The rap on what is sometimes called socialized medicine is that if the government ran the system, the wait would be interminable. Well, I am here to tell you that even when the government does not run the system, the wait can be interminable. And uncomfortable. It is not government bureaucrats who say that certain treatments will not be covered, and it is not the government that purges insurance rolls of the sick or the old, and it is not the government that makes money — lots of money — on health insurance. It is private enterprise. But the insurance industry sets out to spook the public with talk of “socialized medicine” and “government bureaucrats” and “government-run health care.” The ongoing health care debate is complex and complicated — not as interesting as Michael Jackson or Sarah Palin. But in deciding what to do and who to support in the current attempt to reform health care, don’t rely on insurance industry propaganda, but on your own experience. Recall the last time you went to the emergency room and ask yourself if the government could possibly do a worse job. — Richard Cohen, Washington Post
The idea that every life is infinitely precious and therefore everyone deserves the same kind of optimal medical care is a fine religious sentiment and moral ideal. As political and economic policy, it is vainglorious delusion. Rich and educated people not only receive better goods and services in all areas of life than do poor and uneducated people, they also tend to take better care of themselves and their possessions, which in turn leads to better health. The first requirement for better health care for all is not equal health care for everyone but educational and economic advancement for everyone. We must stop talking about “health care” as if it were some kind of collective public service, like fire protection, provided equally to everyone who needs it. No government can provide the same high-quality body repair services to everyone. Not all doctors are equally good physicians, and not all sick persons are equally good patients. If we persevere in our quixotic quest for a fetishized medical equality we will sacrifice personal freedom as its price. We will become the voluntary slaves of a “compassionate” government that will provide the same low-quality health care to everyone. — Thomas Szasz, Wall Street Journal
174 Comments
Naturally we can’t have universal health care. It’s like if everyone flew first class style. Sure the airlines could do it but then it wouldn’t make those who could afford pricier tickets feel superior. So if we have health care for only those who can afford it then we stroke their ego.
Was talking to a senior citizen at a Delano coffee shop the other day. He has Medicare from the federal government for which he is pays approximately $100/month. Plus he has a supplemental insurance plan for which he pays roughly $150/month. Plus he has a Medicare prescription plan which costs him perhaps a $100/month.
Now this should entitle him to the best healthcare in the world. How does it really work?
He said he is searching for a doctor. But he finds many Wichita doctors will not accept Medicare. Instead they want him to pay out of pocket up-front. Of course, without Medicare, his supplemental insurance plan isn’t usable. And without a physician to write prescriptions, his Medicare prescription plan doesn’t work.
So there was a senior citizen who is charged some $300/month charges for healthcare but who can’t get any medical services.
So I advised him to go to the local pharmacies where they have medical practicioners on duty, for cash payments, for limited services.
Simple fix, Congress can just pass a law requiring all hospitals that receive taxpayer funds to accept medicare patients. However conservatives will whine about socialized medicine in the hopes that if this old guy dies he won’t be a burden on the system.
anyone who thinks that government sponsored anything is the answer is living in a dream world. I strongly suggest you travel north and visit the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, where the government takes care of everyone. Free food, free housing, free medical care, and a land check every month.
Pine Ridge has over 70% unemployment–because people don’t have to work. Alcoholism is rampant, spouse and child abuse is equally widespread. Trash is everywhere, highway markers indicating traffic fatalities average 5 per mile outside town. The free houses are dilapidated, old appliances and mattresses and other trash are widely strewn about yards/streets.
This shows what happens when the government ‘takes care’ of everything. People lose any and all incentive.
Unless you have been there, you cannot comprehend.
“However conservatives will whine about socialized medicine in the hopes that if this old guy dies he won’t be a burden on the system.”
____________
Right..that’s why “conservatives” wrote the bill with the beautiful little gems in it like the part where the “elderly” will be required to meet with a govt “counselor” to discuss alternative “care” options, specifically hospice, for end of life care. Maybe you haven’t dealt with hospice, I have, with both parents. It was a blessed experience with my Mom. It was a nightmare with my Dad, who was referred to them for their success in pain control, not for “end of life” care. I spent the next month arguing with the hospice people, being forced to explain that over and over with them, but ultimately they were successful, as it wasn’t the cancer that killed him, it was the sepsis from their keeping him semi-conscious and not changing his catheter. Of course that was after giving him methadone on 3 different occasions after my explicit instructions of no methadone due to a previous reaction he had to it. It took me forcing the hospice doc to put it in writing to me that he understood those instructions and they’d be held liable if they were ignored again.
Forced “end of life” counseling via a govt counselor is your crowd’s idea of compassion…huh, wonder what your crowd would think if a private healthcare company tried that line of bull…legislation would be passed to prevent that so fast your head would spin.
But at least they’re being up front about not wanting universal care, just to add some competition…that’s SURELY why they put another gem in it prohibiting individuals from signing up for private plans as of the effective date of the govt plan…yeah, flip the script again and let a private insurance comp try that monopolistic tactic. I mean shoot, who could ever think that the govt being able to right the rules & not be subject to them (Sherman Anti-Trust Act) themselves could EVER be an advantage for socialized medicine…
What’s most ironic to me, as they inject their politics into such personal life decisions, is they’re stupid enough to believe that THEIR ideology will always be the puppet master of the monster they create, never considering the concept that they won’t.
Raptor: The same thing is true where the aboriginal is confined to reserves, out of the way where we don’t have to look at our past sins against them. Australia, New Zealand, and Canada have the same past with the same results you describe, but they have universal insurance anyway. I don’t make the connection about health, about tacking the greater question….yes!
Last I looked into the matter, hospice care is available when doctors concur the patient is not likely to live another six months. That’s the whole concept behind hospice care, “DFB.”
For you to allege your father “…was referred to them for their success in pain control, not for “end of life” care” just doesn’t ring true. Maybe your health care providers (or insurance carrier) thought they were protecting your sensitivities about your dad’s impending demise. Maybe you heard wrong. But to assert someone entered hospice care “…not for end-of-life care,” sounds as mistaken as if one were to write, “The ambulance was supposed to take him to the grocery store, not to a hospital.”
Doesn’t pass the smell test.
One big problem, sursum, is the government made promises about health care for the reservations..and are not living up to those promises. The Indians have no recourse, no appeal.
I’ve been trying to really distill the con position on health care down to its true essence.
I’m not quite there yet. But basically?
Cons are pro life.
As long as they don’t have to ante up to pay for it.
All hospitals are required to care for anyone that walks in the facility.
Many Doctors except a limited amount of medicaid (welfare) and medicare (seniors) because the reimbursment rates do not cover the costs, the programs deny care recommened by the doctors and the red tape is worse than most insurance companies.
Unless the Dem-Libs listen to the 52 conservative Blue Dog Democrats on the expenses of the health care plan, health care isn’t going anywhere.
That’s a fact…
bj…fact is nobody cares what you think in your myopic hate filled little world. your innacurate generalizations, hate filled diatribes and immature attitude results in your posts being scroll over territory.
have a wonderful little fit throwing invectives..your words are not worth the bandwidth it takes to send.
Thomas Szazz is well known for being a psychiatrist who’s against psychiatry. He’s one of those inscrutable personages like “Jews for Jesus” or “Vegans for Barbecued Brisket.” Szazz considers suicide to be a fundamental right, He’s 89 years old and already has government-subsidized health coverage.
He’s an odd choice for the WSJ to publish on just about every front except ideology. But for the Murdoch Street Journal these days, that’s about all that gets printed.
I’m glad I could hit a nerve Raptor.
I don’t like repeating myself.
But I’ve yet to see anyone else address the facts.
I am happy that we have Medicare and Medicaid. But they were instituted long before I had a vote.
Our current health care infrastructure will not accommodate the promises we have made to our elders. They aint getting any younger and our health care system aint getting any better. We have to address that and in so doing we may as well join the rest of the civilized world and provide basic health care to all our people.
Politico..you got that one right. EMTAL requires that anyone showing up in an ER must be treated, insurance notwithstanding.
It is a lovely, compassionate idea–except the illegals have taken advantage of it. Any ER in southern California is choked with people speaking only Spanish, using the ER as their primary care physician. With “free” healthcare, we can only expect that crowding to increase.
Canada has recently gone to a RCF chip embedded in their health card to limit freeloaders. It is a very real problem…with millions of people in this country illegally taking advantage of an altruistic ideal. Millions now…there are BILLIONS of people throughout the world without health insurance–shall we just allow all of them to come here for FREE COVERAGE? Where does it end?
“All hospitals are required to care for anyone that walks in the facility.”
Uh huh. That is stabilizing care only.
MH provides the tripe:
“Doesn’t pass the smell test.”
_____________
First of all, I don’t give a libs azz what your opinion is of truth. It’s no surprise that you’d wouldn’t be familar with the smell of truth.
Secondly, what a surprise, skip the actual content of what I posted and skip to attacking the poster. Sharing my Dad’s story was only support for the basis of the posting. Your attempts at making a “point” are as lame as always.
I don’t mean to salt your wound “DFB”.
But MY experience is that the mission of Hospice is exclusively end of life care.
My father was in hospice care for less than 3 days.
My great aunt was under hospice care less than 30 minutes.
I had a neighbor that was in hospice for six months. Obviously, there is no time limit on hospice care and it deals largely in part from what I can see the prognosis for survival, not the disease itself.
“Our current health care infrastructure will not accommodate the promises we have made to our elders.”
______________
Then answer my question you’ve ignored about 5 times already. How does “savings” of $500B squeezed out of Medicare “pay” for national health? If Medicare can’t handle the current load, let alone the pending wave of new applicants, why wouldn’t those “savings” be used to address the elderly vs the illegal immigrants (9-10M), the young’ns 18-34 (18M) or the several million more that went less than 4 mos without insurance included in the scare tactic crap you guys like to live on with your 47M uninsured (from an ‘06 CBO report)? Of course that doesn’t include one’s not included in categories above, that are from households that make in excess of $50K/yr but just choose not to buy it anyway.
