Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
My point was that in the countries that you mentioned, private insurance, as a major competitor to the government option, ceases to exist.  Sure it can be obtained by the rich or in the case with France, it
Posted

Wolf:

I'm just upset that what I thought was an irrational fear that anyone who disagreed with the Obama Administration would be called a racist is rapidly being realized. It's the only question any major media outlet keeps asking [whether or not Tea Partiers are racist, whether racism played a role in Joe Wilson's outburst, etc.], which not only manages to skirt the actual, valid debate that could be happening--as the media always does--but also manages to color (pardon the pun) any opposition to the President as a fringe group of gun-waving, genocidal sociopaths.

Well, given that the protesters represented the extreme fringe of anti-Obama sentiment, I'm sure there were plenty of racists among them. But the protesters are not the same as the opposition to Obama in general. A significant racist element in the protests becomes insignificant when you dillute it in the much larger number of people who oppose Obama from a more moderate (by US standards) right-wing standpoint.

In any case, the quality of debate around this issue has clearly pierced a hole through the absolute bottom and is now heading towards the center of the Earth. Apparently, Obama wants to turn America into a totalitarian dictatorship and his opponents want to kill all black people. Great. ::)

Edit: And I'm sure the liberals won't notice that some of Obama's opponents are black any more than the conservatives notice that all self-labeled socialist organizations in the US are critical of Obama.

I think we need health care reform, but I do not think a country 10, now 12 trillion USD in debt can responsibly consider a public health care option. This, of course, makes me a racist.

But the United States already spends more on health care per capita than any other wealthy nation! This clearly shows that if the government simply nationalized health care and just copied another country's system wholesale, health expenditures would actually go down and you would be saving money.

Of course, that's not what Obama's public option would do. His version would indeed cost more money than the current system. I'm not sure how that's even possible, but I presume it took considerable skill to find a way to increase costs.

Posted

My point was that in the countries that you mentioned, private insurance, as a major competitor to the government option, ceases to exist.  Sure it can be obtained by the rich or in the case with France, it’s more of a supplementary tool to fill in the gaps.  But private insurance is no longer a major player in competition with the public option.  It’s a mere after thought.

I may be misinterpreting, or going off in a different direction, but in Canada you can still buy any type of insurance you want. Of course I don't think Canada government is in insurance industry, so maybe you are correct. Maybe US gov should not sell insurance, but do what Canada does? Would that work better? Then insurance companies can continue to compete? Are hospitals/clinics in USA privately owned and generate profits? Or mostly government owned and operated with no profit (charge for services)?

I've had insurance agents to my door selling:

illness insurance: You get sick and end up in hospital they will pay for all the nice upgrades at a hospital (private room, cable/phone etc, rehabilitation). You get paid I think $300 or so a month or more, depends all on what plan you decide to get.

accidental insurance: you cut off a part of body and get $$$ etc.

Then there is the whole life/death insurance.

There is dental insurance. Pay $ per month/year whatever and get covered whenever something bad happens to teeth.

There is health(?) insurance. Get sick and need medication? You get whatever pills and only costs you $5 max or something like that.

And you can get pretty much anything insured.

So to say Obama (or socialized) healthcare will kill competition and thus only government options available, is incorrect, because in Canada pretty much anyone can get any type of insurance they want. The government does not control or run everything. Businesses can get health/dental/eyesight/footwear etc plans for their employees as benefits.

In fact, I have to send in one of my dental bills to an insurance company so they'll send me a refund cheque. Better insurance already deducts when you pay, but this is just simple student insurance, $350 or so a year and get basic health and dental (which easily pays for itself).

video of Obama calling kanye a jackass

As soon as he said jackass his face went :( I doubt anyone can deny the truth in what he said. And kanye is black so there is no racist possibilities (like with the cop/professor incident). :P

Why Can't We All Just Get Along? There's nothing racist about opposing the president

That is true, nothing racist about opposing Obama. But when you have people making lots of signs saying stuff like:

image1

image2

image3

image4

image5

I think that would be defined as racist.

MFT20090821.jpg

Posted

I may be misinterpreting, or going off in a different direction, but in Canada you can still buy any type of insurance you want. Of course I don't think Canada government is in insurance industry, so maybe you are correct. Maybe US gov should not sell insurance, but do what Canada does? Would that work better? Then insurance companies can continue to compete? Are hospitals/clinics in USA privately owned and generate profits? Or mostly government owned and operated with no profit (charge for services)?

So to say Obama (or socialized) healthcare will kill competition and thus only government options available, is incorrect, because in Canada pretty much anyone can get any type of insurance they want. The government does not control or run everything. Businesses can get health/dental/eyesight/footwear etc plans for their employees as benefits.

Yes, I believe that you misunderstood me.  It sounds like what you

Posted

Yes, I believe that you misunderstood me.  It sounds like what you’re referring to is supplemental health insurance -- that which is meant to fill in gaps or upgrade service level from the basic national standard.  But regardless of whether you have it or not, the government will pay for your medical care.  So Canada’s situation sounds very similar to that of France.

The simplest way to put it is:

In Canada, when you have no private insurance, the government still pays for your healthcare cost.

In the US, when you have no private insurance, you must pay for everything out of your own pocket.

Capiche?

Ok, makes much more sense simplified. So let's say a low middle class American for whatever reason doesn't bother to get health insurance. Then accidentally (no one elses fault so sueing doesn't happen) hurts back, needs emergency back surgery and has to spend 3 months in hospital and get rehabilitation to learn to walk again. They have to pay for it all (and probably go bankrupt since they weren't smart enough to have insurance in the first place). If they had good insurance, the insurance company would pay. And the persons premiums would probably increase afterwards (and probably would not be able to change insurance as no one would insure a person with pre-existing condition).

