are either private and non-profit (such as university hospitals) or provincially run (such as Quebec’s CLSC system). Most all doctors are in private practice as entrepreneurs, as of 2002 they have been allowed to incorporate, and they bill the medicare system for their fees. The system is known as a “public system” due to its public financing, but is not a nationalized system such as the UK’s NHS; most services are provided by private enterprises, such as clinics or doctors who are paid a fee-per-visit. Canadians have free choice of doctors and can change doctors at any time they wish.[3]
The Health Care System in Canada is a universal access system, but some items or services are not covered, with inconsistency province to province, e.g., drug coverage, optometry, physical therapy.[4][5][6] While often called a socialized-public system it is in fact merely publicly funded. Most services are provided by private enterprises, and doctors are not on a government salary, but operate as independent businesses.[7]
Guess your teeth are not a socialist problem:
Dental care is not covered by any government insurance plans. Canadians rely on their employers, individual private insurance, or simply pay cash themselves for dental treatments.
The hate crimes antis because they want to preach against gays would have no bearing on their freedom of speech, only if they advocated violence. It’s just like the KKK. They can exist, they can spew their crap, but when they start asking their followers to go out and kill blacks, then it becomes an issue. So are these preachers wanting to advocate killing homosexuals? I doubt it, they don’t do it now.
Max -
You are so sad. Do you not feel any compassion or sense of “we’re all in this together” at all? My husband died and in 10 – 15 years I will be able to draw Social Security based on his 35 years of lifetime earnings. If I happen to die before reaching the age to draw this, then so be it. At least the system has been here for decades as a safety net for our society, and as a good human being I contributed to the betterment of my country and its people through my payroll contributions to it.
Bitter, greedy people are a sad commentary on how our economic system at times brings out the basest instincts in some of our citizens.
Maidmarion, have you ever been involved in a medical malpractice lawsuit? My mother did start the procedings for suing her doctor when she felt a lump in her breast, and the doctor didn’t document it and claimed she never told him. He said lets keep an eye on it, and then never did anything more till a year and half later when my mom finally insisted that he do something. And they ended up removing an orange sized area from her breast because it was cancer. That’s why I advocate telling the nurse immediately everything you want to discuss with the doctor so you’re sure to have it written into the chart.
Her problem was not securing a lawyer. Her problem was getting another doctor to say for sure whether that year and a half would have made a difference in the treatment she received. So no case. Apparently the doctors all like to give other docs the benefit of the doubt when it’s in question. It’s only when there is a deviation from the standard that they’ll come out and say so.And it was his word against hers.
She certainly didn’t pay 100k.
Dentist not only is dental, hearing or vision covered but there are many services we think of as fundemental in the US that are considered gravy in Canada.
The real kicker is that little “…but some items or services are not covered,” statement.
Upstream someone said you are allowed to go to any physician you want. That is true to a degree. You do pick your primary care physician from a panel of docs who have agreed on the fee payment schedule of the Canadian government and the province they live in. After that you no longer have the option of going to a specialist or any other dr you think you want to see. You must be refered by your primary – like our current PPO.
If your primary doesn’t think you need a spec. you are just out of luck. No self referring like we are allowed now.
“Canada’s government rations its health services by not providing for certain uses of advanced technology and experimental procedures in medical care. Canadian citizens may have to wait longer than most Americans would for hip-replacements or to get MRI’s, for example. Canadians have chosen to put their funding into the basic health care of all citizens. The trade-off includes less provision for treatments using advanced technology that some people need when faced with serious health conditions or rare diseases.”
http://www.econedlink.org/lessons/index.cfm?lesson=EM535&page=teacher
What are the libs on here going to say when their child get a rare form of cancer and find it isn’t in their health plan. We have been spoiled and expect the very best healthcare available. Reforms are needed but socialized medicine isn’t the answer.
I believe that doctors should be able to choose and reject to care for people as they see fit.
Posted by: Joe Williams
Another good reason why joe isn’t liberal.
A doctor has a duty to act when he is on duty. Look up the term “duty to act”. A doctor must take a patient in need, or he risks losing his practice. Say you go out four wheeling and you break your neck. Do you really think the neurologist can come in there and say “gee, I think you were stupid for fourwheeling, so I’m not going to treat you”. No. That’s an asinine statement.
Grm, who says we have to use the exact system that Canada does? You realize there are hundreds of other models to pick and choose from to base our own system from?
You can’t merely pick out bits and pieces that you don’t like to quantify the whole system as flawed. Overall, we’d ALL be better off in every possible way with national heathcare. And there is no disputing that.
