Sign this petition keeping Government control OUT of healthcare

[ILLJIM69]

Originally Posted by noclutch

Something about the massive amounts of corruption doesn't sit well with me.

You better hit the reset button on life then because if you think health care is the only facet of life controlled by corruption, I have some bad news for you.

Originally Posted by noclutch

No, we start a war.

Let me know how that works out for you.

[noclutch]

The 'war' comment was obviously a joke.

[ILLJIM69]

Can't be too sure these days.

[Proven]

Originally Posted by ILLJIM69

I honestly don't need the police. I respect them and the job they do, however I can care for my own property and family. Quite frankly, if someone broke into my home, the whole incident would be over way before the cops showed up anyway.

You're trying to compare a product that is for sale (health care) versus civil order and criminal control. Apples and watermelons.

You're right and wrong. First of all, most of the fire departments in my area are volunteer. I understand that the equipment they use is funded by taxes and other means, however these guys don't get paid for the heroic work they do.

However don't think for one minute that if state and locally funded fire departments disappeared today, that there wouldn't be privately run companies showing up to provide that service tomorrow. If people wanted their house put out, they would pay for those services. Not to mention that putting out fires goes beyond protecting private property. Home owners pay taxes on that land and the structures on it, if they all burn down and nobody lives there, then the state and local governments lose money.

You're right, however, much like any other service in America, don't think that a private business wouldn't appear to take over the USPS's role. Besides, letters and card are slowly going the way of the dodo due to the internet. UPS, FedEx and DHL move packages just as well, if not better, than the USPS does.

Again, you're right. I wouldn't care if we moved along on dirt roads. I probably wouldn't be driving a low slung sports car though. Keep in mind that our roads are much more than just a means of transportation for private citizens though. They serve to transport goods as well, which benefits everyone, whether you drive or not.



Yeah, government run. And how efficient are they in the grand scheme of things? Are you really going to try and use things like state run road crews and the USPS for examples of how well the government runs things?

Never said the Government can run business like gods. Alls you did was run around my point by added other points to talk about haha! (To be fair I’ve done it to). Although the government isn’t perfect at their jobs we do have smooth roads to drive on, are safe, and will have someone come to our rescue in time of need (for the most part). Government run healthcare is going to be the same way. It will have holes and not run perfectly smooth all the time but we will ALL have it. One of the main reasons people are against this Bill is because they "don't want to pay anything to help out some slacker" when my point was they already do. Adding one more beneficial thing like healthcare doesn’t make Obama socialists like a lot of POS are saying, it makes him someone who wants his citizens to have healthcare to protect their health.

Also would like to ad that you can't protect your family at all times, Especially from Iraq. I have no problem paying taxes to make sure your family is safe because of our Police and fire. So, you may not need it but your family does.

[Proven]

Originally Posted by poolmike

If you want to compare your life/healthcare to things like fire depts, police depts, the dept of transportation, etc....great, lets compare. Not one of those systems is run efficiently. You want your health in the hands of those same people? Thanks, but I'll pass.

It would be better then nothing..

[ILLJIM69]

Sorry, but I have to break this one down.......

Originally Posted by Proven

Never said the Government can run business like gods.

I know you didn't say that, however you used certain examples of government entities that we all use (some more than others) and I showed you how they were terrible examples.

Originally Posted by Proven

Alls you did was run around my point by added other points to talk about haha! (To be fair I’ve done it to).

Actually I didn't run around your point at all, I specifically addressed each part of the point you were trying to make. If I can't counter a point then I will say so, I don't avoid facts and change the subject, that is a liberal tactic.

Originally Posted by Proven

Although the government isn’t perfect at their jobs we do have smooth roads to drive on,

Smooth compared to what? Rocks? Dirt? Do you live in PA? You must be insane if you think the amount of money spent on the roads in PA reflects the money they collect for road taxes. Some places are better than others across the country, but it's a fair to say that the government doesn't do the best job when it comes to maintaining our roads. Bad example.

Originally Posted by Proven

are safe,

Again, that is pretty subjective. Go ask a parent of one of the kids murdered at Virginia Tech about how safe their kid was. Ask a store owner in the city that has his place robbed on a weekly basis how safe they feel. Another bad example.

Originally Posted by Proven

and will have someone come to our rescue in time of need (for the most part).

Problem with that is that by the time they show up, the damage is done. This is of course not the fault of the police or firemen, they can't be everywhere at once.

If someone enters your home with a weapon and the intent to do you or your family harm, you have two options. You can deal with it yourself and call the cops to pick up the body. Or you can call the cops and be the bodies. Guess which one I pick.

Originally Posted by Proven

Government run healthcare is going to be the same way.

