ObamaCare scares the daylights out of me!

>>AMEN!! Too much control comes with wanting to be taken care of. We can't have it both ways. Governments' nose is already WAY too big in our business.

Exactly what kind of "control" are you afraid of? At the present time, your insurance company decides what treatments will not be covered, what your premiums will be, how high your deductibles will be, and whether or not they'll continue to cover you. Certainly you have the freedom to go to another insurer, if they'll take you, and get the same treatment. Under the proposed plans, you'd have the same freedom. So what's the beef?

Of course if you're wealthy enough to afford gold-plated plans, I can understand that you'd object to be taxed more to pay for other people's survival.

Your comment on VA hospitals ignores two facts. First, that none of the proposals have anything to do with setting up a National Health Service on the model of Great Britain. This is about insurance, not about the Feds running hospitals. Second, that a huge number of the vets covered by VA wouldn't have ANY DAMNED HEALTH CARE if it weren't for VA — even if the Bush Administration did its best to destroy it.

Peace & joy--
Conrad

:kidfight:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Lorrie:

THIS JUST IN...my email...

---

Lorrie, how about you do something besides post right wing hit pieces here and so some research yourself. Do you know everything in that "email" is true or are you just assuming again?

Love,

-Jeff

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by d-cat:

... and some articles about the industry that is pushing ...

---

d-cat, have you read any of the articles you've linked to here? It's my experience that you post a lot of links that you haven't checked out yourself and then you expect us to read the articles (which are nearly always a waste of time) and then try to argue with you about how stupid they are, to which you reply that you haven't read them.

This time? I won't read any link unless you make a single link, put in some quotes from the article, and add your own opinion about the article including a reason why we should bother to read it.

Your sources have always been either utter rubbish or highly suspect and I hope you'll do your due diligence in the future for us, your community.

Hint: develop some reasonable sources of information, actually read the articles, and then link us to a single article so we can have a reasonable conversation about it.

Sincerely,

-Jeff

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/image...omepage_hp.gif

British Health System Hits Back At U.S. Critics

RAPHAEL G. SATTER | 08/12/09 08:28 PM | https://www.huffingtonpost.com/images/v/ap_wire.png

LONDON — Britain's health care service says it is sick of being lied about.

---

Check out this FAQ page from a UK website regarding hip replacement:

How long will I have to wait?

The Government says no one should wait more than six months for any operation. Although orthopaedic surgeons are still the ones with the longest lists, the situation has vastly improved in the past three years.
The latest figures show that of the 197,492 people waiting for an orthopaedic operation (not all of these will be hips), just under half will have waited up to two months and only 10,797 will have waited five months or more.

Hip replacement FAQs - Saga


sounds great...

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Braggi:

d-cat, have you read any of the articles you've linked to here? It's my experience that you post a lot of links that you haven't checked out yourself and then you expect us to read the articles (which are nearly always a waste of time) and then try to argue with you about how stupid they are, to which you reply that you haven't read them.

This time? I won't read any link unless you make a single link, put in some quotes from the article, and add your own opinion about the article including a reason why we should bother to read it.

Your sources have always been either utter rubbish or highly suspect and I hope you'll do your due diligence in the future for us, your community.

Hint: develop some reasonable sources of information, actually read the articles, and then link us to a single article so we can have a reasonable conversation about it.

Sincerely,

-Jeff

---

Ok, so d-cat posts alot of links... I checked out about 6 on the mentioned post, looked at the articles. So what is the big deal? Not mainstream publications? I guess if d-cat linked to FOX News that would be a "reasonable" source...:hmmm:

Anyway Jeff, I find posts that I have to scroll 3 pages to get through (with many articles referenced), that ramble on and on, repeating itself to be more of a pain in the ass...

Keep going d-cat and express your view as you see fit, even if it does irritate some. Actually that's better... Makes them think!

I confess I come here to read what people here have to say. I almost never click on links to what other people have said elsewhere.

