Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-02-2009, 05:11 AM
 
10,719 posts, read 20,298,303 times
Reputation: 10021

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevK View Post
They had the chance to dump Medicare again yestareday but they could not find even a single vote to do it! I wonder why? And, after all, it was them and GW Bush that passed Part D didn't they? What are the Republicans REALLY scared of with the public option? No, it is not the cost. It is not the "government running healthcare" either. After all they all LOVE Medicare now after they tried to beat it (remember the "creeping Communism" crap they put out back then? Silly TV ads with Ronnie Reagan who, as President, did not even dare to touch Medicare?).
No, I actually caught a wiff of what they are really scared of and it has nothing to do with the healthcare plan and everything to do with politics. Neal Boortz said as much on his show when he said that "if we cannot stop this, we will never be able to roll it back and the Democrats will use it as an election issue everytime like they do with Social Security".
In other words they are afraid the thing might be a SUCCESS!

Permanent Democratic Majority: New Study Says Yes
Because Medicare is not socialized medicine in the UH sense. Medicare has additional options and various plans to which people can pay more for. In addition, most people on Medicare purchase secondary insurance to cover the gaps that Medicare doesn't provide. Lastly, Medicare, as it is now, still allows a doctor to make decisions and doesn't intervene in health care to the degree that Obamacare is suggesting.A better comparison is our VA (veterans) system. That is more representative of Obamacare in which they heavily intervene and don't authorize tests and other procedures even though it is warranted.

In short, nice try
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-02-2009, 05:16 AM
 
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,763,471 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by azriverfan. View Post
Because Medicare is not socialized medicine in the UH sense. Medicare has additional options and various plans to which people can pay more for. In addition, most people on Medicare purchase secondary insurance to cover the gaps that Medicare doesn't provide. Lastly, Medicare, as it is now, still allows a doctor to make decisions and doesn't intervene in health care to the degree that Obamacare is suggesting.A better comparison is our VA (veterans) system. That is more representative of Obamacare in which they heavily intervene and don't authorize tests and other procedures even though it is warranted.
In short, nice try
And how do you know such test and procedures are "warranted"?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-02-2009, 05:24 AM
 
Location: Fort Worth/Dallas
11,887 posts, read 36,922,373 times
Reputation: 5663
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevK View Post
They had the chance to dump Medicare again yestareday but they could not find even a single vote to do it! I wonder why? And, after all, it was them and GW Bush that passed Part D didn't they? What are the Republicans REALLY scared of with the public option? No, it is not the cost. It is not the "government running healthcare" either. After all they all LOVE Medicare now after they tried to beat it (remember the "creeping Communism" crap they put out back then? Silly TV ads with Ronnie Reagan who, as President, did not even dare to touch Medicare?).
No, I actually caught a wiff of what they are really scared of and it has nothing to do with the healthcare plan and everything to do with politics. Neal Boortz said as much on his show when he said that "if we cannot stop this, we will never be able to roll it back and the Democrats will use it as an election issue everytime like they do with Social Security".
In other words they are afraid the thing might be a SUCCESS!


Permanent Democratic Majority: New Study Says Yes
Just like social security is a success?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-02-2009, 05:26 AM
 
Location: Irvine, CA to Keller, TX
4,829 posts, read 6,930,872 times
Reputation: 844
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevK View Post
They had the chance to dump Medicare again yestareday but they could not find even a single vote to do it! I wonder why? And, after all, it was them and GW Bush that passed Part D didn't they? What are the Republicans REALLY scared of with the public option? No, it is not the cost. It is not the "government running healthcare" either. After all they all LOVE Medicare now after they tried to beat it (remember the "creeping Communism" crap they put out back then? Silly TV ads with Ronnie Reagan who, as President, did not even dare to touch Medicare?).
No, I actually caught a wiff of what they are really scared of and it has nothing to do with the healthcare plan and everything to do with politics. Neal Boortz said as much on his show when he said that "if we cannot stop this, we will never be able to roll it back and the Democrats will use it as an election issue everytime like they do with Social Security".
In other words they are afraid the thing might be a SUCCESS!

Permanent Democratic Majority: New Study Says Yes
It is because most people are not blind and know that there is very little that the government is good at doing other that spending tax payers dollars foolishly.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Public support for President Barack Obama's handling of healthcare reform, the pillar of his legislative agenda, has fallen below 50 percent for the first time, a Washington Post-ABC News poll released on Monday said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNe...edName=topNews
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-02-2009, 05:27 AM
 
10,719 posts, read 20,298,303 times
Reputation: 10021
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
They are opposed to it, because they believe it would be unfair to the private health insurance agencies to have to compete with a public option.