Since you hate rich people so much, why does your party cuddle rich trial lawyers who get that way skimming the system they created, where it’s cheaper to settle than to go to court? Even if it does, they take 40-60% of the settlement for their time. Why isn’t that cost included in your crew’s diatribes about the “30% of insurance costs that don’t go towards patient care”?
“DFB” conjures up an attack where none existed.
Sensitive to the spirit in which you shared your father’s story, I explicitly offered opinions that perhaps you were misled or misunderstood.
You, on the other hand, took it as a “personal attack” and chose to throw out some tired ol’ “libs” rants rather than, say, explain to me how your dad got “hospice” care for palliative care instead of for the stated purpose of hospice.
Can you do that?
Can you cite the facility and let me look into the services they offer?
One doesn’t need to be in a ‘facility’ to receive hospice care. Hospice care can be given in one’s home.
Very true, Reg. My father in law had in home hospice care for the last 3 months of his life recently. It allowed him to stay in familiar surroundings with family instead of an institution. No matter how personalized they try to make a facility, it just isn’t ‘home’.
MonkeyHock, drop it – it’s about his father- how about butting out with your snide comments and snark for once.
“But MY experience is that the mission of Hospice is exclusively end of life care.”
___________
Obviously, hospice’s mission is end of life comfort, I’m not suggesting it isn’t. Part of that is specializing in minimizing pain. My Dad’s oncologist was failing at controlling the pain effectively, and it was his suggestion to utilize their expertise, even said he’d done it before. Not suggesting my Dad would’ve survived the cancer. I’m simply stating what the reasoning was for his placement under their care at the time was, and that the cancer didn’t kill him. The sepsis did. Hospice folks are angels, I don’t know how they do what they do. But it’s a fact, that he wasn’t referred to them for anything but pain management initially, then “end of life” purposes when the sepsis was raging through his system.
Believe it or not, I don’t really care.
Point of my original posting wasn’t to challenge hospice’s capabilities/purpose. It was simply, what the H does govt think its role is to send a “counselor” out to speak to the elderly every 5 yrs about “end of life” treatment? The argument I’ve heard from Dem pundits already, is that it’s just to “get information out and ensure the families are having the appropriate discussions with all the options”. Can they be any more duplicitous? They fight abortion bills suggesting mothers get “all the information/options” laid out prior to ending a life, because it’s the “mother’s body” and because of “privacy”. Then suggest the elderly need govt intervention to make sure those same issues are shoved down their throat? So which is it? The only thing consistent about it is the ending a life aspect. So you can stop with the “why do cons hate the elderly” diatribes, they’re shallow in full context of positions.
As I’ve shared many times before — and been called names instead of having anyone address the issue — the biggest problem with Medicare is that it covers only those people most likely to need expensive procedures and treatments.
It’s like an automobile insurance company covering only convicted drunk drivers. It’s like a life insurance company selling only to nursing home residents.
Universal health coverage will protect younger, generally healthier people for preventive health care, pregnancies, catastrophic accidents and illnesses which are actuarial anomalies, well-baby clinics, maintenance meds, and on and on.
I think — maybe I hope against hope — most CONs can realize this and simply choose not to because their ideology wants to cling to the myth that health care is somehow market-driven.
Applying market-force concepts to a non market-driven economy is how we got into the mess we’re in right now.
Blue Jay,
Just curious was your exerience with hospice care good or bad? We had hospice for my dad the last few weeks of his life and my family couldnt have asked for better care for my dad
mh…I am not totally against some kind of health care reform. My biggest concern is that this huge program is going to be rushed thru the legislative process, without due diligence as to impact, cost, societal effects, lack of controls, etc. The ’stimulus’ was rushed thru without hearings, without proper research, and certainly without any public input.
The idea of rushing thru a multi billion dollar program that will impact this country for decades should not be rushed, should not be pushed, and should not be enacted without reasonable research, hearings and input.
The idea of rushing thru a multi billion dollar program that will impact this country for decades should not be rushed, should not be pushed, and should not be enacted without reasonable research, hearings and input.
————————-
That is why I’m skeptical of this bill. I have come to realize there is need for reform in this area,but why are they in such a big hurry to get this passed? I get the feeling that they have something to hide and are trying to slip this through before anyone has a chance to really digest and question what is in the bill.
“DFB” perserveres –
“…the cancer didn’t kill him. Sepsis did.”
And that’s sad.
But the fact is, people weakened by terminal cancer often die from specific diseases other than the cancer. I know of plenty of people who’ve died of sepsis, pneumonia, heart or other organ failure with the underlying circumstance listed on the death certificate citing some other disease.
Even more to the point, your anecdote about your father’s death is utterly irrelevant to this thread’s topic; nothing to do with “SOCIALIZED!!!!” medicine.
Now, as for health care professionals counseling end-of-life options: It sounds like one of those old movies where the doctor advises a patient to, “…get your affairs in order.”
It’s why you write a will, set up a living trust, buy supplemental insurance, pre-plan funerals, sign a DNR release…. It’s a simple recognition none of us gets out of this world alive and there are consequences and options and things to think about, perhaps, before the hard decisions and choices are imminent.
MH – not that you deserve it, but Michael Cannon was his oncologist, Harry Hynes was his hospice. Knock yourself out. But yeah, I was “misled” when I held a meeting with the entire nursing home leadership/hospice representatives to make SURE there was no “misunderstanding”. I then replayed the meeting when they changed nurses. I then did the same with the on-site staff at Harry Hynes. There was misunderstanding, but it didn’t come from my end. The oncologist threw in the towel when the sepsis set in, not before. So yeah, let me retool an old saying just for you, “When you assume, it makes an azz out of you.”
Reg – my Mom’s care was all in home and they were absolutely incredible. Pain was never her problem, or if it was, she never complained, which wouldn’t surprise me about her either. My Dad’s hospice care was split between a nursing home, for which he was put in after the oncologist tried methadone and it almost killed him, and the Harry Hynes unit at St Francis. People need to be more aware of the dangers of methadone if it’s prescribed for any of your loved ones. It takes a week or so to build up in the system to be effective, but it’s side effect is going to sleep and not waking up in some. The nurse that did the nursing home visits & the on-site nurses at Harry Hynes were ALL very partial to methadone.
Btw, Medicare only pays for a fixed amount of hospice care, once you exceed that it’s all out of pocket. The St Francis unit is $600/day, and they’re quick to point out when Medicare has run out to make sure you can pay for the rest. I got a bill within 5 days of his passing.
It’s why you write a will, set up a living trust, buy supplemental insurance, pre-plan funerals, sign a DNR release…. It’s a simple recognition none of us gets out of this world alive and there are consequences and options and things to think about, perhaps, before the hard decisions and choices are imminent.
————————————-
Excellent point. My parents both have and (had all those things set up,when my dad became terminal there waqs no questio as to what his wishes were,and when the time comes for my mom ,everyuthing has been taken care of and agreed upon by her and myself and my siblings.
Making sensible and responsible choices regarding health care and end of life choices should not and must not be government mandates
Free—my guess (opinion, not verified since I can’t read minds) is that bho’s advisors see his ratings dropping and know that they need to get this thru while the “honeymoon effect” is still there.
It is harder for a president to get legislation with a low approval rating than with a high one. Maybe that is the explanation behind the rush to get this passed before August?
Dangerous tactic–get it passed regardless of unknown implications.
“Raptor” adds –
“The idea of rushing thru a multi billion dollar program that will impact this country for decades should not be rushed, should not be pushed, and should not be enacted without reasonable research, hearings and input.”
And then it becomes a legislative question as to what constitutes “reasonable research, hearings, and input,” doesn’t it?
In response to “GMC70’s” post early this morning I provided a link where Senator Thomas Dodd proposed all of the Repubic Party amendments — 64 of ‘em! — be accepted to the pending legislation.
The ranking Republican, Sen. Mike Enzi, refused to accept yes as an answer! He actually objected to having his own party’s proposed amendments be included in the bill!
Is that your idea of “…reasonable research, hearings, and input?”
Sounds pretty disingenuous to me.
“Even more to the point, your anecdote about your father’s death is utterly irrelevant to this thread’s topic; nothing to do with “SOCIALIZED!!!!” medicine.” (MH)
___________
Gee…maybe that’s why I explained it was just support related the POINT of my first posting freak! Which I made AGAIN for you in my 2nd response to you! Do you ever read an entire posting, or just pick out the part you feel like you can snark on, because it feeds your ego like you’re somehow making some kind of point?
Let me type more slowly for you this time…
What role does the govt have in driving forced end of life discussions or decisions??? Why is it all good to force those discussions with the elderly, but ensure women considering abortion aren’t forced to endure those kinds of end of life discussions…because it might make them rethink their decision? Which is it?
“DFB” –
If the facts of the case are as you describe them, you should have a solid malpractice suit to file.
Of course, you’d have to rethink routine CON-speak about tort reform.
Most likely it wouldn’t be a headline-grabber, but it might reimburse you for some of the substandard care you allege against you father’s oncologist, hospice workers, nurses, etc.
Raptor wrote:
“The idea of rushing thru a multi billion dollar program that will impact this country for decades should not be rushed, should not be pushed, and should not be enacted without reasonable research, hearings and input.”
___________
Couldn’t agree more with your entire posting, except for one “minor” change…I’d change “multi-billion” to “multi-trillion”, since the bill that’s in excess of $1T already, only covers about 8M people according to CBO estimates. Not to mention the CBO’s calling out the veracity of the claims of “savings” being used to supposedly pay for it, even claiming their analysis showed it being more expensive. Yet another reason for Dems to slow their roll, and do the thing in the light of day.
“DFB” goes all ideological –
“What role does the govt have in driving forced end of life discussions or decisions???”
It’s probably the most conservative role I can imagine with government expenditures.