~ Jessica

One doesn't really need to click the links (unless they wish to read the article or verify the story). Just the sheer number of crimes by pharmaceutical companies that's being reported should convince anyone that the drug industry is not your friend. And they are promoting ObamaCare.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by justme:

Keep going d-cat and express your view as you see fit, even if it does irritate some. Actually that's better... Makes them think!

---

will do! :):

though actually I post information more than my views. But I hope it keeps us thinking all the same

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Braggi:

Lorrie, how about you do something besides post right wing hit pieces here and so some research yourself. Do you know everything in that "email" is true or are you just assuming again?

Love,

-Jeff

---

What does this mean? I posted something that came in my email that applied to this thread. I do not know if it is fact or fiction. It is an email that pertains to this thread. AND....if you look through you will see that I post all kinds of different things...Mostly Jokes though!!! lLOL

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by d-cat:

... The latest figures show that of the 197,492 people waiting for an orthopaedic operation (not all of these will be hips), just under half will have waited up to two months and only 10,797 will have waited five months or more. [snip]

sounds great...

---

Actually, that does sound pretty good. I'll bet most people in the US trying to get an orthopedic operation approved by their insurance company, assuming they even have insurance, wait far more than two months.

Another argument for "socialized" medicine. Thanks.

-Jeff

Canadian Health Officials: Our Universal Health Care Is 'Sick,' Private Insurance Should Be Welcomed


Monday, August 17, 2009
Dr. Anne Doig, the incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association, said her country’s health care system is “sick” and “imploding,” the Canadian Press reported.
“We know there must be change,” Doig said in a recent interview. “We’re all running flat out, we’re all just trying to stay ahead of the immediate day-to-day demands.”
Canada’s universal health care system is not giving patients optimal care, Doig added. When her colleagues from across the country gather at the CMA conference in Saskatoon Sunday, they will discuss changes that need to be made, she said.
“We all agree the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize,” she said.
Current president of the CMA, Dr. Robert Ouellet, will make a presentation at the conference about his findings when he toured Europe in January, and met with health groups in several countries.
Ouellet has said that “competition should be welcomed, not feared,” meaning private health insurance should have a role in the public health system.
Doig said she isn’t sure what kind of changes will be proposed when the conference wraps up, but she does know that changes have to come – and fast. She said she understands that universal health care, while good in some ways, has not always been helpful for sick people or their families.
"(Canadians) have to understand that the system that we have right now — if it keeps on going without change — is not sustainable," Doig said.
Click here to read more about this story from the Canadian Press.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by d-cat:

Check out this FAQ page from a UK website regarding hip replacement:

How long will I have to wait?

The Government says no one should wait more than six months for any operation. Although orthopaedic surgeons are still the ones with the longest lists, the situation has vastly improved in the past three years.
The latest figures show that of the 197,492 people waiting for an orthopaedic operation (not all of these will be hips), just under half will have waited up to two months and only 10,797 will have waited five months or more.

Hip replacement FAQs - Saga

---

Now look what happens when people have to wait a long time for treatment:

* Breast cancer kills 25 percent of its American victims. In Great Britain, the Vatican of single-payer medicine, breast cancer extinguishes 46 percent of its targets.

* Prostate cancer is fatal to 19 percent of its American patients. The National Center for Policy Analysis reports that it kills 57 percent of Britons it strikes.

more at:
RealClearPolitics - Government Medicine Should Horrify Americans

here's another news story and a report from Canada:


Fraser Health Authority confirms cutbacks to surgeries, services
'Sorry is not good enough,' says senior facing cuts

The Fraser Health Authority confirmed Thursday it intends to cut surgeries, seniors' programs and services for the mentally ill to help deal with a budget shortfall of up to $160 million... MRIs will be limited to the same number done last year, and programs for seniors, the mentally ill and people suffering domestic violence will be cut...

Fraser Health Authority confirms cutbacks to surgeries, services


Waiting Your Turn

Hospital Waiting Lists in Canada
2008 Report (pdf)


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 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...