You mean that it will sound good in concept and look good on paper but won't really work out in the long run? I know.

Originally Posted by Proven

It will have holes and not run perfectly smooth all the time but we will ALL have it.

So you would rather people have the option to buy a car that is 75% reliable with their own money OR get issued a car from the government that only runs 25 of the time?

No kidding it will have holes. I can't honestly think of one area or entity that is run by the federal government (or even most states) that works the way it is supposed to. Can you? Oh please do indulge me in an answer for this.

Originally Posted by Proven

One of the main reasons people are against this Bill is because they "don't want to pay anything to help out some slacker" when my point was they already do.

You're right, but making us pay more while simultaneously screwing up health care for everyone else is just stupid. And yes, everyone will be effected, one way or another. Think about how many doctors we have now and how much of a pain it can be to see one. Now add tens of millions more people to the mix, but no more extra doctors.

Point is, everyone has the same opportunity to get health insurance and that is all anyone is really entitled to.

Originally Posted by Proven

Adding one more beneficial thing like healthcare doesn’t make Obama socialists like a lot of POS are saying, it makes him someone who wants his citizens to have healthcare to protect their health.

So people who don't agree with Obama and his plans are now "POS"? How very open minded of you!

Beneficial? You and these happy words. How can you prove that it will be beneficial for everyone? You can't. The only thing you can prove is that people don't currently have insurance, will have it. You act like this proposal will cure cancer. If anything, it will make things worse by adding long lines in hospitals, long waits to get surgeries or treatments, increase the number of people getting "disability", clog ERs even more than they are now, etc.

Also keep in mind that when it comes time for more rules and regulations to be passed, which "company" will these favor..........private insurance companies or the government run "company"? Don't answer that, it's rhetorical.

More affordable health care is a great idea, I don't think you will find anyone to argue with that, even rich people won't mind saving some money. But thinking that the government won't run a totally inept system that will serve it's own interests to control the people is just insane. Give them control of your health and they will control your life in more ways that you can fathom.

Think of the DMV except that everyone in line is hurt or bleeding. YAY! HAPPY TIMES!

Originally Posted by Proven

Also would like to ad that you can't protect your family at all times, Especially from Iraq. I have no problem paying taxes to make sure your family is safe because of our Police and fire. So, you may not need it but your family does.

Don't sweat it, she was active duty (currently PA national guard), she knows how to handle a firearm and there are a few in the house.

[Proven]

Originally Posted by ILLJIM69

Sorry, but I have to break this one down.......

I know you didn't say that, however you used certain examples of government entities that we all use (some more than others) and I showed you how they were terrible examples.

I can imagine most people with current healthcare coverage would say they aren’t happy with how they are treated by insurance companies. Using insurance companies and how they conduct business compared to what you think, maybe, might happen with how government runs healthcare is also a terrible example.

Actually I didn't run around your point at all, I specifically addressed each part of the point you were trying to make. If I can't counter a point then I will say so, I don't avoid facts and change the subject, that is a liberal tactic.

Fair enough

Smooth compared to what? Rocks? Dirt? Do you live in PA? You must be insane if you think the amount of money spent on the roads in PA reflects the money they collect for road taxes. Some places are better than others across the country, but it's a fair to say that the government doesn't do the best job when it comes to maintaining our roads. Bad example.

It was a good example of showing that there will be holes and it wont be perfect but you'll still be able to get to work/deliver goods/go see a movie. (ie have health insurance)

Again, that is pretty subjective. Go ask a parent of one of the kids murdered at Virginia Tech about how safe their kid was. Ask a store owner in the city that has his place robbed on a weekly basis how safe they feel. Another bad example.

Pretty much why I said "for the most part" after stating those things. Also goes along with "there will be holes, wont be perfect"

Problem with that is that by the time they show up, the damage is done. This is of course not the fault of the police or firemen, they can't be everywhere at once.

Doesn't mean we don't need them

If someone enters your home with a weapon and the intent to do you or your family harm, you have two options. You can deal with it yourself and call the cops to pick up the body. Or you can call the cops and be the bodies. Guess which one I pick.

Congrats, your a bad dude, A true Rambo if you will (hehe). Not everyone is like you, remember this, and think outside your circle.

You mean that it will sound good in concept and look good on paper but won't really work out in the long run? I know.

So you would rather people have the option to buy a car that is 75% reliable with their own money OR get issued a car from the government that only runs 25 of the time?

Speculation, prove to me that Government run healthcare will run similar to a 25% running car. Also prove to me that the current healthcare system is running anywhere near 100%

No kidding it will have holes. I can't honestly think of one area or entity that is run by the federal government (or even most states) that works the way it is supposed to. Can you? Oh please do indulge me in an answer for this.

