Health Care, Hillary - Osama Obama - McCain - Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest

Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

Politics, Government, or Religion Chat Bring your flamesuit!

greatlakes4x4.com is the premier Great Lakes 4x4 Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 5th, 2008, 10:01 AM   #1
clarkstoncracker
lol
 
clarkstoncracker's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-03-05
Location: OC - MI
Posts: 42,509
iTrader: (40)
Mentioned: 113 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to clarkstoncracker
Default Health Care, Hillary - Osama Obama - McCain

May 04, 2008
Paying for Health Care - Who and How?
By Debra Saunders

On Fox News Wednesday, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton told Fox News' Bill O'Reilly, "If we don't get universal health care, we will continue to bleed money." Funny. The more Washington politicians promise to control health care costs, the higher they go. As humorist P.J. O'Rourke famously said, "If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free."

Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama both promise to provide access to health care for all Americans by mandating that employers provide or contribute to the cost of health plans for employees. Clinton would mandate that all uninsured adults buy health care, Obama has no "individual mandate." Both candidates would offer health care for all children and subsidies for adults, and would require insurers to cover everyone, regardless of health.

Somehow they propose to offer and subsidize more health care without raising costs for the majority of Americans who already have it.

What next? Consume more calories, weigh less?

Both Democrats suggest that prevention will contain costs. But as the Washington Post reported last month, with a few exceptions like childhood vaccinations, health economist Louise B. Russell's 1986 work, "Is Prevention Better Than Cure?" found that "prevention activities tend to cost more than they save. Since the book's appearance, her observation has been borne out by studies of hundreds of interventions - everything from providing mammograms for all women and prescribing drugs to people with high cholesterol to requiring passenger-side air bags in cars and shortening the response time of ambulances."

Of course, prevention is a wise course. It extends and improves the quality of people's lives. But in the real world, it costs money. And it's worth it.

How can America control health care costs? I asked Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., an obstetrician and family medicine physician who prefers to be called Dr. Coburn. Coburn answered that there are two ways to control costs - through government, a la Clinton and Obama, who will have to rely on federal "micromanaging and (eventual) rationing," or through the marketplace, a la Sen. John McCain. While the marketplace is not perfect, it beats rationing and bad regulation.

The McCain plan would provide an annual tax credit of $2,500 per individual or $5,000 per family. The idea is to encourage families to buy their own health care plans - preferably plans that save consumers money when they follow healthy lifestyles and make smart economic choices.

Unlike Clinton and Obama, McCain would not require that insurers cover people with chronic illnesses. Instead, McCain proposes state "guaranteed access plans" for those patients.

Politically, Plan McCain may be suicide. Clinton and Obama have kept to the current employer-based system - which gives workers the happy illusion of not paying for their health care, when in fact it comes out of their paychecks.

Like President Bush, however, McCain has concluded that the best way to curb health care costs is to return the incentive to save to patients. Because when you know a doctor's visit will cost only $25 and that you won't have to pay for a test you may not need, you have no incentive to economize. That's the problem with the status quo: The cheaper we make it look, the more it ends up costing.

The way Americans look at health care has been distorted by a system that cuts costs where they are least onerous. Gone is the day when patients paid for annual medical exams and insurers picked up the tab if a family member became seriously ill. Now you don't have to be sick to be subsidized and workers have come to expect someone else to pick up the tab for routine care, minus a modest co-pay.

Credit McCain for proposing to make the process transparent, so that people have a more personal stake in the care they receive. To the extent that adults buy their own policies, they will be free to work wherever they choose, and they will no longer be bound by their health care. Also, just maybe instead of scorning what comes cheap, Americans will come to appreciate what they pay for.

When I hear middle-class Americans complain about how they want Washington to do something to pick up their health tab, I always want to ask them: If you don't want to pay for your own health care, what makes you think someone else wants to pay your doctor bill?
__________________
clarkstoncracker is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old May 5th, 2008, 10:24 AM   #2
AGoodBuzz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 12-09-07
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 1,557
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by clarkstoncracker View Post
May 04, 2008
Paying for Health Care - Who and How?
By Debra Saunders

On Fox News Wednesday, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton told Fox News' Bill O'Reilly, "If we don't get universal health care, we will continue to bleed money." Funny. The more Washington politicians promise to control health care costs, the higher they go. As humorist P.J. O'Rourke famously said, "If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free."

Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama both promise to provide access to health care for all Americans by mandating that employers provide or contribute to the cost of health plans for employees. Clinton would mandate that all uninsured adults buy health care, Obama has no "individual mandate." Both candidates would offer health care for all children and subsidies for adults, and would require insurers to cover everyone, regardless of health.

Somehow they propose to offer and subsidize more health care without raising costs for the majority of Americans who already have it.

What next? Consume more calories, weigh less?

Both Democrats suggest that prevention will contain costs. But as the Washington Post reported last month, with a few exceptions like childhood vaccinations, health economist Louise B. Russell's 1986 work, "Is Prevention Better Than Cure?" found that "prevention activities tend to cost more than they save. Since the book's appearance, her observation has been borne out by studies of hundreds of interventions - everything from providing mammograms for all women and prescribing drugs to people with high cholesterol to requiring passenger-side air bags in cars and shortening the response time of ambulances."

Of course, prevention is a wise course. It extends and improves the quality of people's lives. But in the real world, it costs money. And it's worth it.

How can America control health care costs? I asked Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., an obstetrician and family medicine physician who prefers to be called Dr. Coburn. Coburn answered that there are two ways to control costs - through government, a la Clinton and Obama, who will have to rely on federal "micromanaging and (eventual) rationing," or through the marketplace, a la Sen. John McCain. While the marketplace is not perfect, it beats rationing and bad regulation.

The McCain plan would provide an annual tax credit of $2,500 per individual or $5,000 per family. The idea is to encourage families to buy their own health care plans - preferably plans that save consumers money when they follow healthy lifestyles and make smart economic choices.

Unlike Clinton and Obama, McCain would not require that insurers cover people with chronic illnesses. Instead, McCain proposes state "guaranteed access plans" for those patients.

Politically, Plan McCain may be suicide. Clinton and Obama have kept to the current employer-based system - which gives workers the happy illusion of not paying for their health care, when in fact it comes out of their paychecks.

Like President Bush, however, McCain has concluded that the best way to curb health care costs is to return the incentive to save to patients. Because when you know a doctor's visit will cost only $25 and that you won't have to pay for a test you may not need, you have no incentive to economize. That's the problem with the status quo: The cheaper we make it look, the more it ends up costing.

The way Americans look at health care has been distorted by a system that cuts costs where they are least onerous. Gone is the day when patients paid for annual medical exams and insurers picked up the tab if a family member became seriously ill. Now you don't have to be sick to be subsidized and workers have come to expect someone else to pick up the tab for routine care, minus a modest co-pay.

Credit McCain for proposing to make the process transparent, so that people have a more personal stake in the care they receive. To the extent that adults buy their own policies, they will be free to work wherever they choose, and they will no longer be bound by their health care. Also, just maybe instead of scorning what comes cheap, Americans will come to appreciate what they pay for.

When I hear middle-class Americans complain about how they want Washington to do something to pick up their health tab, I always want to ask them: If you don't want to pay for your own health care, what makes you think someone else wants to pay your doctor bill?

Rather than try to pick all this apart I would just ask:

What is wrong with a system that provides basic care to all citizens and is paid for by all citizens, and continue to encourage private, for profit businesses to offer enhanced health care services for a fee? Then those that cannot afford insurance for themselves can at least stay "reasonably" healthy, and those that have a little money to spend and want to spend more on their care CAN.

For example, basic immunizations and treatment for injuries, emergency surgeries, prenatal care, childbirth, ob/gyn, care for the elderly and infirm; and for those that want more: elective surgery, comprehensive care for long-term illness (from high blood pressure and cholesterol to HIV/AIDS).

Why does the debate always seem to be "all or nothing"?
AGoodBuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5th, 2008, 04:38 PM   #3
Mr Toes - R.I.P.
November 7, 1958 - July 22, 2011
 
Mr Toes - R.I.P.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-29-07
Location: Belleville Mi
Posts: 4,727
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Call me when you start talking about health care and quit talking about insurance.
Mr Toes - R.I.P. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2008, 09:18 AM   #4
AGoodBuzz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 12-09-07
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 1,557
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Toes View Post
Call me when you start talking about health care and quit talking about insurance.
You just hit the nail on the head Mr. Toes!

We need to eliminate the insurance companies from our BASIC HEALTH CARE SYSTEM. If we want to keep them around for people that want elective care, FINE, I am not opposed to anyone's right to run a business, but there is too much involvement in the basic system of care by these private, FOR PROFIT businesses.