Yes, comprehensive health coverage reform looks expensive when you ferret out specific aspects of a comprehensive reform package.
But one of the most important duties of representative democracy is making sure money and resources are used effectively.
It can be as simple as a county commissioner taking some time off from the day job to drive by a road construction site and seeing all the workers are working instead of merely leaning on shovels. I cannot for the life of me imagine end-of-life counselors barging into a nursing home with the SWAT team and forcing old people to listen to a thousand pages of legislation.
But if my tax dollars are at stake, I think some oversight as to how they are spent is a good thing.
Your objections are sounding more and more ideological than practical.
We’re discussing this issue because I tend to lean toward the practical in such matters.
You?
so, mh…you are now suggesting that two wrongs make a right? Because some GOP moron screwed up on some admendments, that gives bho permission to rush thru something that is an unknown, expensive, and without safeguards? What is the rush?? Why the hurry? What is wrong with public disclosure? what is wrong with open hearings?
“If the facts of the case are as you describe them, you should have a solid malpractice suit to file.”
___________
That’s where you’re wrong. I didn’t file suit, and won’t file suit, because I believe that’s part of what’s wrong with the current system. Nobody did anything with malicious intent. I learned that from my parents. My sister’s pediatrician gave her adult dosages of dylatin (sp?) for her seizures and it fried her brain as a toddler. They didn’t sue either. I respect them immensely for all they did for her, which is the torch I now carry. So no conflict of interest at all with my principles, I live with them daily.
Raptor
Posted July 18, 2009 at 10:15 am | Permalink
so, mh…you are now suggesting that two wrongs make a right? Because some GOP moron screwed up on some admendments, that gives bho permission to rush thru something that is an unknown, expensive, and without safeguards? What is the rush?? Why the hurry? What is wrong with public disclosure? what is wrong with open hearings?
—
Nothing.
However, I doubt that’s what the GOP has in mind. What the GOP has in mind is running the “public disclosure” and “open hearings” out until “sociallized medicine” can be used as a wedge in the 2010 Congressional elections.
Given its history on “socialized medicine,” the GOP has no intention of bargaining in good faith when it comes to fixing health care in the US. It’s just a stall game — this is what I imagine the administration has concluded. And with excellent reason, I might add.
Hence the rush.
Raptor: You are dead on, nobody got universal care right the first time and they were much smaller populations of a more homogenious nature where the gap between the have and have nots is less apparent. Places big in geography have no central authority, it’s devolved to the State/Province or other subnational entity for adminstration but what is coming out looks like the Feds. will get involved in micro management. Disaster, unless we committ to the idea, test, try, adjust and accept it will take time to impliment properly, for countries with universal care continue to do just that.
“But if my tax dollars are at stake, I think some oversight as to how they are spent is a good thing.”
_______________
Huh, so I’m ideological for not wanting my tax dollars spent on govt counselors visiting the elderly to force discussions of end of life care…but that same “practicality” doesn’t apply when it comes to using tax dollars to pay for abortions…yeah…I’m just being ideological, and you..nothing but extolling the “pragmatic” use of tax dollars…the equivalent of making sure county workers aren’t just leaning on their shovels…
You feel like more and more govt involvement is common sense and their purpose. I feel like personal liberties are more important. It’s the same argument that’s been going on since the Const Convention in 1790 between the Federalist & Anti-Federalists. Thomas Jefferson (I’m sure I can find the quote again) even wrote about how he was concerned with the “Welfare Clause” everyone likes to quote as justification, stating how it could be turned into something like providing healthcare for all citizens (amongst a list of things he feared), and through the debates about that language, the Federalists assured him/them, that wasn’t the intent at all, it was just to give the Fed govt a little wiggle room to manage something unforeseen. Not to “fix” the system the govt set up in the first place, that it crushed otherwise with regulation, then expects us to believe that it and only it can get it right this time…and in an unprecedented hurry.
But keep using silly arguments like “SWAT teams” breaking into nursing homes forcing citizens to read a thousand page bill…doesn’t add any content, just outrageous rhetoric.
Pedant disingenuously writes:
However, I doubt that’s what the GOP has in mind. What the GOP has in mind is running the “public disclosure” and “open hearings” out until “sociallized medicine” can be used as a wedge in the 2010 Congressional elections.
Given its history on “socialized medicine,” the GOP has no intention of bargaining in good faith when it comes to fixing health care in the US. It’s just a stall game — this is what I imagine the administration has concluded. And with excellent reason, I might add.
Hence the rush.
======================================
The Democratic Health Care plan is not a fix-it anything. It’s a ‘feel-good’ score political points and dam the consequences maneuver.
It’s reckless, it’s irresponsible and most of all shows contempt for proper parliamentarian procedure where learned minds and careful thought should be the rule, not the exception.
“Raptor admits –
“…some GOP moron screwed up on some admendments….”
But ya see, “Raptor?” That’s who we’re dealing with (especially here on WE Blog). There’s always “…some GOP moron…” to deal with.
I really hate to contribute to thread drift, but the evidence is clear: after six years of CONs controlling the Congress, the SCOTUS, and the Oval Office, what did the ideologues do about Roe v. Wade?
Squat.
It’s more than evident the Repubic Party loves the issue more than the policies it touts. Better to have a stem-winder complaint; better to fix the blame than to fix the problem.
“Because some GOP moron screwed up on some admendments…”
__________
Apparently, all it takes to get amendments/bills approved these days is for Chris Dodd to suggest it, and Enzi to accept. Guess those silly Senate Floor votes are just for show.
“DFB” cites Thomas Jefferson as –
“…healthcare for all citizens (amongst a list of things he feared)….”
Do you have a link to that list?
Share it with us, please.
“DFB” declares –
“I didn’t file suit, and won’t file suit, because I believe that’s part of what’s wrong….”
So it is ideological for you.
Thought so.
Regular
Posted July 18, 2009 at 10:29 am | Permalink
It’s reckless, it’s irresponsible and most of all shows contempt for proper parliamentarian procedure where learned minds and careful thought should be the rule, not the exception.
—
The same learned minds that warn us of the consequences of global warming?
The same learned minds that teach in American universities?
The same learned minds that yall disparage whenever doing so is convenient for the GOP?
Those learned minds?
lol
Pardon me if I conclude that your comments are just more partisan and hypocritical hogwash.
#
Monkeyhawk
Posted July 18, 2009 at 10:33 am | Permalink
“DFB” cites Thomas Jefferson as –
“…healthcare for all citizens (amongst a list of things he feared)….”
Do you have a link to that list?
Share it with us, please.
——————
MonkeyHock, that was never written and you know it.
How about attributing accurate quotes instead of distorting everything?
What a loser…
Quick pass the Health bills before anybody understands them, including our socialized Congress.
The Messiah speaks here. Of course no Universal Health care by the Feds.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/07162009/postopinion/editorials/here_comes_obamacare_179451.htm
#
Pedant
Posted July 18, 2009 at 10:37 am | Permalink
Regular
Posted July 18, 2009 at 10:29 am | Permalink
It’s reckless, it’s irresponsible and most of all shows contempt for proper parliamentarian procedure where learned minds and careful thought should be the rule, not the exception.
—
The same learned minds that warn us of the consequences of global warming?
The same learned minds that teach in American universities?
The same learned minds that yall disparage whenever doing so is convenient for the GOP?
Those learned minds?
lol
Pardon me if I conclude that your comments are just more partisan and hypocritical hogwash.
———————————-
———————————-
So Pedant, you are all for reckless action by Congress to rush through a 1.5 trillion dollar plan without carefully studying it?
I would say your wish for passage of a bill that hasn’t been carefully scrutinized is more in line with hysteria.
Your attempt to hide your partisan hope of ‘Gee mom look what I did’ politics is pathetic.
Placing a country deeper in debt while it’s trying to recover is a bad move in anyone’s playbook, Liberal or Conservative, Democratic or Republican Party.
“DFB” tries –
“…all it takes to get amendments/bills approved these days is for Chris Dodd to suggest it, and Enzi to accept. Guess those silly Senate Floor votes are just for show.”
Those “silly Senate Floor votes” don’t come up in committees.
There’s still plenty of time to bring up those amendments when final passage comes to the Senate floor.
The Repubic Party presented those 64 amendments — in committee — and then apparently knew they were potentially disastrous or embarrassing or…something.
Why propose an amendment if, when it comes to marking up a bill for presentation to the full Senate — or even for committee approval — you’re gonna object to your own proposals?
Regular
Posted July 18, 2009 at 10:42 am | Permalink
Placing a country deeper in debt while it’s trying to recover is a bad move in anyone’s playbook, Liberal or Conservative, Democratic or Republican Party.
—
Read Keynes, study some history, and get back to us.
“Regular” tries to bail out “DFB” after this exchange –
“DFB” cites Thomas Jefferson as –
“…healthcare for all citizens (amongst a list of things he feared)….”
Do you have a link to that list?
Share it with us, please.
With some classic “Regular” name-calling.
And jibberish:
——————
“MonkeyHock, that was never written and you know it.”
So “DFB’s” list is a figment of his imagination? A rhetorical flourish? Meaningless to the issues we’re discussing this morning?
Perhaps you should take that up with “DFB,” not me.
#
Pedant
Posted July 18, 2009 at 10:45 am | Permalink
Regular
Posted July 18, 2009 at 10:42 am | Permalink
Placing a country deeper in debt while it’s trying to recover is a bad move in anyone’s playbook, Liberal or Conservative, Democratic or Republican Party.
—
Read Keynes, study some history, and get back to us.
————————————-
I don’t need to, we already knows what works.
It happened during the Reagan years, when Reagan inherited a worse inflation, higher unemployment and a worse economy than it is now.
Reagan turned it around, by giving tax cuts and providing the proper economic incentives from the private sector.
He may have went a bit overboard on Cold War military spending, but other than that, it was a marvel of economic turn around that everyone should look at as a model of success – it worked.