I agree, just look at our Military (just messing with you of course). But to touch in once again with what I just said. Show me how the current healthcare system has no holes and is perfectly run and you'll get my vote.

You're right, but making us pay more while simultaneously screwing up health care for everyone else is just stupid. And yes, everyone will be effected, one way or another. Think about how many doctors we have now and how much of a pain it can be to see one. Now add tens of millions more people to the mix, but no more extra doctors.

Of course the workload will increase, and of course a Hospitals ability to handle the workload will be different, just choose the one that handles it according to your standards. Keep in mind that Doctors and Hospitals are Businesses. They work in an industry that’s about to see 44 million new customers. They will be seeing more business, which will allow them to hire more staff.

Keep in mind that your employer pays your healthcare and that there’s millions of other Americans that also work hard (even risk their lives) and can’t afford it or get it. In a sense your lucky to have coverage because you work for the government.

So people who don't agree with Obama and his plans are now "POS"? How very open minded of you!

I said people calling him a socialist for wanting to offer healthcare are POS. re-read what I wrote not just what you think you saw.

Beneficial? You and these happy words. How can you prove that it will be beneficial for everyone? You can't. The only thing you can prove is that people don't currently have insurance, will have it.

People that dont have insurance that will get it with this bill I find beneficial. Its as simple as that.

You act like this proposal will cure cancer.

I don’t think I mentioned anything about this bill curing cancer. What it will do though is help save the lives of people that have or get cancer that currently don’t have health insurance (along with the many other life threatening illnesses the uninsured have.)

If anything, it will make things worse by adding long lines in hospitals, long waits to get surgeries or treatments, increase the number of people getting "disability", clog ERs even more than they are now, etc.

Also keep in mind that when it comes time for more rules and regulations to be passed, which "company" will these favor..........private insurance companies or the government run "company"? Don't answer that, it's rhetorical.

More affordable health care is a great idea, I don't think you will find anyone to argue with that, even rich people won't mind saving some money. But thinking that the government won't run a totally inept system that will serve it's own interests to control the people is just insane. Give them control of your health and they will control your life in more ways that you can fathom.

Says the man whos life is in COMPLETE control of the govenment and doesnt mind

Think of the DMV except that everyone in line is hurt or bleeding. YAY! HAPPY TIMES!

Haha! I just pictured that scene (seriously, im laughing with you here). But I just don't think it will be like that. The amount of bleeding injured people isn’t going to increase just because they now have coverage. In the systems current state a lot of those bleeding people (without insurance) are stiffing the bill hurting the Hospitals and insurance which in turn of course raises costs

Don't sweat it, she was active duty (currently PA national guard), she knows how to handle a firearm and there are a few in the house.

Ha! I'm sure shes a tuff cookie, your a lucky man. But not everyone is like you or your wife (military trained). Most of your American people need the assistance that police offer regardless of how fast they can get there.

..........................

[importpower99]

Originally Posted by ILLJIM69

I honestly don't need the police. I respect them and the job they do, however I can care for my own property and family. Quite frankly, if someone broke into my home, the whole incident would be over way before the cops showed up anyway.

You're trying to compare a product that is for sale (health care) versus civil order and criminal control. Apples and watermelons.



You're right and wrong. First of all, most of the fire departments in my area are volunteer. I understand that the equipment they use is funded by taxes and other means, however these guys don't get paid for the heroic work they do.

However don't think for one minute that if state and locally funded fire departments disappeared today, that there wouldn't be privately run companies showing up to provide that service tomorrow. If people wanted their house put out, they would pay for those services. Not to mention that putting out fires goes beyond protecting private property. Home owners pay taxes on that land and the structures on it, if they all burn down and nobody lives there, then the state and local governments lose money.



You're right, however, much like any other service in America, don't think that a private business wouldn't appear to take over the USPS's role. Besides, letters and card are slowly going the way of the dodo due to the internet. UPS, FedEx and DHL move packages just as well, if not better, than the USPS does.



Again, you're right. I wouldn't care if we moved along on dirt roads. I probably wouldn't be driving a low slung sports car though. Keep in mind that our roads are much more than just a means of transportation for private citizens though. They serve to transport goods as well, which benefits everyone, whether you drive or not.



Yeah, government run. And how efficient are they in the grand scheme of things? Are you really going to try and use things like state run road crews and the USPS for examples of how well the government runs things?