Thanks Mr. Toes! I'm glad we agree!
AGoodBuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2008, 09:33 AM   #5
87'YJ
Jeeps, Journey and Jesus
 
87'YJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-07-05
Location: Columbus
Posts: 1,651
iTrader: (2)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AGoodBuzz View Post
You just hit the nail on the head Mr. Toes!

We need to eliminate the insurance companies from our BASIC HEALTH CARE SYSTEM. If we want to keep them around for people that want elective care, FINE, I am not opposed to anyone's right to run a business, but there is too much involvement in the basic system of care by these private, FOR PROFIT businesses.

Thanks Mr. Toes! I'm glad we agree!
What a foolish comment. You do realize that Health Insurance companies employ at least a half million Americans?! Are you saying they should get rid of these companies leaving these employees jobless? (It would make the layoffs at the big 3 look like childs play). Are you saying you want more job loss in America?! You don't know what the hell your talking about.

Competition has always brought about better service and products, because you're trying to beat the next company. It also keeps prices lower (than they would be without it anyway). If the government takes over healthcare, not only will it be far less efficient, but it will also have much poorer quality of care. You say why? Because without competition in the system, there is less of an incentment to further find ways to cut costs or bring a better service to win in the system.

AND we have nationalized healthcare now!!!! If you are an illegal alien, or if you don't have health insurance, but you go to an emergency room... guess what? You have to be treated. Soooooo I'm lost as to why people think we need the government to force everyone into a huge tax and expense for a system that will result in much poorer and potentially disasterous results.
87'YJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2008, 01:00 PM   #6
AGoodBuzz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 12-09-07
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 1,557
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 87'YJ View Post
What a foolish comment. You do realize that Health Insurance companies employ at least a half million Americans?! Are you saying they should get rid of these companies leaving these employees jobless? (It would make the layoffs at the big 3 look like childs play). Are you saying you want more job loss in America?! You don't know what the hell your talking about. Well, if we shut down the branches of the government with which you disgree then all those people would be out of jobs, now wouldn't they? And the government probably employs more people than the insurance companies. Besides, many of those insurance company jobs are offshore. At least all of our government jobs stay on this continent.

Competition has always brought about better service and products, because you're trying to beat the next company. It also keeps prices lower (than they would be without it anyway). That's true in theory, but the theory has proven to be tragically incomplete, because once you beat out all your competirors you control the market, like Wal-Mart, an example of the free-market gone wild.If the government takes over healthcare, not only will it be far less efficient, but it will also have much poorer quality of care. You say why? Because without competition in the system, there is less of an incentment to further find ways to cut costs or bring a better service to win in the system. Maybe you haven't had an opportunity to review the quality of care in the other 35 industrialized nations that have universal care. Are you going to tell me that peopole in Switzerland, Denmark, Germany, etc get poor health care? Many of the advances made in medicine and pharmacology come from those countries, not here. Much of the advanced hospital equipment was developed and is manufactured in those countries and we buy the stuff for use in our hospitals. Check your facts.

AND we have nationalized healthcare now!!!! If you are an illegal alien, or if you don't have health insurance, but you go to an emergency room... guess what? You have to be treated. That's "corrective" health care. Besides, hospitals don't have to treat you. Quite the opposite actually. Check your facts. They only have to keep you from dying. If your injury or illness does not pose an immediate threat to your life they can turn you away, and often do. Because many of them are able to receive financial compensation from counties or states they do treat, but that's not guarnteed. Finally, your being an illegal alien is not a prerequisite to treatment. I don't know where you heard that, but I would like to see the proof.Soooooo I'm lost as to why people think we need the government to force everyone into a huge tax and expense for a system that will result in much poorer and potentially disasterous results. There are 35 other industrialized nations that are proving year after year that it works, but our corporate media never talks about that. If I hadn't been to those countries and witnessed it for myself I never would have known.
..
AGoodBuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2008, 01:14 PM   #7
no1likesme
not Frank Sinatra
 
no1likesme's Avatar
 
Join Date: 04-10-08
Location: shepherd, MI
Posts: 678
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to no1likesme Send a message via MSN to no1likesme
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AGoodBuzz View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by 87'YJ
What a foolish comment. You do realize that Health Insurance companies employ at least a half million Americans?! Are you saying they should get rid of these companies leaving these employees jobless? (It would make the layoffs at the big 3 look like childs play). Are you saying you want more job loss in America?! You don't know what the hell your talking about. Well, if we shut down the branches of the government with which you disgree then all those people would be out of jobs, now wouldn't they? And the government probably employs more people than the insurance companies. Besides, many of those insurance company jobs are offshore. At least all of our government jobs stay on this continent.