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/comm...urTurn2008.pdf

Somehow I thought you guys would LOVE to read this article:

• AUGUST 12, 2009

The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare



By JOHN MACKEY

“The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out
of other people’s money.”
—Margaret Thatcher


With a projected $1.8 trillion deficit for 2009, several trillions more in deficits projected over the next decade, and with both Medicare and Social Security entitlement spending about to ratchet up several notches over the next 15 years as Baby Boomers become eligible for both, we are rapidly running out of other people’s money. These deficits are simply not sustainable. They are either going to result in unprecedented new taxes and inflation, or they will bankrupt us.

While we clearly need health-care reform, the last thing our country needs is a massive new health-care entitlement that will create hundreds of billions of dollars of new unfunded deficits and move us much closer to a government takeover of our health-care system. Instead, we should be trying to achieve reforms by moving in the opposite direction—toward less government control and more individual empowerment.

Here are eight reforms that would greatly lower the cost of health care for everyone:
•Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs). The combination of high-deductible health insurance and HSAs is one solution that could solve many of our health-care problems. For example, Whole Foods Market pays 100% of the premiums for all our team members who work 30 hours or more per week (about 89% of all team members) for our high-deductible health-insurance plan. We also provide up to $1,800 per year in additional health-care dollars through deposits into employees’ Personal Wellness Accounts to spend as they choose on their own health and wellness.

Money not spent in one year rolls over to the next and grows over time. Our team members therefore spend their own health-care dollars until the annual deductible is covered (about $2,500) and the insurance plan kicks in. This creates incentives to spend the first $2,500 more carefully. Our plan’s costs are much lower than typical health insurance, while providing a very high degree of worker satisfaction.

•Equalize the tax laws so that that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits. Now employer health insurance benefits are fully tax deductible, but individual health insurance is not. This is unfair.

•Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable.

•Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. These mandates have increased the cost of health insurance by billions of dollars. What is insured and what is not insured should be determined by individual customer preferences and not through special-interest lobbying.

•Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. These costs are passed back to us through much higher prices for health care.

•Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost. How many people know the total cost of their last doctor’s visit and how that total breaks down? What other goods or services do we buy without knowing how much they will cost us?

•Enact Medicare reform. We need to face up to the actuarial fact that Medicare is heading towards bankruptcy and enact reforms that create greater patient empowerment, choice and responsibility.

•Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren’t covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

Many promoters of health-care reform believe that people have an intrinsic ethical right to health care—to equal access to doctors, medicines and hospitals. While all of us empathize with those who are sick, how can we say that all people have more of an intrinsic right to health care than they have to food or shelter?

Health care is a service that we all need, but just like food and shelter it is best provided through voluntary and mutually beneficial market exchanges. A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter. That’s because there isn’t any. This “right” has never existed in America.

Even in countries like Canada and the U.K., there is no intrinsic right to health care. Rather, citizens in these countries are told by government bureaucrats what health-care treatments they are eligible to receive and when they can receive them. All countries with socialized medicine ration health care by forcing their citizens to wait in lines to receive scarce treatments.

Although Canada has a population smaller than California, 830,000 Canadians are currently waiting to be admitted to a hospital or to get treatment, according to a report last month in Investor’s Business Daily. In England, the waiting list is 1.8 million.

At Whole Foods we allow our team members to vote on what benefits they most want the company to fund. Our Canadian and British employees express their benefit preferences very clearly—they want supplemental health-care dollars that they can control and spend themselves without permission from their governments. Why would they want such additional health-care benefit dollars if they already have an “intrinsic right to health care”?The answer is clear—no such right truly exists in either Canada or the U.K.—or in any other country.

Rather than increase government spending and control, we need to address the root causes of poor health. This begins with the realization that every American adult is responsible for his or her own health.