Okay, it’s obvious, none of the Leftist Libs want to have mature discussions today.
I’m out of here.
Are you suggesting, “Regular,” Repubic Party senators on the Dodd committee introduced 64 amendments “…without studying…” the bill?
That’s an interesting position to defend.
When looking for a solution to any problem, analyst should be looking at all the information related to the problem – what are the facts? A correct solution, or an honest one is only possible if we truly know the factual details. Then we can attack the problem.
True Number of Americans without healthcare insurance
“It comes from an annual report by the Census Bureau, which most recently pegged the number of uninsured at 45.7 million for 2007. But the problem lies in the way the statistic is commonly cited and understood.
For starters, the statistic does not mean that there are “46 million uninsured Americans,” as the New York Times reported in a recent story on health care, and as is echoed throughout the media. Just a quick look inside the Census Bureau data shows that 9.7 million of the uninsured are not citizens of the United States. In 2003, the Congressional Budget Office took a stab at answering the question, and looked at two studies from 1998 that conducted interviews multiple times over the course of the survey period. One study pegged the number of people who were uninsured for the entire year at 31 million, while another put it even lower, at 21 million. In either case, the number was significantly lower than it was in 1998’s Current Population Survey, which found 43.9 million uninsured.
Another problem with citing the 46-million figure is that many of those who are identified as uninsured are actually eligible for existing government programs but simply never bothered to enroll. In 2003, a BlueCross BlueShield Association study estimated that about 14 million of the uninsured were eligible for Medicaid and SCHIP. These people would be signed up for government insurance if they ever made it to the emergency room.
In addition, some of the 46 million could theoretically afford health coverage, but chose not to purchase any. In 2007, 17.6 million of the uninsured had annual incomes of more than $50,000 and 9.1 million earned more than $75,000. In fact, as Sally Pipes notes in the Top Ten Myths of American Health Care: A Citizen’s Guide, those making more than $75,000 per year are part of the fastest growing segment of the uninsured population.
The Census figures also show that 18.3 million of the uninsured were under 34. Some in this age group may have simply determined that they are young and healthy and thus can do without coverage.
When all of these factors are put together, the 2003 BlueCross BlueShield study determined that 8.2 million Americans are actually without coverage for the long haul, because they are too poor to purchase health care but earn too much to qualify for government assistance.
This exercise isn’t about downplaying the problems facing the American health care system, but a necessary part of devising the proper remedies.
Those pushing for a major government intervention in health care are distorting the 46-million statistic to boost their cause, and by disseminating it so widely without further elaboration, the media is rigging the game in their favor. “
- Philip Klein
285,000,000 Americans have health insurance.
The majority are satisified with their coverage and services according to a recent major poll.
“Regular” cites St. Ronnie of Reaganville –
“Reagan turned it around, by giving tax cuts and providing the proper economic incentives from the private sector.”
…and only doubled the national debt in the process.
How very conservative of him.
““DFB” cites Thomas Jefferson as –
“…healthcare for all citizens (amongst a list of things he feared)….”
Do you have a link to that list?
Share it with us, please.”
______________
I’ll find it in one of the books I’ve read…you know those silly things people like you ignore books in lieu of Google & Wiki. Will take a while, but it’ll be worth it just to shut you up.
I have been meaning to point it out about the arguments against national health care has been simply pointing to the condition often experienced in the present system. Long waits, prolonged waits for a procedure and selective treatment based on age and social status and value to the society.
As Richard Cohen pointed to in his piece.
“The first requirement for better health care for all is not equal health care for everyone but educational and economic advancement for everyone”
Thomas Szasz
OK why has no one ever thought of that solution before? Everyone needs to be educated and rich! It is true but not a truism that not all Doctors are equal and often the lesser of the profession are the one whom a poor person is subjected to when seeking medical care.
The County hospital that use to operate in Wichita was the little shop of horrors.
even “Good Doctors” have been known to once they learn that patent is on public assistance. Change to treating the patent worse then a dog is treated by the a Vet.
It is the only time I have actual threatened a Doctor when it happened to my girlfriend.
So the greatest fear is that the Rich will be treated by the same Doctor that also treats the poor if National health care is enacted? “ I am rich and educated, I deserve to live!”.
As OKO and I have pointed out, the elderly is seen as being lesser in deserving proper health care. Set aside to be kept pain-free and to die without the needed health care.
They are seen as a waste of effort and better those who still are working and producing for the Society be attended to. What these older folks don’t have the common sense to simply walk out on to the ice flow and spare the village the need to feed and provide for them? Them ungrateful patents!
The first mistake in all these discussion is seeing health care as Big business instead of a basic human need. Nothing is craved in stone all the downfalls of the system can be seen and set up not to happen. Or are we as a species so dumb that is not possible?
MH – my bad, it was Madison that made the quote in 1792 regarding the “Welfare Clause”, not Jefferson. Same diff, they were on the same “team”.
Pg 32, Politically Incorrect Guide to American History.
He also called out the use of the clause as justification for such federal powers as to:
“render the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of a defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them.”
What is the real healthcare issue?
I keep seeing all kinds of negative posts regarding care in America:
1. 47 million are uninsured
2. USA has lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality rates
3. Healthcare is too expensive
Is it reasonable to expect Congress and Obama to resolve all three issues by rushing legislation through in less than 30 days?
“DFB” promises –
“I’ll find it in one of the books I’ve read…you know those silly things people like you ignore books in lieu of Google & Wiki. Will take a while, but it’ll be worth it just to shut you up.”
See that you do.
(You also might consult with “Regular” who says Thomas Jefferson’s list “…was never written….”)
Y’know.
Get your stories straight.
Although I sincerely doubt President Jefferson (who, according to “Boxlock20,” served between January 20, 1777 and January 20, 1781) included universal health coverage on his list, I’m really interested to see what really is on it.
Thanks for you civility in this morning’s dialog.
1. 47 million are uninsured
This has been clarified. There are perhaps 15 to 20 million Americans without healthcare insurance. Let’s resolve the problem for those truly without insurance.
That does not require “over hauling” the entire system which presently provides coverage for the vast majority of Americans.
Is it reasonable to expect Congress and Obama to resolve all three issues by rushing legislation through in less than 30 days?
—————————————
Some seem to think so,after all he is “The Chosen One” to unite us so we can all hold hands and sing Kumbaya.
2. USA has lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality rates
What is the source of this information? In order to work this problem, we need clear facts. How is the comparison made from country to country? Is the same statistical information used apples to apples in providing individual countries statistics? Are there political factors in the reporting?
Is this an independent study?
Regardless, what medical treatments, procedures, or policies need changing to improve the USA numbers?
Does this require overhauling the entire US medical system and require patient participation ($)?
MH – I posted your reference above. It was Madison, not Jefferson. I tend to link Madison/Jefferson together as they were the key Anti-Federalists, while I like Adams/Hamilton together as the Federalists.
“sheeple” a term that as I am observing applies to both cons and libs,how sad for the future, people unable to think for them selves and willing to belive anything thery are told.
3. Healthcare is too expensive
Too expensive for whom?
There is some confusion here. The CBO study and Congress are really concerned with the skyrocketing number of babyboomers who are retiring and putting a strain on medicare to include the prescription drug benefit program.
When Obama says, “We will go broke, and we cannot afford escalating healthcare costs.” He is not talking about you and me. He is talking about the US Treasury.
Unfortunately, the average Joe hears this and thinks about himself – healthcare insurance and healthcare is expensive! (rightfully so, our lives and health should cost more than hiring a lawyer, a CPA, or an auto mechanic.)
So politicians have used you. They claim to be concerned about your costs.
For years – we have known (and I and others have posted) that social security and medicare are going broke. Politicians from both sides have ignored it. Bush tried to do something to salvage SS, but democrats actually made statements that SS is healthy. Denial didn’t work.
So, under the guise of helping 46 million (claimed) Americans who do not have insurance – our government is going to screw the 285,000,000 million who do.
The costs will not go down. The cost of providing goods and services are beyond political control. They are driven by something else. Obama is ignorant of this, or in denial. He met with leaders of the drug companies – and they promised him they’d lower charges billions. Obama did the same with hospitals. But “charges” are not what is paid. Government always pays LESS than the charges for services. Medicare has set forumula’s for reimbursement unevenly distributed to the states. It is these charges that hospitals agreed to accept less of. Not the actual cost.
Why is this later point important?
Because hospitals and drug companies will accept a lesser fee for reimbursement from government programs but they will recoup their loss by raising rates for goods and services. Those still paying – will pay more!!!
For most Americans, the cost for healthcare will not go down and it will still go up (See CBO report to congress). All that is going to happen is the payment for those costs – are going to be redistributed to others.
Matter cannot be created or destroyed. All you can do is “spread it around a little”.
“Under current law, the federal budget is on an unsustainable path..
-meaning that federal debt will continue to
grow much faster than the economy over the long run. Although great uncertainty surrounds long-term fiscal projections, rising costs for health care and the aging of the U.S. population will cause federal spending to increase rapidly under any plausible scenario for current law…..”
I told ya so:
“…..Medicare and Medicaid will rise from about 5 percent of GDP in fiscal year 2009 to about 10 percent in 2035 and over 17 percent in 2080.6 Spending on Social Security is projected to rise at a much slower pace, from almost 5 percent of GDP in 2009 to about 6 percent in later
years.
Two factors account for the projected growth in the government’s three largest entitlement programs: the aging of the population and the rapid growth of per capita health care costs. The retirement of the baby-boom generation(the large group of people born between 1946 and 1964)
portends a long-lasting shift in the age profile of the U.S. population. That shift will substantially alter the balance between the population’s working-age and retirement-age
segments. The share of people age 65 or older is projected to grow from 13 percent in 2008 to 20 percent in 2035, while the share of people ages 20 to 64 is expected to fall
from 60 percent to 55 percent. In later decades, the aging of the population will continue-but at a slower rate- because of increasing life expectancy………”
CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf
Testimony before the Committee on the Budget, United States Senate
16 July, 2009
Freebird1971
Posted July 18, 2009 at 11:31 am | Permalink
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
WHY?