Competition has always brought about better service and products, because you're trying to beat the next company. It also keeps prices lower (than they would be without it anyway). That's true in theory, but the theory has proven to be tragically incomplete, because once you beat out all your competirors you control the market, like Wal-Mart, an example of the free-market gone wild.If the government takes over healthcare, not only will it be far less efficient, but it will also have much poorer quality of care. You say why? Because without competition in the system, there is less of an incentment to further find ways to cut costs or bring a better service to win in the system. Maybe you haven't had an opportunity to review the quality of care in the other 35 industrialized nations that have universal care. Are you going to tell me that peopole in Switzerland, Denmark, Germany, etc get poor health care? Many of the advances made in medicine and pharmacology come from those countries, not here. Much of the advanced hospital equipment was developed and is manufactured in those countries and we buy the stuff for use in our hospitals. Check your facts.

AND we have nationalized healthcare now!!!! If you are an illegal alien, or if you don't have health insurance, but you go to an emergency room... guess what? You have to be treated. That's "corrective" health care. Besides, hospitals don't have to treat you. Quite the opposite actually. Check your facts. They only have to keep you from dying. If your injury or illness does not pose an immediate threat to your life they can turn you away, and often do. Because many of them are able to receive financial compensation from counties or states they do treat, but that's not guarnteed. Finally, your being an illegal alien is not a prerequisite to treatment. I don't know where you heard that, but I would like to see the proof.Soooooo I'm lost as to why people think we need the government to force everyone into a huge tax and expense for a system that will result in much poorer and potentially disasterous results. There are 35 other industrialized nations that are proving year after year that it works, but our corporate media never talks about that. If I hadn't been to those countries and witnessed it for myself I never would have known.
..
x2, Research is your friend
no1likesme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2008, 02:11 PM   #8
87'YJ
Jeeps, Journey and Jesus
 
87'YJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-07-05
Location: Columbus
Posts: 1,651
iTrader: (2)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by no1likesme View Post
x2, Research is your friend
Now I have 2 uninformed people to deal with.

First, those are US base Insurance jobs that I mentioned. So you are WRONG. The company I work for alone employs 33,000 people (all in the US). Americans losing American jobs. Aand I don't know what the hell you are talking about with the government jobs, I never mentioned shutting down branches of the government.


Second, no one insurance company has beat out the competition. There are still several that compete and take business form each other... trust me, I sell their coverages and I struggle to compete against all of the different companies out there. So once again, you are WRONG and have no idea what you are talking about.

People in Canada, Germany, Denmark do have poor healthcare. What makes their healthcare poor is not that its a bad product, rather its that it takes way to long to be treated for anything. They do far less screenings for cancer and other life threatening diseases because the wait is too long. this typically results in a much higher death rate from easily treatible complications. One example is prostate cancer. Once again, I know from being in the industry that when I sell a case that has employees in Canada or Europe (depending on country), their life rates are typically at least twice ours because their a greater risk!!! So once again, you are WRONG. On another note though, life expectancy is interestingly longer in countries that have very poor coverage, but this is mainly due to lifestyle rather than healthcare coverage.

These other countries you speak of are actually moving towards privatizing healthcare. Our company as well as others in the industry are expanding at a rapid pace recently to these other countries because anyone that can afford a private policy is getting one... why? Because their system sucks and they know it. Why is it that the rest of the world is moving towards privatization and we are moving towards socialization? I don't understand it.

Last edited by 87'YJ; May 6th, 2008 at 02:17 PM.
87'YJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2008, 03:54 PM   #9
Mr Toes - R.I.P.
November 7, 1958 - July 22, 2011
 
Mr Toes - R.I.P.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-29-07
Location: Belleville Mi
Posts: 4,727
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AGoodBuzz View Post
You just hit the nail on the head Mr. Toes!

