The Democrats on Health Care

OK, go ahead.

You don't have to wait for the rest of us.

Make your check out to the U.S. Treasury. Let me know how well you get by on 30% of your income.:thumbs:

 

Well, with the examples set forth by those who practice universal health care, those of you with "conditions" won't need health care for very long. Then, the survivors you leave behind will still have to deal with it.

Why do you want to do that to everyone? Did we make you angry?:laugh:

 

Don't forget, that if this fiasco is pushed off on us, then no one will be able to afford food, shelter, and clothing.

Big Daddy will take care of us, though. Don't you think, comrade Carpro?

 

The other aspect of NHC is the potential loss of doctors. When hospitals and doctors are forced to accept meager rates for their sevices then they will more than likely find other types of employment and students will be less likely to pursue this field. Isnt that so libs?

 

No. You then assign people to be doctors. Scary stuff.

 

Oh you mean like communism. Which fits right in with NHC.

 

All of us have "conditions" or will develop them. We're all going to die of illness, accident, or malice. We may or may not be able to treat the cause and delay the inevitable. We may not be able to aford it or there may just not be a way to fix it. Government isn't going to save us.

It is not the responsibility of the government to provide for our medical needs. It is our responsibility to provide for ourselves, our families, and, through charity, those in need. We are rapidly giving up that responsibility to government and specifically the federal government. We are asking for more of what has been proved does not work. We're even making it more difficult for those who don't want to be dependents of government to avoid becoming such helpless numbered subjects.

Government historically has done a poor job of handling our money - look no further than the social insecurity for that - and it has a way of politicizing and corrupting every process in touches in order to buy votes from those who will benefit from forcing the rest to pay their way. The process is very wasteful and the handling fees are enormous. The process is self serving and never shrinks but, rather, always grows larger like a cancer. It always comes with strings attached to conform to the ways deemed acceptable to bureaucrats far away from reality. Abuse by fellow citizens - especially those who demand a free ride - is a major problem. There's a tendency to assign benefits by demographics - whether location, culture, economic status, or something else - rather than merit and then to make those people de facto wards of the state.

When the money and the choices are in the hands of the people to take care of themselves then they tend to be more responsible for their own actions or, if not, they simply don't enjoy the rewards of not doing so. Certainly when people do all the right things problems can still fall upon them. Sometimes they're just not able to handle it alone. That's where family, friends, and neighbors should help if they willingly choose to do so but not by force of law.

When charity is in the hands of the people who choose to give their money, time, or materials then decisions can be based on merit. The receiver no longer has the right to demand an entitlement under the power of law. The giver can even attach requirements to the gift if they desire such as the gift being help towards self help. The owner of the resources gets to decide. There are plenty of people generous enough to help those in need. These days many often don't even feel a need to give to charity since the government is already extracting taxes to solve everyone's problems including those involving poor judgment, laziness, carelessness, or misadventure.

It is the responsibility of government to assure a system of justice that gives people recourse if wrong is done to them so they don't have to take matters into their own hands. The government should help keep the system honest but should not provide the system itself. They could perhaps focus on eliminating the ridiculous litigation that drives up the cost of insurance and reduces the willingness to make reasonable judgments and take reasonable risks. That itself would be a big step forward that would enable a lot more to be done for a lot less cost.

 

The government doesnt own anything nor does it do anything. The government is a tool of the people. It is a poor tool when overused. It is its most effective when it is implemented in very few cases. Everytime it is implemented further freedoms are taken away from people. UHC is a thief and a stealer of freedom.

 

Where did I "claim" this?

 

So, are you suggesting that we should simply live with the disaster we currently enjoy? You aren't really offering any alternatives.

 

They don't have a clue, BIR.

 

Here is an article from Forbes I read last year:

http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/health/feeds/hscout/2006/05/30/hscout532992.html

We all know that the Rand Corporation are a bunch of LIBERALS, right?

Here is an article referencing a Harvard Medical School survey:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/healthnews.php?newsid=44315

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/healthnews.php?newsid=42717

Wonder how the non-middle-aged-white residents did vs. their British counterparts.....

Does this mean that national healthcare is the answer? I don't know, and I have read other articles from the Rand Corporation that don't necessarily back up the national healthcare argument either.

But aren't you the least bit curious as to why they are seemingly healthier? Do you think that the current system is working?

Regards,
BiR

 

UHC isn't an alternative either. The problem by and large stems from poor life choices. There are those who suffer from circumstances not of their own doing but those folks never stay down very long. The children that are without health care suffer from parental mistakes. Let's invest in peoples lives and quit making victims out of every dificult circumstance. People will be able to live off of their own backs instead of the backs of others.

 

So, should we simply keep the system we currently have?

So, they should continue to "suffer" despite these "parental mistakes?"
Interesting....

So, how do we "invest in peoples lives?" [sic] What about those children that "suffer from parental mistakes?" Should they find jobs and "live off their own backs instead of the backs of others?"

 

Sure. But we do need to get the insurance companies and lawsuits handled.

We already have programs for children.

again the childrens insurance issues are already addressed.

 

Huh?
Please explain this statement.

So national healthcare is working?

So, are you in support of national healthcare?

 

I'm sorry It though most everyone was up to date on the crisis this country has with lawsuits against doctors based on people looking for a pay out rather than of any real malpractice which has become quite extensive.

Huh?

I am not sure why this question would even come up. we do not have UHC nor would I support it. I am against all programs related to socialism.

 

So, that is the real reason behind our failing system? By any chance, do you have any data on this problem?

What else is it?

But we have a system to protect those aforementioned children. Is that not a government healthcare program?

 

http://www.power-of-attorneys.com/lawyer_a_day.htm


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8048785/

http://headaches.about.com/cs/advocacy/a/lamus_cala.htm

It is not UHC and even as it is we need to get away from it.

 

• Lawsuit abuse affects all Americans on different levels.

Any data on this?

• 80% of Americans say personal injury attorneys take too much of their clients' winnings.

Opinion.

• 76% of Americans believe medical liability lawsuits threaten access to quality healthcare for families.

Opinion.

• 74% of Americans describe medical liability issue as crisis or major problem.

Opinion

• By 61% to 22% margin, Americans say lawsuits against doctors result in wealthy lawyers rather than improved quality of care for patients.

Opinion.

• Lawsuit costs passed on to consumers add up to nearly $721 per year for every person in America today.

Did you do the math on this number?

• Because of litigation fears, 79% of doctors said they had ordered more tests than they would based only on professional judgment of what is medically needed.

So, the doctors are admitting to unnecessary procedures?

• It takes at least a year to resolve most lawsuits, and delays of three to five years are not uncommon. Unfortunately, injured people with legitimate claims can wait years before their cases go to trial.

Source?

• An estimated $50 billion per year is spent on unnecessary test procedures designed only to guard doctors and hospitals against malpractice claims.

Source?

• Almost half of the money spent by physician insurers goes towards defending cases that ultimately are closed without compensation paid to the claimant.

Source?

Whoa, hold on: go back and read what you wrote before you offered this.