Unfortunately many of our health-care problems are self-inflicted: two-thirds of Americans are now overweight and one-third are obese. Most of the diseases that kill us and account for about 70% of all health-care spending—heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes and obesity—are mostly preventable through proper diet, exercise, not smoking, minimal alcohol consumption and other healthy lifestyle choices.


Recent scientific and medical evidence shows that a diet consisting of foods that are plant-based, nutrient dense and low-fat will help prevent and often reverse most degenerative diseases that kill us and are expensive to treat. We should be able to live largely disease-free lives until we are well into our 90s and even past 100 years of age.

Health-care reform is very important. Whatever reforms are enacted it is essential that they be financially responsible, and that we have the freedom to choose doctors and the health-care services that best suit our own unique set of lifestyle choices. We are all responsible for our own lives and our own health. We should take that responsibility very seriously and use our freedom to make wise lifestyle choices that will protect our health. Doing so will enrich our lives and will help create a vibrant and sustainable American society.
—Mr. Mackey is co-founder and CEO of Whole Foods Market Inc.
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A15

[quote=granna shaw;95427]… “AND auto insurance so that when we get clobbered by those uninsured motorists many of whom can't even speak the Queens English we are not wealthy or special but we are doing our best to be responsible for ourselves and our deductible is not $5000.”

Well, if you want to be that way about it you can, that's your right. But the way I see it healthcare, particularly the preventative measures is a right and not a privilege. You seem to be implying that it's a privilege, because you're lucky enough to have enough employment to be in the middle income class bracket in the first place.
I may not be middle-class like you claim to be, but I also pay auto insurance.
I can not afford health care insurance; even if I qualify because of the “pre-existing conditions” have maintenance and rehabilitation costs.
A lot of people that have less than what would be considered middle-class income worked their butts off too! The way you said that sounds to me that you may be a middle-class supremacist or something like that.
Where did you ever see me say anything about undocumented and illegal aliens should have the right to drive cars here in California or anywhere else in the States’ for that matter? I think if you're barking at me in that regard specifically to that, then you're barking up the wrong tree.

[quote=granna shaw;95427] “Some of us middle class citizens have offspring who struggle with addictions and mental health issues that don't belong in prison. This is another deficiency of our health care system and State governments irresponsibility.”

Honestly, I'm not so sure exactly what you mean by that, could you clarify?

[quote=granna shaw;95427] “I propose that you are an angry hothead that has diarreha of the mouth and can't take a breath long enough to get the beans out of your ears to consider what someonelse feels thinks or views may have! some merit. If you don't have a healthy outlet for ALL of that anger you may want to look for a higher power too.”

There you go “saying higher power”, what about inner power? This conversation sounds to me like when sometimes people ask for a “higher power”, they’re really looking for an inner power, but they don't have enough's confidence in themselves; so that they look for a higher power or blame other people for their own inner anger.
Just because I have strong opinions doesn't mean I'm particularly angry a particular individual.
Besides this forum and others that I have participated in are a form of “higher power” than just my individual self is. :thumbsup:
And I do as best I can with my imagination to put myself in other people's shoes. Sorry if my imagination isn't good enough for you to realize that.
Diarrhea of the mouth? Hotheaded? Besides, you don't know me and what I've been through. Of course everybody's views and feelings have some merit.
I think you should consider your own inner anger before your righteousness accuses others of being so “hot Headed” and angry with “ears full of beans” as you state.
Here's one for you; imagine yourself coming from a family that has never had enough money to be middle-class; your child gets ill, and you go to the doctor's office then they tell you that you can't be seen there because you have no insurance (because you couldn't afford in the first place) so you have to go to the emergency room instead.
That scenario in the first place, should be unnecessary, but the way things are now that happens all too often.
Second of all imagine getting that hospital bill, when it could've just been a doctor's bill. And then you're second child, two days later gets ill with something else. What would you do, take that child directly to the emergency room? Or try another doctor's office and get refused again, just like last time? If you have the slightest bit of imagination, you would already know that those are heart wrenching things to consider, but they happen every day; (I'm guessing that you do already know those things), but if you don't please try to imagine them for a moment.