We need to eliminate the insurance companies from our BASIC HEALTH CARE SYSTEM. If we want to keep them around for people that want elective care, FINE, I am not opposed to anyone's right to run a business, but there is too much involvement in the basic system of care by these private, FOR PROFIT businesses.

Thanks Mr. Toes! I'm glad we agree!

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/Obama...tForChange.pdf

Check out this website. It goes into detail on how Obama wants to make all Americans get Health Insurance. Thats his health plan.
Mr Toes - R.I.P. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2008, 05:03 PM   #10
AGoodBuzz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 12-09-07
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 1,557
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 87'YJ View Post
Now I have 2 uninformed people to deal with.

First, those are US base Insurance jobs that I mentioned. So you are WRONG. The company I work for alone employs 33,000 people (all in the US). Americans losing American jobs. Aand I don't know what the hell you are talking about with the government jobs, I never mentioned shutting down branches of the government.


Second, no one insurance company has beat out the competition. There are still several that compete and take business form each other... trust me, I sell their coverages and I struggle to compete against all of the different companies out there. So once again, you are WRONG and have no idea what you are talking about.

People in Canada, Germany, Denmark do have poor healthcare. What makes their healthcare poor is not that its a bad product, rather its that it takes way to long to be treated for anything. They do far less screenings for cancer and other life threatening diseases because the wait is too long. this typically results in a much higher death rate from easily treatible complications. One example is prostate cancer. Once again, I know from being in the industry that when I sell a case that has employees in Canada or Europe (depending on country), their life rates are typically at least twice ours because their a greater risk!!! So once again, you are WRONG. On another note though, life expectancy is interestingly longer in countries that have very poor coverage, but this is mainly due to lifestyle rather than healthcare coverage.

These other countries you speak of are actually moving towards privatizing healthcare. Our company as well as others in the industry are expanding at a rapid pace recently to these other countries because anyone that can afford a private policy is getting one... why? Because their system sucks and they know it. Why is it that the rest of the world is moving towards privatization and we are moving towards socialization? I don't understand it.
Interesting. Then I have questions/comments (naturally):


First, let me apologize for grouping you with all the other people here that want to shut down pretty much everything that is government run and consequently put THEM out of work. If you are not one of the "less government" people, then I apologize for assuming you were. If you are, then the argument stands though.

With that said, keeping a bad system in place because it provides jobs is not a great argument. Take the point I just made above as an example. Mr. Toes would like to get rid of pretty much all government, but what about all of those jobs?

Next, I'm not saying that we should get rid of all insurance companies. That's ridiculous, but I do believe that we should have a basic health care system for basic coverage that everybody gets, and then you can pick and choose from different private competing insurance companies for elective care policies.

No, no single anything has beat out all the competition, but in pretty much all industries the really big ones swallow up the small ones until pretty soon it is nearly impossible for a smaller company to even get in a given business. Wal-Mart, my earlier example, still has competitors, but fewer and fewer, and they are putting all kinds of U.S. business out of business because of their size and power. Vlasic Pickles, a Michigan Corp., is a prime example. If you think it's still owned by the Vlasic's you are wrong, BTW. Wal-Mart put them out of business. I know Mike Vlasic personally and I know their story all too well.

You sound as though you are at a pretty high level in the industry, so I'm surprised that you are not getting the same stats that I'm getting regarding U.S. mortality vs. other countries. Kaiser Corporation (I'm sure you've heard of them) is a HUGE health organization, insurance provider, and hospital operator, and they published this article that concurs with thousands out there: http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_r...fm?DR_ID=46838 so I have to at least request that you provide your supporting data for your remarks.

Insofar as the other countries moving toward privatization, I question whether that is what they are "moving toward", or what we (companies like yours) are trying to sell to them, pointing to the successes as a measure of a larger desire I would be very interested in seeing your sources for that remark as well, although that may be extremely difficult to quantify, so I'll understand if you don't. As far as our "moving toward socialization", I don't know that we actually ARE as much as discussing it, but for me it's because I'm tired of for-profit businesses making health care decisions for me based on their bottom line. My late wifes last months were a tragic awakening to the reality of profit over people. She didn't need to die like that, and there was nothing the hospital could or would do: there was no profit in it for the insurance company OR the hospital, and I didn't have the money because I was counting on the insurance that I was paying for. I guess I should have read the whole poilicy in more detail because then I could have told her, "Sorry honey, I didn't get that coverage, so you're going to die now.".