This legislative item is too very important for Obama to cram it down our throats without careful deliberation. Our congress, our medical professionals, medical insurance companies, medical technological equipment companies, and employers should all be involved in the discussions. This problem did not happen overnight – and Obama is a LIAR to say it is an emergency that has to be rushed through. Our future depends upon good decisions being made. You don’t do that under a time limit or under the gun from Obama.
The reason for the rush is not a concern for our health. Obama needs to know he has more revenue to fund even more entitlement programs. He cannot do that as long as the CBO is reporting spending out of control. He needs cap&trade revenue, healthcare revenue from rich folk, gas tax, smoking tax, alcohol tax, and now Miles Driven or Trip tax money.
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
WHY?
It has to do with your age, music preferences, and how ugly you are.
thanks for clearing that up. How old do I have to be what kind of music is proper,right now I’m listening to Ted Nugent,and how ugly,I’m no Adonis but I don’t scare small children and animals
Lol Freebird. I was speaking from personal experience. :-)
As a past president of the Ugly Club, I do scare even big animals away. And if your age has you still enjoying the music of the likes of Lynyrd Skynyrd, then you pass the same age test as me.
American_Way
Posted July 18, 2009 at 11:12 am | Permalink
2. USA has lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality rates
What is the source of this information?
______________________
Amway, Google is your friend. Try it.
Regarding the “true” numbers of people who are not insured.
http://www.factcheck.org/politics/the_real_uninsured.html
Reality, as usual, is more complicated than ideology from either side.
#
XXX
Posted July 18, 2009 at 12:45 pm | Permalink
American_Way
Posted July 18, 2009 at 11:12 am | Permalink
2. USA has lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality rates
What is the source of this information?
______________________
Amway, Google is your friend. Try it.
—————————
I’ve read quite a bit on those statistical studies and it has to do more with genetics and lifestyle than a particular country.
Those who look at these types of statistics are easily fooled when they don’t stop and think how they are derived, especially out of context.
The United States has many races of people, all with different genetic pre-dispositions and by in large, the lifestyle of most Americans hasn’t been that to promote longevity.
It has nothing to do with health care or socialized government.
XXX thanx on Google. You know there is so much out there on this subject – who knows!?!
I guess my point on
2. USA has lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality rates
Is that it is just one of the quick regurgitated posts and claims by democrats that supposedly support completely tearing apart the American healthcare system.
Yet, there is no objective information provided by those repeating it – as proof we lack quality in our healthcare. It there was – don’t you think we could have addressed why more babies die in the USA at birth as an issue unto itself? Where in all the dogma about “public” or “social” healthcare – is resolution of this issue directly addressed?
Similiar logic applies (or doesn’t) to life expectancy.
I am more inclined to support Regulars view expressed above, unless someone can post specific actions to be taken by health providers to address and resolve this issue.
Even some of the Dems in Congress are wondering about this huge expensive health reform bill. I hope the dems get a lot of calls opposed to their Socialist ideas on health and cap & trade.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31980862/ns/politics-the_new_york_times/
Agnatha your link supports the fact that the true number of those without health insurance is somewhere south of the claimed 46 million.
I think the census bureau is closer to the true number. But more importantly, and this is supported in your link and mine – it’s the reasons why that need to be examined.
The House version will provide subsidized health insurance for those with income up to $88K. That is four times higher than the poverty rate and much higher than needed to take care of <46 million. It is however, the right number to win more voters to the democrats rolls.
I will post again today what I have posted before….
I predict that the health care reform bill passed by the House, will not survive in the Senate…. The Senate has a nupmber of different ideas…. Visit:
harkin.senate.gov
What is $88K income anymore?? Especially in the huge population centers of the country??
In NYC, rent for a small 1 bedroom apartment, can approach $1,500/month… PLUS utilities, etc… Not many families can live in such housing… Rent only goes UP from that level, sometimes $3-4,000/month for family housing and can be more in the suburbs… Since it isnt feasible to house a family of 4 in a one bedroom flat, what is left over AFTER Rent, Utilities, Food, insurances(enters, car, ?health?) Seems to me that the $88K level is appropriate…
BUT… instead of screaming bloody murder over a House bill that stands little chance of passing the Senate… Why not do some actual work on proposing reasonable alternatives??
typo — “enters” = renters
As far as I’m concerned, allowing the insurance, medical equipment and pharmaceutical industries a seat at the table is the same as allowing the criminals to select the warden. These are the interests who got us in our present healthcare jam. We’ve already bought them enough luxury goods and services. They have no business getting to tap us for more!
“That is four times higher than the poverty rate and much higher than needed to take care of <46 million. It is however, the right number to win more voters to the democrats rolls.” [AmWay]
You constantly claim that many of those 46 million uninsured are actually people who make plenty of income to buy health insurance, but choose not to….
IF that is true…. then you need to take those with “plenty of income” off of the 45 million… Since they would likely not be covered by the $88K set by the House bill…
And then, take off for those others that you say are NON citizens….
NOW, how many do you have left under $88K??
Amway,
“It is however, the right number to win more voters to the democrats rolls.”
Maybe you didn’t notice, but the Democrats have plenty of votes already. And maybe the reason they have the votes and you don’t is their stand on healthcare, among all the other issues you’ve ignored or been on the wrong side of. It’s called democracy for a reason!
“What is $88K income anymore??”
I didn’t set the national poverty level. Your buds in Congress did.
For many years of my life our HH income was below this threshold. We had military TRICARE for much of that period. But after I retired we paid for the much more expensive, but better Blue Cross Blue Shield policy. We counted health insurance as part of our budgeted expenses.
“NOW, how many do you have left under $88K??”
Chas that’s been the point all along – how many are TRULY needy? The census bureau had a count for those making over 50K, who were eligible for health coverage via employers – but decided not to purchase it.
For whatever reason – the citizen made a “choice” not to buy insurance under a group policy.
Obama’s plan – will force that worker to buy the insurance that’s available, or, if under the 88K and otherwise qualified – purchase the gubermint plan – or pay a hefty penalty.
So much for choice in America.
Waiting Your Turn: Hospital Waiting Lists in Canada, 18th Edition
Author(s): Michael Walker
“The Fraser Institute’s eighteenth annual waiting list survey found that Canada-wide waiting times for surgical and other therapeutic treatments decreased in 2008. Total waiting time between referral from a general practitioner and treatment, averaged across all 12 specialties and 10 provinces surveyed, fell from 18.3 weeks in 2007 to 17.3 weeks in 2008. This nationwide improvement [lots of laughs] in access reflects waiting-time decreases in 7 provinces, while concealing increases in waiting times in Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland & Labrador.
Among the provinces, Ontario achieved the shortest total wait in 2008, 13.3 weeks, with British Columbia (17.0 weeks), and Manitoba (17.2 weeks), next shortest. Saskatchewan exhibited the longest total wait at 28.8 weeks; the next longest waits were found in Nova Scotia (27.6 weeks) and Newfoundland & Labrador (24.4 weeks).
The fall in waiting time between 2007 and 2008 results from a decrease both in the first wait—the wait between visiting a general practitioner and attending a consultation with a specialist—and in the second wait—from the time that a specialist decides that treatment is required to treatment.”
Why is this book in it’s 18th edition?
Be careful what you ask for….
13 July 2009:
Elderly people in England may be asked [TOLD] to take out long-term care insurance
“England Compulsory social care bill plan
“People in England may be forced to pay as much as £20,000 on retirement to help fund the social care system under plans being put forward by ministers.
It is one of three options being proposed by the government alongside top-ups and insurance.
In return, the government said a certain amount of social care would be provided free to everyone, while accommodation costs could be deferred.
The current means-tested system is considered unfair and unsustainable.
About three quarters of people in the system fall into this category. This means that thousands of pensioners each year have to sell their homes or use their savings to fund their long-term care.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8148116.stm
That’s $32,200.00 in US Dollars.
Be careful what you hope for.
“Maybe you didn’t notice, but the Democrats have plenty of votes already. ”
That’s great Jed. Just keep on keeping on thinking that way.
Socialized Medicine: Wait in Line Buddy! And there is NO one to complain to:
“Queuing”
Queuing is a controversial measurement, not least because there may be many explanations for the queuing, many of them medically justifiable, so that aggregate queuing figures may conflate those whose waiting poses no health or other risk with those whose health may be impaired or may suffer pain while waiting.
That being said, in a system in which health services are free at the point of consumption, queuing is the most common form of rationing scarce medical resources. And since patient satisfaction plays no part in determining incomes or other economic rewards for health care providers and administrators in the public system, patients’ time is treated as if it has no value. There are no penalties in the system for making people wait.
I would also like to point out that while we talk a lot about queuing in the Canadian health care system, and we talk as if we know how many people are waiting and how long they wait, in fact we do not know this at all. Ironically for the largest single program expenditure of governments in Canada, we know astonishingly little about what we get for our money. As my colleague David Zitner, Director of Medical Informatics at Dalhousie University in Halifax and Health Policy Fellow at my Institute, likes to say, no health care institution in Canada can tell you how many people got better, how many people got worse, and how many people’s condition was left unchanged by their contact with their institution. None of them can give you an answer. No one knows how many people died while waiting for needed surgery. No one knows how many people are queuing for any particular procedure or how many people cannot find a family doctor. Mostly we have guesswork, anecdote, and subjective measures, not objective ones </i. (such as the Fraser Institute reports mentioned earlier). We do not even know how long someone has to wait before he or she has waited “too long,” because the health care system does not establish official standards for timely care– although presumably even Mr. Romanow would agree that someone who died while waiting for care may have waited a tad too long.