Bitter, greedy people are a sad commentary on how our economic system at times brings out the basest instincts in some of our citizens.
Posted by: LP Cox | August 25, 2007 at 04:50 PM
LP I don’t have to speak for Max. He does that quiet capably. SS is a system that started as a great help to many elderly. That is why it was call “old age pension” at one time. The politicians on both sides have stripped it. It is now an empty box setting on a dusty shelf waiting until someone discovers there isn’t any more money.
By allowing some privatization each worker would be assured that in the event such as your husband they should die early, they will still have some value for all of the money they have paid in.
It is much more complicated than that but that would be a start.
Max is probably “quite capable”, but I don’t think he is “quiet capably”.
I can’t imagine Max quiet on anythng.
You can’t merely pick out bits and pieces that you don’t like to quantify the whole system as flawed. Overall, we’d ALL be better off in every possible way with national heathcare. And there is no disputing that.
Posted by: political_mom | August 25, 2007 at 04:59 PM
I can pick and choose to identify a bad idea but you can declare that “Overall, we’d ALL be better off in every possible way with national heathcare. And there is no disputing that.”
Is that because you are a liberal and I am conservative or because you are more informed or because you are serving on a panel to pick a better healthcare program or what?
Absolutely Hotdog and that is what I said when I said. Sorry my fingers have a hard time keeping up with my mind.
Sign the ERA petition for it is so long past overdue.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/884034906
“I can pick and choose” obviously I meant ‘can’t’ and not can. It’s those pesky fingers again. I’m not reading as fast as I should be I guess.
Look! You guys are not getting the point.
Sure the Doctor has a duty and oath to provide care. And he/she gets paid for their services.
But you can’t force a doctor to give you care. Doctors reject patients all the time. Many Doctors set up patient number maximums. Meaning their patient list are full and they are not accepting any new patients.
But often times under other Socialist Care systems, the make it illegal for Doctors to set up private practice and that Doctors must see patients, regardless.
That what creates these very long waits for specialist in National Health Care system. Which leads to poorer health care services.
Let’s say an Internal Medicine Doctor who specializes in Diabetes. He can see a list of reoccurring patients of 200. That’s about 10 patients a day for a M-F work month. Reasonable you would think? Under National Health Care, people can force that doctor to see them, since Health Care is a Right! Now that doctor has to be force to see anybody and that list swells into the thousands. Instead of seeing the doctor in the next few days by appointment, it turns into a 8 months to over a year.
Nowhere is it in the Constitution that Government must provide health care to people. People are responsible for their own health care and now you want to force people to give it to you and you want to force people who pay taxes to pay the bill.
National Health Care is strictly a scam for politicians to buy votes from the poor and working class. They could care less if you live or die, so long as you vote Democrat and put them in power.
I do agree with regulatory matters and helping those who cannot help themselves. But a lack of health care insurance or being poor doesn’t count in my opinion as those who cannot help themselves.
National Health Care is coming. I have accepted that. It’s already half way here. Seniors, many kids and the poor already get health care by the government.
But let’s not go all the way in the National Health Care socialist system. Just do the best of both worlds. No Right to Health Care! No forcing Doctors to see you. Allow Doctors to set up private practice with pay out of pocket customers.
That’s all I ask!
I’m a liberal!
A doctor can refer you on to another doctor if he so chooses, unless it’s a life or death situation, then the doctor has a duty to act. For example, if I show up at the doctor’s clinic, and I have a spear sticking out of my chest…it’s his private practice, but he has to see to it that I have care, or else he can be in trouble for refusing to treat me. He might call an ambulance, and he might go with me to the hospital, but he can’t leave me to die.
It’s no different RIGHT NOW as it would be under universal healthcare.
Hotdog1! I agree! It’s going to be really bad. But politicians don’t care even though they know the Government will never be able to pay for it.
P-Mom! Emergency Care is different. Everybody has to act. Not just in a doctors office, but if you have a spear in your chest on the street, your neighbors must react, cops, firemen, EMS or whatever.
You will get want you want P-Mom! You will live your entire life off the backs of others.
Just don’t complain that you will have to wait 8 months to a year and a half to get a hip replaced.
Remember! Nothing is free! You may not have to pay a dime for it, but others do. So you will mooch off of others for the rest of your life. Just remember to vote Democrat.
By allowing some privatization each worker would be assured that in the event such as your husband they should die early, they will still have some value for all of the money they have paid in.
KSGRM, you said above what took me much longer to say. Thanks for the clarification.
It amazes me that I am the uncompassionate one.