I have first-hand exposure to foreign health care/treatment (Germany, Holland, Mexico and Canada) and to the satisfaction level of people that live in those countries, and from what I've seen and heard they don't bitch about their system any more than we do ours. Any institutional system is a hassle whether it's public or private. I've been to plenty of hospitals while having awesome insurance and thought the experience still sucked. Things took too long, insurance didn't cover this or that, the doctors pissed me off, whatever. The grass is usually greener over the septic tank.

As far as calling me uninformed and all, I understand that I touched a sore spot because I'm talking about your income, and I want to apologize for my insensitivity; however I am actually a pretty informed guy on lots of subjects, and I come to sights like this to learn more from people just like you. People challenge me and get me to doubt myself and cause me to do more research to either confirm or deny my beliefs, and I greatly appreciate that. So, now that the subject is on the table, can we discuss?
AGoodBuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2008, 05:17 PM   #11
YJ_Runner88
Clarkston, Michigan
 
YJ_Runner88's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-27-08
Location: Clarkston/ East Lansing, Michigan
Posts: 162
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to YJ_Runner88
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Toes View Post
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/Obama...tForChange.pdf

Check out this website. It goes into detail on how Obama wants to make all Americans get Health Insurance. Thats his health plan.
hahahaha i love how the link says page lost, like his plan. Obama is a false hope. He is a talking head and empty suit. I love all this passion for backing him. He is not going to do anything but raise taxes for this outrageous health care plan that we will all have to pay for. If you want to see real inflation and spending, forget about George W. and Iraq. This plan will destroy us. Not to mention the practice of medicine will go down.

Yea europe = socialized medicine= free health care

Do we stop and think about what their healthcare system is actually like in comparison to ours?

SHIT.

i wish people listened to Ron Paul he is not crazy, he a genius. The only candidate with a degree in economics and is actually *gasp* A DOCTOR.
YJ_Runner88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7th, 2008, 09:25 AM   #12
Mr Toes - R.I.P.
November 7, 1958 - July 22, 2011
 
Mr Toes - R.I.P.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-29-07
Location: Belleville Mi
Posts: 4,727
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by YJ_Runner88 View Post
hahahaha i love how the link says page lost, like his plan. Obama is a false hope. He is a talking head and empty suit. I love all this passion for backing him. He is not going to do anything but raise taxes for this outrageous health care plan that we will all have to pay for. If you want to see real inflation and spending, forget about George W. and Iraq. This plan will destroy us. Not to mention the practice of medicine will go down.

Yea europe = socialized medicine= free health care

Do we stop and think about what their healthcare system is actually like in comparison to ours?

SHIT.

i wish people listened to Ron Paul he is not crazy, he a genius. The only candidate with a degree in economics and is actually *gasp* A DOCTOR.
When I go to vote for the president I'am taking a big marker and writting RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT on the ballot.
Mr Toes - R.I.P. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7th, 2008, 09:28 AM   #13
AGoodBuzz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 12-09-07
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 1,557
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Toes View Post
When I go to vote for the president I'am taking a big marker and writting RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT on the ballot.
It's a shame he can't win. I think he'd be a great president.
AGoodBuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7th, 2008, 09:59 AM   #14
Chiefwoohaw
Pokerob is my B*tch!
 
Chiefwoohaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-06-05
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 11,507
iTrader: (7)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

AGoodBuzz,

What do you do? You seem to type long drawn out time consumer post and I'm wondering if you actually work while at work or are you just a leach on society?

Drew
Chiefwoohaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7th, 2008, 11:02 AM   #15
87'YJ
Jeeps, Journey and Jesus
 
87'YJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-07-05
Location: Columbus
Posts: 1,651
iTrader: (2)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Interesting. Then I have questions/comments (naturally):

You sound as though you are at a pretty high level in the industry, so I'm surprised that you are not getting the same stats that I'm getting regarding U.S. mortality vs. other countries. Kaiser Corporation (I'm sure you've heard of them) is a HUGE health organization, insurance provider, and hospital operator, and they published this article that concurs with thousands out there: http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_r...fm?DR_ID=46838 so I have to at least request that you provide your supporting data for your remarks. I clicked your link and all it talks about is US Life expectancy. I already mentioned that in my post above (in agreement). The US is a much unhealthier country, not due to healthcare deficiency, but rather due to a very unhealthy lifestyles. We have known that Life expectancies are shorter in the US for years now, thats not new news. The connection you are making between lower life expectancy and bad healthcare is inaccurate though. The US actually has a much higher survival rate for most dieseases and cancers than any other country in the world. That is a direct correlation between our healthcare system and survival rate.