All of this is due, as I argued in a major paper I co-authored in 2002, to the conflict of interest at the heart of Medicare, in which the people who are the ultimate providers of health care services in Canada are also the people charged with regulating the system and quality assurance. Since no one is a competent judge of his or her own performance, and no one likes to be held accountable for his or her work, the result is that the health care system simply does not set tough standards or collect the information that would allow us to hold the system’s administrators accountable for their stewardship of our health care and the billions of dollars that they spend. The people who would collect the information are also the people whose performance would be assessed if useful information were made available. There appears to be no legal obligation on governments actually to supply the services they have promised to the population as their monopoly supplier of health insurance. This is an appalling double standard, as no responsible regulator would permit a private supplier of insurance to behave in this way, as a recent background paper for my Institute makes clear.”
Be careful what you ask for….
Ask this question: “Why is there such a thing called a Wait Time Alliance in Canada?”
Supporting Canada’s family physicians
The public has spoken; is anybody listening?
Cal Gutkin, MD, CCFP(EM), FCFP, Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer
Canada today is paying the price for decades of poor health human resource planning. The good news in this sad saga is that, after nearly a decade of appeals to governments of all stripes, the cries of our worn-out doctors and nurses finally might have been heard.
Of course, they were heard only when the most important voice, that of the people of Canada, joined the chorus. Multiple public polls, Statistics Canada reports, major health care commissions, and the Canada Health Council have reinforced the same message: access to care for many medical concerns is unacceptably poor; wait times for patients are often way too long; and to correct these problems more technicians, pharmacists, nurses, and doctors (especially family doctors) are needed.
In its 2005 report, the Wait Time Alliance recognized that access to care for patients with any medical problem begins with their seeing a family doctor. More than 80% of Canadians say they prefer access to health care through family physicians, and two thirds declare that their family doctors are their most important caregivers. Starfield’s research shows that access to primary care and to family physicians is vital for better patient and population health outcomes. Yet, in 2003, more than 2.5 million Canadians told Statistics Canada and in 2004 five million reported to our Decima survey that they did not have a family physician.[that is 12% of the population] An estimated 3000 more family doctors are required to meet Canadians’ needs.”
Be careful what you ask for. You might get it.
Access to Doctors and Medical Technology
On this measure, Canada performs badly. In 1996, this country had 2.1 practicing physicians per 1000 population, while of the comparison group only two (Japan and the UK) had a lower ratio: Australia (2.5), France (3.0), Germany (3.4), Japan (1.8), Sweden (3.1), Switzerland (3.2), UK (1.7) and U.S. (2.6). Thus, even in countries with lower per capita spending than Canada, there is greater access to physician services.
With respect to medical technology, Canada’s performance is also unimpressive. In a study comparing Canadians’ access to four specific medical technologies (computed tomography [CT] scanners, radiation equipment, lithotriptors, and magnetic resonance imagers [MRI]), with access by citizens of other Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, Canadians’ access was significantly poorer in three of the four. Despite spending a full 1.6 percent of GDP more on health care than the OECD average, Canadians were well down the league tables in access to CT scanners (21st of 28), lithotriptors (19th out of 22), and MRIs (19th out of 27). Moreover, access to several of these technologies worsened relative to access in other countries over the last decade.
Not improving – worsened!
Be careful what you ask for…
Canadian Medicare Is Fairer Because No One Gets Better Care Than Anyone Else [dumbing down].
If you are on worker’s compensation; are in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or the military; if your company has its own salaried physicians; if you use a private hospital like Shouldice (which specializes in hernia surgery) in Toronto or one of the country’s private abortion clinics; if you are a member of the medical professions or know someone who is; or are just articulate and determined or famous and connected; if you travel to the U.S. or any one of a number of other places, you can get better, faster, or more satisfactory care than someone who just lets the wheels of Medicare grind on.
“Multiple tiers” is a slippery concept. For some, if some people can get a service by paying for it, while others who cannot pay do not get access, that constitutes multiple tiers. On the other hand, there are people who oppose tiers because of an ideology of egalitarianism. Thus, two people with similar conditions may both get treated, one more quickly through private payment, the other more slowly (but within appropriate norms for their condition) by Medicare.
We are not talking about people being denied care based on ability to pay, because anyone willing to wait will eventually get care (although we possess no figures on how many die while queuing for public health care). The complaint is rather that someone got care more quickly. That is a very different objection: No one should be able to get faster treatment than in the public system, even where such faster access does not affect the quality or timeliness of the care obtained by people who continue to use the public system.
This peculiar brand of egalitarianism suggests that people should not be denied service because of their own inability to pay, but should be denied access because of their neighbor’s inability or unwillingness to pay (through taxes) for the care an individual decides he or she needs.
Canada is almost alone in the Western world in outlawing people paying privately for services that are also publicly insured.{later modified via Canadian’s supreme court] One consequence of this is that there are many services, such as drugs or home care, that we cannot afford to cover publicly, whereas they are often publicly insured elsewhere. ”
Everyone suffers – but equally!
Be careful what you ask for…..
Say good-bye to blue cross blue shield or your other quality insurance……
We are all equal!!!
Amway,
If no one gets better treatment than anyone else under any condition, we can count on the rich and powerful to see to it that all medical care is of the highest quality.
Stop telling fibs about the health care proposals. Private insurance is not being touched. (It MAY have to get better, though.)
#
Jed
Posted July 18, 2009 at 4:47 pm | Permalink
Amway,
If no one gets better treatment than anyone else under any condition, we can count on the rich and powerful to see to it that all medical care is of the highest quality.
———–
What about food Jed? Nutrition is important isn’t it? Using your logic, everyone could everyone have the same food too. If the rich want to have steak, then they need to make sure everyone has steak.
And transportation. Since the goal of government in the Obama’s bizarro world is now apparently is equality rather than equality of opportunity, we can’t have some folks riding around in expensive, climate controlled sedans, while others are in in pickups tied together with bailing wire. If the rich want to drive Cadillacs, everyone should have them.
And since in the Obama’s bizarro world spending money only stimulates the economy, we can afford it all!
You people make my head hurt.
Instead of getting all whipped into a frenzy over ideological fantasies, CONs should at least take a moment to consider the practicalities of how universal health coverage would work.
Just as millions of elderly people get Medicare, millions more purchase supplemental overage. From private insurance companies.
No one with an ounce of common sense believes, say, Nancy Reagan is going to die in the welfare ward next to a syphilitic street bum. Part of universal Medicare will most certainly permit her to pay extra for a private room, perhaps a full-time attending nurse, maybe even a concierge doctor. But both patients would be covered for the same MRI scan, the same operating room, the same level of competence from attending providers.
Simple as that.
Michael Jackson got the exact same professional treatment from EMTs as any crack dealer shot on a corner in South Central. (Ironically, his personal Doctor Feelgood probably hastened his death. But I digress….)
CONs love to talk about people who “choose” not to carry health insurance. CONs hate to own up to the fact millions of Americans cannot get any health insurance at any price, due to insurance corporations cherry-picking clients over real or imagined, relevant or not, “pre-existing” conditions.
And the payment system of the status quo has all sorts of benefits for those who can get even a modicum of coverage. Negotiated discounts are available to the insured, but those without insurance are billed the full-flddged sticker price (including $5 Tylenol tablets and a “new” $10 box of Kleenex each day even if yesterday’s Kleenex was never used or even opened. If you have insurance, the hospital writes it down; if you don’t, you’re billed the full $10 a day.
I think I’ve written about him before, but to recap the story: A friend went through a pretty messy divorce about 20 years ago. His marriage counselor prescribed an anti-depressant. He took the pills for a couple of days, didn’t like the side-effects, and flushed the rest of the tablets down the toilet.
Two decades later, he was denied coverage — at any price — by Blue Cross of Kansas for a “pre-existing” condition, i.e., “clinical depression.” I think that’s an outrage.
That wing-nuts don’t think that’s an outrage is another.
Money, at least make your made up anecdotes believable. Marriage counselors can’t prescribe anti-depressants.
And clinical depression can’t be diagnosed by a marriage counselor either. You are shining us on, or your friend was you.
” Using your logic, everyone could everyone have the same food too. If the rich want to have steak, then they need to make sure everyone has steak.”
Ya know outlander?
I have come to believe that you COULD eat steak in front of a starving child and think nothing of it.
“outlander” –
They went to a psychiatrist for marriage counseling.
I saw an obviously older woman today wearing a big button that said No to Socialized Medicine.
I wonder if she ever thought about the Medicare help she I imagine feels is her right as a citizen.
Ya can’t fix stupid.
Dennis
Monkeyspunk – Whines about: Two decades later, he was denied coverage — at any price — by Blue Cross of Kansas for a “pre-existing” condition, i.e., “clinical depression.” I think that’s an outrage.
————————————
That is also a fairy tale.
MH rambles:
“CONS, blah, ideology, blah, Michael Jackson (ironic how Teddy Kennedy never gets used as an example of someone getting special care), blah, blah, little orphans, blah, blah”
___________
10 paragraphs, not one word about how to pay for it. Everybody wants to feel good and give everyone everything they want. But you avoid the same question, throwing up strawmen in your wake, how can we afford covering everyone, when we can’t even afford covering the indigent/elderly?
BeeJay – I have come to believe that you COULD eat steak in front of a starving child and think nothing of it.
————————————–
beejay wants us to believe that she eats oatmeal and water for breakfast and tofu and homegrown bean sprouts for dinner, and sends the rest of her money to the World Food Organization…..
hypocrite….
nit…
DFB – how can we afford covering everyone, when we can’t even afford covering the indigent/elderly?
————————-
Well, tax “the rich” of course…
f’n idiots.
Tax tables have not always been set as they are now.
george bush changed them. ronald reagan changed them. john f kennedy changed them.
We have in this country perhaps the greatest disparity in the world between the obscenely rich and the desperately poor.
The health care system in this country is not the only thing that is broken. Time to do some fixing.
If it is your intention to demean me by assuming I am female “biased” that says a lot about you.