By advocating that people actually get to receive a little bit, not even all of their own money that they paid into Social Security – I am the bad guy!
Partial privatization would have helped LCox above so she wouldn’t have to “suffer” for so many years after her husband died and before she could draw Social Security.
LCox, you were the one complaining about your sufferin. I was the one proposing a solution.
If you want to donate 15.3% of your income to Social Security and not get a dime back – fine!
Not everyone in this free country wants to do that. Some want a system that is more fair.
Democrats strip their delegates from Florida, resulting in a primary for Democrats that won’t count.
They are punishing Florida from having an early primary.
Democrat voters in Florida are upset and saying they are being disenfranchised by their own Party leadership.
This is only the beginning to a very ugly primary folks.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0807/Florida_primary_found_noncompliant.html
Joe, see there you go again sounding just like a flipping NEOCON. I pay my taxes, and I sure as hell would pay my taxes when I’m paying for my care and yours. Do I tell you that you are living off of others because you me to pay my taxes for this war and the roads?
You just do not understand how YOU are already paying in four times more than you should be dingdong. You pay for your own care, you pay for your group’s insurance, you pay the insurance guy’s vacation “meeting” in bermuda. You pay for medicaid and medicare. YOU”RE the one getting screwed, but hey, if you like it…why not. You’d probably end up paying HALF of what you did when it’s all said and done. But hey, if it matters taht the check you write is to some insurance group- rather than the IRS…be my damn guest. I don’t want to ever hear of you using medicaid, disability, nor medicare when you’re old. I don’t care if you break your neck and can’t work anymore, you better figure out a way to make money somehow because I aint paying your disability.
Your neighbor does not have any duty to act. I as an EMT have no duty to act when I’m off duty- I would simply because it’s the right thing to do though. Universal healthcare IS the right thing to do. And we’d at least get a hip replacement instead of having to wait years till we’re disabled and completely unable to work first!—–
“What I disagree with about National Health Care is that they often times make it illegal for any doctor to set up shop and accept only patients who pay out of pocket. Most all national health care plans make that illegal and force doctors to care for patients regardless.”
I AGREE with that law. Doctors should be allowed to see “paying” patients if they wish but the law should strictly limit it to no more than a certain percentage of all patients seen. Even under the current system, doctors should be required to see at least 20% Medicare/Medicaid patients.
“Democrats strip their delegates from Florida, resulting in a primary for Democrats that won’t count.
They are punishing Florida from having an early primary.
Democrat voters in Florida are upset and saying they are being disenfranchised by their own Party leadership.”
In the end the delegates will be counted. The Democrats are not going risk pissing off even more folks in Florida than they already have with the Elian Gonzales fiasco.
“Just don’t complain that you will have to wait 8 months to a year and a half to get a hip replaced.”
That is a lie too. The “waiting list” myth is often spread by neo cons to try and FOOL the Americans. But all you have to do is ask the Canadians. Might you wait for a hip replacement? The answer is yes depending on your condition. People with the most dehabilitating conditions go first. People that are still able to walk with minimum discomfort might wait a bit. Will you wait 8 months or a year? No. It would be at the most 4 months.
“You want socialized medicine, heh?
Please remember:
Walter Reed Army Medical Center
This is the care we provide our returning hero’s. Wait until you get a hospital serving the poor and minorities. Think it will be much better?
Did the medical professionals and hospitals return to New Orleans?
Be very careful what you ask for.”
First of all Walter Reed is not that bad. The bad places shown on the news were not in the main hospital unit but in long term and rehab units that only share the Georgia Ave address but are in fact not part of the main hospital itself. Not to excuse what happened there but people were fired and it has been cleaned up and fixed. As for New Orleans, neither of the major hospitals there has reopened including Charity because they are damaged beyond economical repair. The Federal government should pony up the money and rebuild these hospitals and the doctors will return.
Hotdog, half the problem there is the secrecy and supposed put up or shut up attitude within the military. If these doctors ever came out and said what’s going on in there, they might get something done…but they’d pay a price. Civilian life doesn’t follow that, and we could do something about it from the start so it never goes that way.
First order of business, is reversing the whistleblower protections that Bush took away.
Military medicine isn’t that bad.
I think some of the younger troops have had it very easy.
I wonder if they have ever been treated under a GP Medium Tent in the summer time?
When you’re down and out, a tent looks like a five star hotel.
Hotdog1, Like you I feel that I have an excellent MD and one of the top specialist in Wichita taking care of me. I have never been excluded from going to the Drs. of my choice and no Dr. has refused to treat me. I couldn’t ask for better medical treatment at a price I can afford. I’m on Medicare.