I'm tired of for-profit businesses making health care decisions for me based on their bottom line. My late wifes last months were a tragic awakening to the reality of profit over people. She didn't need to die like that, and there was nothing the hospital could or would do: there was no profit in it for the insurance company OR the hospital, and I didn't have the money because I was counting on the insurance that I was paying for. I guess I should have read the whole poilicy in more detail because then I could have told her, "Sorry honey, I didn't get that coverage, so you're going to die now.".
This is going to be hard for me to say given your experience (and I'm sorry to hear about your wife), but hear me out. As someone who sells insurance to big companies, I know first hand that we can provide anything and everything in a contract to an employer to cover their employees. HOWEVER, most employers try to save money by cutting corners in the contract or by buying a lower level of service from us. It like buying a geo metro instead of a mercedes. Yeah, you got a better deal, but don't expect a premium product. Also, I encourage every employees to read their provided healthcare policy, because then these unfortunate expenses wouldn't be a surprise, or more importantly, maybe you could suplement your company's policy with a private one. It however, is not the insurance companies fault that you were provided with a less than spectacular policy. If anything, you got a good deal because of pooled risk. Blame your employer, not the insurance company

As far as calling me uninformed and all, I understand that I touched a sore spot because I'm talking about your income, and I want to apologize for my insensitivity; however I am actually a pretty informed guy on lots of subjects, and I come to sights like this to learn more from people just like you. People challenge me and get me to doubt myself and cause me to do more research to either confirm or deny my beliefs, and I greatly appreciate that. So, now that the subject is on the table, can we discuss? Fair enough, I apologize!
87'YJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7th, 2008, 11:24 AM   #16
PeteC
Get Up and Go
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Oak Park, Michigan
Posts: 2,561
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Personal opinion on the health care system debate:

Why can this country not provide basic health care people who:
  • a. Do not qualify for government health plans
    b. Can not afford private health care
    c. Are not provided health care by their employers

As of right now, these people can get health care by waiting until they have a serious condition, and then go to a hospital, where they can not be turned down for basic health care. The cost of that care is then passed on to the taxpaying public. Not sure how much is spent, but I am sure the cost is astronomical. I have heard that the cost could possibly be higher (since these are ER vists) than a coverage program would cost.

Now, I am not talking about eliminating the insurance companies and policies we now have. I am talking about covering those without in such a way that they can manage their health before the ER is their only choice.

Basic Health Care for those that presently have no health care and do not qualify for any coverage from any source without paying money they can not afford.

These are the forgotten people in this debate.

The poor, with familes can get Medicaid. The elderly get Medicare. Those that work for companies that provide health care, have coverage.

My son, who works a full time job, does not make much and does not have coverage from his employer. He is looking for better work, but we all know how easy that is these days. He can not afford to pay for his own coverage without sacrificing food, car and shelter, all things required. Why can he not have a basic program to help him when he gets sick?
PeteC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7th, 2008, 11:29 AM   #17
GreaseMonkey
Senior Member
 
GreaseMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-04-05
Location: Madison Heights, MI
Posts: 17,980
iTrader: (22)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

I was going to add some valid points, but knowing AGoodBuzz has already thrown his retard propeller hat into the ring, I'm just not going to get into this one.

If you want to see the problems government sponsored health care creates, go to Canada. Good luck trying to get an MRI, X-ray, or any other diagnostics done in a timely manner.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by kerryann View Post
I am not a lesbian but if I was I would do her.
GreaseMonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7th, 2008, 01:10 PM   #18
AGoodBuzz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 12-09-07
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 1,557
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by InBBA View Post
AGoodBuzz,

What do you do? You seem to type long drawn out time consumer post and I'm wondering if you actually work while at work or are you just a leach on society?

Drew
Well, since you asked:

1. I type fast, just like I think.
2. I read fast, so my posts would only take me seconds to read through.
3. I accomplish a great deal everyday and am paid an excellent professional salary for my accomplishments. I am very good at my chosen career, have an outstanding resume, never have a problem finding high paying work, and am currently an Assistant Vice President at a very large multinational corporation.