I didn't use low income for example, as US government already has medicaid or something for poorest people (I think).

Let's say I get in serious car accident, do they have to look up insurance first before treating, or do treatment and hand over the big bill once stabilized and out of hospital?

If you just want to see your doctor, you have to pay? They have cash register and debit/credit card machine there for those who don't file insurance claim? How much would something quick like strept throat (or serious cold/flu) or something that only requires 10 minutes of doctor seeing you, to prescribe antibiotic (not including medication)? $100?

Are there competing hospitals and such with various quality that certain premium insurance people can get? I think I heard some insurance companies only allow you to see certain doctors, or switching is difficult.

So USA healthcare system is based upon insurance. No insurance or cash on hand (to pay), no service. The more people that are put through the system the richer doctors/hospitals etc get.

So as far as I can tell, government can start selling their own insurance, or do what Europe/Canada does. USA already offers insurance to poor people, and the military. Couldn't they expand it? Too socialist?

What would be more socialist. Gov selling insurance, or Europe/Canada style? I'm guessing Canada/Europe style would be impossible to implement, since something simple like insurance won't even make it through. If USA medicare is based upon people needing insurance, then how can government improve healthcare for people? Throw money at new hospitals? At least with people buying insurance, they are paying for it (and if you don't want insurance you still don't have to get it or get it through another company). Thus not paying for someone elses insurance.

I think I'll read over to answer most of my questions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Healthcare

Forgive my "you have to pay to see a doctor [if no insurance]?" ignorance.

Posted

Yes it answered most questions.

More useful links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_reform_in_the_United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared

EDIT:

Eastern Europe grumbles about downgrade in US ties

Obama killed the missile defence program in Eastern Europe. Opposite of what Bush wanted.

EDIT:

Remember when Obama said in the speech he would not give illegals healthcare, and the guy said "you lie". Turns out he was possibly correct.

Obama: Legalize illegals to get them healthcare

EDIT:

Russia says it won't deploy missiles near Poland

Definitely a point for Obama. He scrapped missile program in Eastern Europe, and so no reason for Russia to put up missile defence system. A good way to end escalation.

Posted

Do you insist that there must be competition in the provision of health care to every segment of society? Why? And, more importantly, since when do we hold such high standards for competition? Last I checked, conservatives didn't consider Microsoft a monopoly or an unfair competitor in the OS market. So how is public health care in France any different?

If not every segment, at least the largest segment of society should have access to a competitive health care system.  After all, this is a capitalist country, we sort of like the idea of competition and choices.  The point is that under the present health care system, the vast majority has the opportunity to choose which insurance company and plan they wish to obtain.  Changing that system, by going with France's system, destroys this opportunity. (Of course the goal is to insure all of our citizens.)

The description I gave of what the protesters look like is a statement of fact, not a moral judgement. That is what they look like to most of the outside world, regardless of whether you or I disagree (and I do disagree, as I said before).

Then that

Posted

Liberals Seek Health Care Access for Illegals

Führer Obama and his Nazi friends want to provide healthcare to illegal immigrants.

'World Leader' to Obama: Explain Why 'They're Putting a Hitler Moustache On You'

Obama wants to provide healthcare and all of a sudden he is Hitler. I guess Canadians and most of Europe have been secret Nazi admirers for the past 40 years.

Barack Obama got many campaign contributions from Goldman Sachs

I love how in USA, a large corporation donates millions to Obama campaign (and others), then screws up and gets billions in bailouts. Isn't there some sort of conflict of interest here?

PolitiFact_TheObameterTrackingBarac.png?t=1254184642

sbs090925.gif

editorial20090917.jpg

Posted

Byron York in the Washington Examiner reports on the strange absence of the anti-war movement since the election of President Obama

More proof the antiwar movement was all about Bush being Republican. Now that Obama is in power Liberals don't want to protest the war, because it would be bad for their party.

American Apparel Sets Layoffs Tied to Probe

A company in California had 1/4 of its workforce illegal immigrants. Obama is getting tough on illegals. The company should be shut down for knowingly employing illegal immigrants.

8309.gif

Posted

Like, OMG. If Obama health care plan goes through, teenagers will be able to get abortions done during school hours.

Bachmann warns of abortions at school

Good ol Republicans fear mongering.

Oddly, the Democrats were unable to pass health reform through the finance committee. The Democrats have majority in everything I think, so I find it odd they can't pass they're own reforms.

The Democrats did pass some $50 million in abstinence only funding...

WTF is wrong with democrats? They're acting more like Republicans. Dems have majority. DO SOMETHING. Tell the Repubs to STFU and do you're own thing. It worked when Bush was in power. McCain might as well have won the election.

Posted

Yes, that's right... The Democrats, despite having a super-majority in the Senate and total control over the House of Representatives (oh, and the White House, of course), STILL FAILED to get the public option passed through the Senate Finance Committee.

Jon Stewart is right. This has got to be the most pathetic excuse for a political party I have ever seen.

Posted

Regarding healthcare and the Democrats, you obviously underestimated the deepening rift between the liberal left and the Blue Dog Coalition.  The left wants nothing less than the public option, whereas the Blue Dog Dems won

Posted

Yet another video to drive the point home:

It's not as funny as it should be, but it does a nice job of listing some of Obama's broken promises. What has he changed so far, really?

Edit: And there's more:

TMW2009-08-19colorlowresopy.jpg

TMW2009-07-01colorcopy.jpg

Posted
Regarding healthcare and the Democrats, you obviously underestimated the deepening rift between the liberal left and the Blue Dog Coalition.  The left wants nothing less than the public option, whereas the Blue Dog Dems won

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.