It is a well known fact that I am male.
And I will be very happy to meet you in person “biased” to address your misconceptions.
And anything else you’d like to address.
“The census bureau had a count for those making over 50K, who were eligible for health coverage via employers – but decided not to purchase it.” [AmWay]
And didnt I say earlier, to cut OUT those from your 46 million figure?? Besides, the proposed number is $88K/year…
Please stay with the numbers you floated the FIRST time, instead of switching numbers around… That is most annoying….
BeeJay – wishes: We have in this country perhaps the greatest disparity in the world between the obscenely rich and the desperately poor.
——————-
not even close, please THINK before you type, I can give you five countries at least, without looking them up that have TWICE the “disparity” of the US.
But take comfort in the fact that the WPE and his programs WILL get us there…
——————————
demean me by assuming I am female.
——————————
So according to BeeJay, women are “lessor beings”…..
BeeJay
Posted July 18, 2009 at 9:30 pm | Permalink
And I will be very happy to meet you in person “biased” to address your misconceptions.
—————————————
Will you be the one carrying the “man purse?”
My gender is not in question “biased”.
What other assumption is to be made from your calling me “she” than you are using the feminine gender as some sort of insult?
You put your foot in that one. I’m happy to call you on it.
“beejay wants us to believe that she eats oatmeal and water for breakfast and tofu and homegrown bean sprouts for dinner, and sends the rest of her money to the World Food Organization…” [biassed 1]
Ummmm please post where BlueJay said ANYTHING like that… If you cant back it up, withdraw your statement… BIGOT
#
Chas
Posted July 18, 2009 at 9:39 pm | Permalink
Ummmm please post where BlueJay said ANYTHING like that… If you cant back it up, withdraw your statement… BIGOT
—————————————–
hey Chasty, figger it out you racists.
she writes,”I have come to believe that you COULD eat steak in front of a starving child and think nothing of it.”
insinuating, that she would never dream of eating steak….while there are starving people on the planet. Or if somehow she doesn’t “eat steak” “in front of” then its somehow OK.
you homophobic, womanizing, nazi lover!
It’s the built in excuse the cons have been working on for years.
“We just can’t afford it!”
Leaving aside all the things the cons HAVE managed to afford in the last 25 years, the simple fact is that we HAVE to afford it. This will mean that some who have had it very well for a very long time may feel a bit of pain.
Forgive me for not being terribly sympathetic. My sympathy fails me in the light of practicality. Unlike the cons, I can’t be “pro life” and ignore quality of life as they do so easily.
There IS of course, an option for the cons. They COULD try to do away with Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
I THINK they know better than that. SO, they can get on board with the solution of our obligation to our seniors and perhaps cover all our people at the same time.
Or, they could just admit that they are the party of profit at the expense of compassion.
Many dem members do not want the same Health care as the rest of us peons, after all they get theirs free.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124786946165760369.html
“Well, tax “the rich” of course…”
__________
Biased – yeah I know, that’s the populist answer, just waiting for someone to answer the most basic question and back it up with actual math.
As for the “desperately poor” here in the US as compared to the same in other countries, ours live like kings in comparison. They’re not walking miles to a water well, to carry the water back on their head. They’re not putting mosquito nets, donated by us, around their bed to prevent malaria. How many Americans do you see walking around with distended stomachs from gases built up due to malnutrition vs distended due to access to McDonalds? Do our poor burn cow pies in their stoves to cook their food? Most of our poor have a home (or apartment), a car, a couple TV’s, air conditioning, a cell phone & a computer. There’s a thousand programs, both state & federal, that the indigent utilize for money, food, insurance, housing, education, day care, healthcare, dental, vision, transportation, job training, etc.
Should poverty be addressed here, sure, but just stop with the over the top analogies about the disparity between rich/poor. It weakens your the argument you’re trying to make.
BeeJay dreams…Or, they could just admit that they are the party of profit at the expense of compassion.
——————————–
Tell me bj do you pay more taxes than you “owe?”
Do you expect someone to work harder than you and not have a greater reward?
Do you think a “hamburger flipper” should receive the same rewards as a “rocket scientist?”
If so, where is the incentive for mankind to advance?
Would you have us all living in a cave as cosmos dreams??
Even then, didn’t the best hunter eat more???
Our very own Kathy will be at this Town Hall meeting in Reserve, LA. You can bet the meeting will be all about trying to shove Universal Health Care down our throats as quickly as possible.
http://louisianaconservative.com/?p=767
biased1(Bigot, that is) If your attacks werent so damned dumb, they would be FUNNY… Since I KNOW BlueJay, and BlueJay isnt female… I’m not homophobic(although from your record of posts here, YOU are)… and I am the one who ATTACKS Nazi rhetoric… unlike you, who usually support it…
YOU, imbecile, are a JOKE!!
G’Night now!!
“I wonder if she ever thought about the Medicare help she I imagine feels is her right as a citizen.”
Perhaps she remembers paying in to Medicare her entire working life to earn it. And maybe she realizes that she is still making payments for her share of coverage under medicare, a supplemental program, and a share of prescription drugs.
Quite different from handing out healthcare insurance to the working (and not working) class.
DFB- Should poverty be addressed here, sure, but just stop with the over the top analogies about the disparity between rich/poor. It weakens your the argument you’re trying to make.
————————————-
The “biggest disparity on earth’” comment wasn’t mine. I went to central america to install a water pump for a village that had been toting water up a five hundred yard hill for generations…..
unbelievable poverty. when some one in the US starts whining about our “poor” it really makes me want to puke. They have no idea evidently.
dude, when a farmer in the Honduras falls and breaks his leg in the field, there isn’t and “life watch” no helicopter, no ambulance.
get up and move……
or die….
oh, my cell phone bill is too high!! My kids need free lunch, and also, I need a free flue shot, and how about some free health care while you’re at it…
This is how the WPE sees it, and soon we will only have the “governing class” and the “serfs” (that is you and me….)
“It’s the built in excuse the cons have been working on for years.
“We just can’t afford it!”” (BJ)
THEN DO THE MATH! Making a statement and acting like it’s fact because you say so doesn’t mean squat. I asked Pedant to do the same, so here’s your shot.
Debt is fungible, so doesn’t matter which hidey hole you shift it to and ignore it, it all gets paid with the same tax dollars, so let’r rip oh budgetary wizard, here’s the debts (so far):
Medicare $35T-$65T
Part D $10T
SS $9-$10T
Natl Debt $11.5T
Fed Pensions $5.3T (fed employees/military)
‘09 Deficit $.8T ($1T already in nat’l debt)
‘10-’19 Deficit $10T (before healthcare)
Knock yourself out, how do YOU BJ pay for it? It’s not about profit or compassion, even though you LOVE to throw around that BS. We’re talking addition and subtraction here, so knock yourself out. No “we have to” answer BS, like your main man BO does when he says “well, we’ll just figure it out”.
Like I said, EVERYBODY from BOTH parties would love to give EVERYONE everything they want, it’s great for campaign speeches and votes. So the tirades about how “CONS” hate the poor, the elderly, women, minorities, immigrants, whatever else crap your party’s selling are tired and played out. Because after all, the “CONS” are the scare tactic party, no?? Give me a break.
Don’t forget, all of the numbers above are before interest and/or inflation. Keep in mind also, that states are broke and looking to raise taxes to balance their books also. So in your calculations, make sure you show how you’re paying the increasing in interest payments, shortfall in Med/SS/Part D/Pensions that congress has used as free loans since day 1, and start from the fact our biggest tax revenue #’s about $2.7T in a single year.
G,nighty night nazi.
“Please stay with the numbers you floated the FIRST time, instead of switching numbers around… That is most annoying….”
I didn’t switch numbers. I initially posted the 88K, just look upstream. You asked a question, I answered it.
You are mixing up two different things.
1. The 88K is the amount congress is proposing to provide ‘partial’ supplemental funding to pay for insurance.
2. The 50K (actually through I think 65K) is the income of people that the census bureau said could get health insurance – but make a choice not to (from employer group policies).
“how do YOU BJ pay for it?”
Another good post on your part DFB.
But let me save the libs some time: There isn’t enough gold in Fort Knox to pay for it. If you took every penny the ‘evil rich’ earn – there isn’t enough money to pay for it.
You must either cut spending or raise revenue.
I’ll bet my first born that the democrats in congress will never cut spending, so it has to be raise taxes on most Americans.
Cap & Tax will be a biggy
Alcohol taxes, smokes, gas, and Personal Trip Miles in POV are just a few coming down the pike.
But all of them – will require the poor to contribute. Libs are just too stupid to realize it. That’s why Obama is raising all these “hidden” taxes.
“So the tirades about how “CONS” hate the poor, the elderly, women, minorities, immigrants, whatever else crap your party’s selling are tired and played out. Because after all, the “CONS” are the scare tactic party, no?? Give me a break.”
No tirade here.
Were you trying to give me a tirade lesson?
I do in fact believe that cons hate (or more likely simply do not care about) the poor, women, children, minorities etc
Except perhaps for how they can use them to make themselves more money.
If you’d care to convince me otherwise, knock yourself out.
biased – my bad, I knew you didn’t make it, just combined the post with BJ’s comments and forgot to address it to him. My brain works faster than fingers. Sorry for the confusion.
But you’re points are dead on. They’re lame talking points that get thrown out unchallenged so much, that people just assume them as fact.
Other country’s poor don’t have govt entities, non-profits, political groups, special interests, charities, etc tracking them and reporting statistics on them in the various media forms daily either. China’s poverty is horrendous, but they just don’t report anything about it. N Korea, Myanmar, Afghanistan, etc, all the same. State run media’s nothing if not good at propaganda. Cuba’s is just as bad, but if you listen to the left (well Hollywood patsies anyway), it’s paradise there!
#
YellowdogLiberal
Posted July 18, 2009 at 9:09 pm | Permalink
I saw an obviously older woman today wearing a big button that said No to Socialized Medicine.