How about you?
AGoodBuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7th, 2008, 01:39 PM   #19
AGoodBuzz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 12-09-07
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 1,557
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 87'YJ View Post
Interesting. Then I have questions/comments (naturally):

You sound as though you are at a pretty high level in the industry, so I'm surprised that you are not getting the same stats that I'm getting regarding U.S. mortality vs. other countries. Kaiser Corporation (I'm sure you've heard of them) is a HUGE health organization, insurance provider, and hospital operator, and they published this article that concurs with thousands out there: http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_r...fm?DR_ID=46838 so I have to at least request that you provide your supporting data for your remarks. I clicked your link and all it talks about is US Life expectancy. I already mentioned that in my post above (in agreement). The US is a much unhealthier country, not due to healthcare deficiency, but rather due to a very unhealthy lifestyles. We have known that Life expectancies are shorter in the US for years now, thats not new news. The connection you are making between lower life expectancy and bad healthcare is inaccurate though. The US actually has a much higher survival rate for most dieseases and cancers than any other country in the world. That is a direct correlation between our healthcare system and survival rate. I'm not trying to trip you up or anything (especially since the mistake may obviosuly be mine), but wasn't your previous statement the opposite?: "this typically results in a much higher death rate from easily treatible complications. One example is prostate cancer. Once again, I know from being in the industry that when I sell a case that has employees in Canada or Europe (depending on country), their life rates are typically at least twice ours because their a greater risk!!!


I'm tired of for-profit businesses making health care decisions for me based on their bottom line. My late wifes last months were a tragic awakening to the reality of profit over people. She didn't need to die like that, and there was nothing the hospital could or would do: there was no profit in it for the insurance company OR the hospital, and I didn't have the money because I was counting on the insurance that I was paying for. I guess I should have read the whole poilicy in more detail because then I could have told her, "Sorry honey, I didn't get that coverage, so you're going to die now.".
This is going to be hard for me to say given your experience (and I'm sorry to hear about your wife), but hear me out. As someone who sells insurance to big companies, I know first hand that we can provide anything and everything in a contract to an employer to cover their employees. HOWEVER, most employers try to save money by cutting corners in the contract or by buying a lower level of service from us. It like buying a geo metro instead of a mercedes. Yeah, you got a better deal, but don't expect a premium product. Also, I encourage every employees to read their provided healthcare policy, because then these unfortunate expenses wouldn't be a surprise, or more importantly, maybe you could suplement your company's policy with a private one. It however, is not the insurance companies fault that you were provided with a less than spectacular policy. If anything, you got a good deal because of pooled risk. Blame your employer, not the insurance companyI'm not blaming the insurance company. I'm blaming the insurance SYSTEM, in other words, the privatised, for profit system that currently exists. You know yourself that most companies cannot afford the "mercedes" insurance you sell. In fact, I would bet that you rarely ever sell any mercedes insurance. Also, insurance companies raise group rates when someone in the group gets an illness or other problem that will be expensive to treat (obviously they have to to protect their profits). Someone in the group gets cancer, the employer pays more to insure the group. Someone in the group contracts Hep C or HIV, the groups rates go up.

As far as calling me uninformed and all, I understand that I touched a sore spot because I'm talking about your income, and I want to apologize for my insensitivity; however I am actually a pretty informed guy on lots of subjects, and I come to sights like this to learn more from people just like you. People challenge me and get me to doubt myself and cause me to do more research to either confirm or deny my beliefs, and I greatly appreciate that. So, now that the subject is on the table, can we discuss? Fair enough, I apologize!
No harm no foul.
AGoodBuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7th, 2008, 01:41 PM   #20
AGoodBuzz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 12-09-07
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 1,557
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GreaseMonkey View Post
I was going to add some valid points, but knowing AGoodBuzz has already thrown his retard propeller hat into the ring, I'm just not going to get into this one.

If you want to see the problems government sponsored health care creates, go to Canada. Good luck trying to get an MRI, X-ray, or any other diagnostics done in a timely manner.
You know, I actually OWN one of those hats! I LOVE that hat!

Your points are welcomed, and I hope you will add them.

Honestly dude, I'm not trying to prove anyone wrong here as much as I am trying to express my views and support them. If you can shoot them down I will publically change my position and flood you with questions so that I can learn from you.
AGoodBuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:49 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright 2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Page generated in 0.80424 seconds with 82 queries