The Democrats believe that a public option will keep the private insurance agencies in check.

I know FOR A FACT, that I will keep my private insurance, so I don't think that the Republicans argument holds that much water. I know that the public option won't be as good as private insurance.
That's disingenous to say the least. How can any company compete with the federal government with regard to resources? The govt. can underbid any private insurance company. Sure, if someone is selling something for $100 and has much better service and the other company is selling the same product for $90 with worse service, you will stick with your original company. But if the second company offers the product for $30, you will flock to that other company regardless if the service stinks because it's considerably cheaper.

It's just laughable that O'bama is talking as if this is true competition in any real sense. This is just smoke and mirrors designed to fool the sheep in our country. Anyone with half a brain understands where this is going. The idea is to eliminate private insurance companies by underbidding which will eventually end up as a single payer system. Obama has vocally expressed that desire in the past only to refute this recently. Remember, this is the same lying politician that claimed during his Presidential campaign that health care would be completely funded through companies providing coverage to their employees or else pay a fine which would subsidize health care for others.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-02-2009, 05:28 AM
 
10,719 posts, read 20,298,303 times
Reputation: 10021
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevK View Post
And how do you know such test and procedures are "warranted"?
Because unlike you I'm a physician who treats patients at the VA and witnesses this on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-02-2009, 06:00 AM
 
Location: Fort Worth/Dallas
11,887 posts, read 36,922,373 times
Reputation: 5663
Okay. Page 317, 318.. What is this all about?

‘‘(C) PROHIBITION ON EXPANSION OF FACILITY CAPACITY.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), the number of operating rooms, procedure rooms, or beds of the hospital at any time on or after the date of the enactment of this subsection are no greater than the number of operating rooms, procedure rooms, or beds respectively, as of such date."

And then, on page 427..

"
A program for orders for life sustaining treatment for a States described in this clause is a program that—(I) ensures such orders are standardized and uniquely identifiable throughout the State;
(II) distributes or makes accessible such orders to physicians and other health professionals that (acting within the scope of the professional’s authority under State law) may sign orders for life sustaining treatment;
(III) provides training for health care professionals across the continuum of care about the goals and use of orders for life sustaining treatment;"


First off, let me say this.. The government can hardly put a proper sentence together (
A program for orders for life sustaining treatment for a States described in this clause).

Secondly, I thought the goals of life sustaining treatment were to sustain life.. I don't want the government "training" health care professionals about the goals and use of orders for life-sustaining treatment. I think they have been trained thoroughly already. It sounds to me as if the government training would include nudging the health care professional to take into serious consideration giving orders to sustain life or perhaps face "repercussions."

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-02-2009, 06:06 AM
 
4,563 posts, read 4,101,921 times
Reputation: 2285
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozzie679 View Post
Proof, link, reference, etc...?
Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Newt Gingrich appeared in a dream and told him that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-02-2009, 06:14 AM
 
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,763,471 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by azriverfan. View Post
Because unlike you I'm a physician who treats patients at the VA and witnesses this on a daily basis.
So if the VA is bad and you are a physician who can work pretty much where you want, why do you remain there? I would stay someplace I was miserable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-02-2009, 06:19 AM
 
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,763,471 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by azriverfan. View Post
That's disingenous to say the least. How can any company compete with the federal government with regard to resources? The govt. can underbid any private insurance company. Sure, if someone is selling something for $100 and has much better service and the other company is selling the same product for $90 with worse service, you will stick with your original company. But if the second company offers the product for $30, you will flock to that other company regardless if the service stinks because it's considerably cheaper.
It's just laughable that O'bama is talking as if this is true competition in any real sense. This is just smoke and mirrors designed to fool the sheep in our country. Anyone with half a brain understands where this is going. The idea is to eliminate private insurance companies by underbidding which will eventually end up as a single payer system. Obama has vocally expressed that desire in the past only to refute this recently. Remember, this is the same lying politician that claimed during his Presidential campaign that health care would be completely funded through companies providing coverage to their employees or else pay a fine which would subsidize health care for others.
That is not necessarily true. If that were true, every grocery store in the USA would be out of business except for Aldi. And in the industry I work in (cellular telecom), AT&T and Verizon- which are the most expensive of the cellular services- would not be also 1 and 2 in the number of subscribers. Sprint and Cricket/Metro are much cheaper services.
Product and service DO count for lots of consumers. Even in Canada where they have a full blown government system, private insurance thrives right along side of it. Blue Cross Canada does pretty good business there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:53 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top