[quote=granna shaw;95427]… “but I'm not about to go postal like you seem to be considering. Attacks attract attacks but rationality and peace work better in most situations. I will pray for your peace and your sanity.”

FYI I have never considered going “postal” about anything. Have you?
How do you define the difference between rational action and prayer? I don't like to be the only one with the pick and shovel digging us out of a deep hole simply because other people insist on praying instead when in actuality, I need help taking a us out of the hole; sorry but I'm not into being the only labor!

I think that we both (and others) sense, a certain amount of mean-spiritedness in this healthcare discussion. I hope you and others can understand that my intention is not to be mean-spirited. But sometimes when I get in the face argument aimed at me or my principles and (I'm not saying you, but just in general), I will put it right back in that proverbial face; the same kind of logic (unless it's too ridiculously violent or vulgar) only in an inverted form of the same argument. That seems to put things more in balance.
Media and much of government as far as I can tell is bought and paid for by multibillion dollar private interests rather than the middle-class. So in that sense, yes I am angry about that (but not going to go postal). Also, I am angry that the middle-class falls for it so much (but once again, not going to go postal). Stating something like that about me like you did is over sensationalizing my point of view to say the least. Making a statement like that is like tagging somebody. You are 100% entitled to your viewpoint; but when it's wrong and about me than I am 100% entitled to correct it.

I believe praying and meditating and things like that do have their place. But I also think it's irresponsible for somebody to pray or meditate in lieu of taking some kind of a peaceful action to make changes; particularly when it's somewhat obvious that those changes won't happen until enough people peacefully get together and organize for those changes.
A friend of mine was going to get her legs amputated; and my aunt told me to pray, because she said, if I did, her legs might grow back. That was obviously not going to happen. But I did meditate and did do what I could do to support my friend.
All I'm saying is that is, if all you can do to help correct the health-care crisis situation is pray; then please by all means pray.
But I know that careful considerate, peaceful, organized action is what's needed here, to actually make the changes that are needed in regards to healthcare.


I get the strong sense that there is a lot of middle-class people that have been working very hard for a very long time (actually, I believe that the vast majority of the middle-class people are overworked) so they have a strong belief that their private healthcare is some sort of a class privilege; (and) that they misguidedly believe it is a right of special entitlement that they are somehow for the most part immune to losing, because they work so hard, have families to support, mortgages to pay, car payments to pay, etc. etc.. I think I have made my viewpoint, very clear that I believe that basic preventative and catastrophic health care is a human right and not just a privilege for the working class or the ultra rich; it is for everybody to have and everybody to pay for somehow in one way or another.
Not all disabled people can work to earn enough wages to become “middle-class”. Should they be denied health care? Should they be denied having children, because it would “theoretically” burden society?
I could go on and on with questions and examples but I think you're capable of getting the basic gist of what I'm saying.

Hotspring 44.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Lorrie:

... Ouellet has said that “competition should be welcomed, not feared,” meaning private health insurance should have a role in the public health system. ...

---

Sounds great. Let's do it that way here.

-Jeff

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by d-cat:

...
* Breast cancer kills 25 percent of its American victims. In Great Britain, the Vatican of single-payer medicine, breast cancer extinguishes 46 percent of its targets.

* Prostate cancer is fatal to 19 percent of its American patients. The National Center for Policy Analysis reports that it kills 57 percent of Britons it strikes.
...

---

Prostate cancer rarely kills anyone compared to other factors. Probably the best treatment for most prostate cancers is to stay away from doctors and hospitals, i.e., the best treatment is no treatment. How your source came up with those numbers is anyone's guess, but I think they are best ignored.

The breast cancer numbers are more interesting and the whys should be investigated if true (though, checking out your sources in the past, I have no confidence in anything you post d-cat). How about bringing up some validation of those numbers from peer reviewed journals so we actually have something to talk about.

-Jeff