I wonder if she ever thought about the Medicare help she I imagine feels is her right as a citizen.
Ya can’t fix stupid.
Dennis
==========================
Libs like to make assumptions…
Perhaps she was a Health Insurance Executive?
I don’t care to convince you of squat, BJ. You’re so far off the reservation it’s not worth it. Just simply asking for you stop avoiding facts with lame ideological cliche’s. Again, not a single word about debt, cost, how to pay for it. It must be beautiful in your utopia.
“Private insurance is not being touched. (It MAY have to get better, though.)”
Some people just can’t think the logic all the way through to conclusion.
Big Corporation A presently is paying big dollars to provide health insurance coverage for their many employees (employee costs are the bulk of expenses).
The federal government is going to provide a group policy which will be “affordable” to Americans making up to 88K a year. In order to keep the governments costs down – they will solicite and seek more contributors to their group policy.
Big Corporation A will quit paying big bucks to say Blue Cross Blue Shield, and will opt for the much cheaper government subsidized insurance program and offer it to it’s employees.
Libs will shout with joy when Blue Cross Blue Shield stops being profitable and closes it’s doors.
The democrats goal of a single payer system will spring to life. Utopia will have arrived (puking).
All politics aside beejay, answer my questions….
Tell me bj do you pay more taxes than you “owe?”
Do you expect someone to work harder than you and not have a greater reward?
Do you think a “hamburger flipper” should receive the same rewards as a “rocket scientist?”
If so, where is the incentive for mankind to advance?
Would you have us all living in a cave as cosmos dreams??
Even then, didn’t the best hunter eat more???
” so far off the reservation ”
I don’t think smoke signals work after dark anyway.
“didn’t the best hunter eat more???”
Got the best cave women to pull around by the hair too.
“I don’t care to convince you of squat, BJ”
Mission accomplished.
BlueJay sings….
I hate you
You hate me
You say the poor should die I disagree.
But go ahead and axe Medicare and Medicaid too.
Watch America turn blue!
amway – Big Corporation A will quit paying big bucks to say Blue Cross Blue Shield, and will opt for the much cheaper government subsidized insurance program and offer it to it’s employees.
——————————-
It would be fun to watch the unions and the gov. employees fight this one out if it weren’t so serious, but bottom line it is the “non government” worker that will pay for it all, and get the first worst coverage.
o’bama care…
Worst
President
Ever
“Libs are just too stupid to realize it. That’s why Obama is raising all these “hidden” taxes.” (Amway)
I’d disagree, they think WE’RE (citizens) too stupid to understand it. Hence the machine gun approach to legislating them.
It’s got to start with cuts. I can think of 4 or 5 complete Fed departments that should go away. I can’t remember the exact number, but it was in the thousands, in terms of how many agencies the Fed operates these days. The healthcare bill creates 31 new agencies itself!
I can also think of a few subsidies that would go away (lot of ag, ethanol, wind, biodiesel splash-n-dash, etc). I’d let the US Mail Service deliver the Census in ‘10 vs spending something like $18B on groups like ACORN. The USPS already goes by every home, every day, and it’s broke and needs the money anyway.
I’d give those “evil, greedy rich people/companies” with US dollars sitting in tax free foreign banks, a one-time amnesty offer to bring their $14-$16T back to the US for at an income tax of 10-15%. They’d have to invest it somewhere here then, which would recapitalize a lot of banks and add some credit liquidity for small businesses.
I’d kill all congressperson’s defined benefit pensions and give them the same 401K option they feel they deserve praise for creating. Maybe if their pensions depended on market performance vs being guaranteed they’d have more skin in the game.
Czars gone. Might even consider selling Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands and whatever other colonial vestiges we have.
I’d shut down a few military bases in country’s that’ve proven their more than happy to ride out coattails as the the world’s police (Germany for example). I’d give the UN/NATO/IMF something to think about too, in terms of how much of those entities we fund relative to the rest of the world.
Even after all that cost cutting carnage, it might almost cover just this year’s budget deficit….
“You say the poor should die I disagree.”
Sounds like a broken record. Obviously not comphrending what was posted. Stuck on the brain washing that republicans hate – everyone.
“But go ahead and axe Medicare and Medicaid too.”
You have not been following the news: Obama is cutting Medicare and Medicaid. DEMOCRAT #1 is doing the cutting.
“Watch America turn blue!”
I suspect you are correct on this one. EMS will be on a “space available” priority and they will only roll when your number comes up in the queue.
Blue with death.
There ya go DFB, proposing logical cuts.
Just looking at this thread today: despite all the warnings, all the bad news in other countries with socialized medicine, despite the warnings from the CBO on cost -
Not one damn liberal admitted to the realities. Not one damn liberal voiced opposition to ANY of the plan. Not one damn liberal acknowledged the problems of ANY kind.
All you or I got was bad mouthing “cons”.
Not one bit of evidence liberals even read anything contrary to the tape recording.
And like I said DFB, I’ll bet you my first born child libs will not cut anything of significance, nor make any of the changes to lower spending that you propose.
What do you have to put up against my oldest child?
“You say the poor should die I disagree.
But go ahead and axe Medicare and Medicaid too.” (BJ)
Is it Tourette’s? Is that what triggers your Pavlovic response with lame attempts at promoting your cult propaganda?
“What do you have to put up against my oldest child?”
Dude, that’s such a sucker’s bet! There would have to be some SERIOUS odds given… :)
“Not one damn liberal admitted to the realities.”
And they won’t. They’ll just keep ignoring the things they can’t deny, pick out one sentence, add snark, sprinkle it with hate, rinse & repeat.
“They’ll just keep ignoring the things they can’t deny”
I’m reminded of a cartoon my kids used to watch on Saturday mornings.
The Smurfs skipped and laughed all day. Singing:
La-LA-lalala-la LA-la-lalala!
Come to think of it maybe that’s why they were all colored blue!
I like that:
Libs=Smurfs
Question for “the one”….
Mr. WPE, during the campaign, you promised to start new programs that “worked” and to “abolish” those programs that didn’t “work.”
Other than tax cuts and club gitmo, what programs have you “abolished?”
Smurf Chas
Smurf Bluejay
Smurf YellowdogLiberal
Smurf Monkeyhawk
Nice ring to it.
Yawwwwwn!
Faceless nics DESPERATE to convince me they mean me no harm.
I’m just wrong about them. They are not bad, just misunderstood!
And I only get that because they are afraid.
Afraid because their way of thinking has failed and many have availed themselves of another.
F22 fighter aircraft.
He cut 2,200 auto dealerships across America.
Smurf Bluejay you are dreaming. Pinch yourself.
#
American_Way
Posted July 18, 2009 at 11:00 pm | Permalink
He cut 2,200 auto dealerships across America.
————————————-
He has DOUBLED unemployment in kansas…
Amway – you may be onto something…those Smurfs all bowed to Papa Smurf, and believed in a communal style life… :)
Btw, I think the “smurf” part comes after their nic….
harm: Noun or adjective
1. Indicates removal of handouts from the subject
2. A condition which exists when taxpayer money is withdrawn from a recipient
3. The end of public housing assistance, free cheese, WIC, ADC, foodstamps, EITC, or other programs.
4. The lowering the amount of any welfare program.
I’m out, beer’s not getting any colder…
God bless & good night
DFB AGREEED! I thought of the same thing after I posted. I thought of Papa Smurf and smurf is the last name.
Quite appropriate – they give up their individuality, their heritage, and all fall under the same blue religion.
I love it!!!
“He has DOUBLED unemployment in kansas…”
Papa Smurf has DOUBLED unemployment in kansas…
#
American_Way
Posted July 18, 2009 at 11:05 pm | Permalink
harm: Noun or adjective
1. Indicates removal of handouts from the subject
2. A condition which exists when taxpayer money is withdrawn from a recipient
3. The end of public housing assistance, free cheese, WIC, ADC, foodstamps, EITC, or other programs.
4. The lowering the amount of any welfare program.
————————————
Thanks for that…
too funy.
I hope BJ didn’t have an anurism ….
HAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!
“I hope BJ didn’t have an anurism ….”
Gosh I hope BJ Smurf didn’t have an anurism.
He might start posting in ALL CAPS@@!!!
Ha!
Oh for the days before con nic switching.
I wonder how many of the above faceless con posters I have already destroyed over the years?
Well, at least I drove them into anonymity.
It’s just correct to guarantee all of our population health care. It encourages freedom.
NO man should be the slave of another for his sustenance, housing, food, or health care. The very minute one man is forced by economics to work for another, freedom dies.
“It’s just correct to guarantee all of our population health care.”
All Americans have health care.
It’s insurance that’s the issue.
You are one of the easily confused Smurfs.
Good night Hank Price.
BJ Smurf, your character is close to either Weepy Smurf or Dreamy Smurf.
I haven’t decided which yet.
my brothers wife had a massive heart attack a couple of months ago . . . she’s doing good now . . . BUT, when it was all said and done .. and they got the final 100 page bill totaling the amount of 500,000.00 dollars ( sweat ) .. now according to situations and timeline .. she was applied to two different health plans . . . . when that was all said and done .. not only did she have every penny paid .. but she also walked away with 7,000 dollars from this ordeal
OMG OBAMAH !!!! PLEASE SAVE US FROM OURSELVES
Glad to hear your sister-in-law is doing well dadman.
God Bless America!
God Bless America !!
Yesterdday, on Obama’s Radio address >>>>
“Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange: a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, cost and track records of a variety of plans – including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest – and choose what’s best for your family. And that’s why we’ll put an end to the worst practices of the insurance industry: no more yearly caps or lifetime caps; no more denying people care because of pre-existing conditions; and no more dropping people from a plan when they get too sick. No longer will you be without health insurance, even if you lose your job or change jobs.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov
as a consequence of you for your dope and it helped me in preparing my college assignment.