Private run fire dept? Hmm.....what is wrong with that? I am hoping you are joking about that. And you say if someone breaks into your house you will deal with it? You want PA to become Texas? (No I'm kidding, I could care less, what you do in your home)
So what if you live in a town house, and your neighbors house is on fire, but doesn't have the funds to pay the fire dept, then what? I guess that means your house will burn down, right! Privatizing the police and fire dept make no sense what so ever.
And that would mean the police and fire dept would now have to turn a profit. No longer will they put there life on the line. If you are trapped in your house due to a fire, they will not risk their life to rescue you. And then do I need to bring up corruption? Privetizing those types of organzations will only lead to the downfall of america, because now the police depts can be paid off by drug dealers (like mexico). And if you don't think corruptions would happen, look at halliburton, KBR, and then look at some corporations.

[importpower99]

Originally Posted by Z31Fanatic

Here are a couple myth/facts that I found interesting:

Myth: Higher health care costs are the result of continually rising insurance premiums, inflating the price of health care.

Fact: Because insurance is a means of financing health care, premiums have to track the underlying cost of health care services. Those underlying costs have been rising and insurance premiums have simply kept pace.

Health care costs drive insurance premiums, not the other way around. Over the last decade, health care costs have risen about 7.7 percent a year on average, and insurance premiums have also risen at 7.7 percent. The overall rise in health care costs is a result of higher rates of chronic conditions such as obesity, diabetes and heart disease, more expensive technologies and procedures becoming available, and "cost shifting by the government" that is, doctors and hospitals charge privately insured patients more to offset the losses that come from Medicare/Medicaid underpayments that do not cover costs. In fact, about 11 percent of the average family commercial Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) premium stems from government cost shifting. Other drivers of cost include waste in the system and how providers are reimbursed for delivering health care services; they are paid by procedure, which many believe leads to unnecessary care.

The primary factors responsible for price increases can and should be addressed through health care reform that emphasizes, for example, the importance of wellness and preventive medicine, administrative simplification, investment in health information technology (HIT), emphasis on evidence-based medicine and health delivery payment reform.


Myth: Health care companies reap huge profits and benefit from the status quo.

Fact: The average profit margin of health care companies stands at only 5 percent, lower than many other industries and other players in the health system. It is better for everyone if we get and keep all Americans covered.

While there’s plenty of talk about “insurance company profits,” the truth is that health insurance companies’ five-year average profit margin is about 5.3 percent. That means for every dollar of revenue insurance companies take in, they make about 5 cents in profit. This is significantly less than drug companies (18.4 percent), cigarette manufacturers (13.4 percent) or computer software companies (22.5 percent). Some companies in recent years have paid about as much in taxes as they made in profit.

Wow! Straight off the fox news website!
The last paragraph makes me giggle!
If thats all there profit was, there CEO's wouldn't be able to make 40.2 billion a year. And R. Williams, doesn't even work for the largest health insurance company, and that's what he makes.

[importpower99]

Originally Posted by ILLJIM69

All of that is well and good, but I think it's fair to say that there are standards out there and certain criteria that needs to be met that often is not. There is almost no enforcement in terms of state and local government checking up on these people. If the list of stuff you posted above rang true and the government did a great job of ensuring people didn't abuse the system, I wouldn't have a problem per se. However, they don't. I surely hope that you aren't going to tell me that there aren't people out there who don't latch onto the welfare system for life and never get caught.

Oh and I lumped disability in there because that systems is terribly abused. People just need a note from a doctor (in essence, I know there is some more to it) and they qualify. I see too many people who can do SOME form of work and claim to be disabled. Just because you worked construction and hurt your back doesn't mean you can't find a job less physical. And how about handicap tags? Tell me those aren't easy to get. Same idea behind disability. Hell, when I retire from the military, I will qualify for disability.....at least 10% automatically (probably more since that is usually what people who do 4 years gets), without any actual injuries to show for it. If your brain functions at least partially, you can just go to the docs a few times and complain about your back hurting. Once it's on paper and you go to get out of the military, you can get 25% or more for something that doesn't even exist! Tell me that isn't messed up. And the civilian sector is no better.

Of course people abuse the system, I'm just tring to say that it's not everybody.
And as far as disabilty is concerned:
Well there's two sides, yes I know there are people that abuse the hell out of it. But there is people who may seem fine, but may be in constant pain. The good thing is, that there are more people who don't care to abuse the system and keep it funded for the people that need it.

[bastid]

Originally Posted by Proven

I can imagine most people with current healthcare coverage would say they aren’t happy with how they are treated by insurance companies. Using insurance companies and how they conduct business compared to what you think, maybe, might happen with how government runs healthcare is also a terrible example.

A large majority of folks (89% as of Oct 2006) were happy with their insurance. 54% of them were NOT happy with the quality of the medical system. 70% of those without insurance claim they have access to healthcare and are pleased with their health. This study was done by Kaiser:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...alth-poll1.htm

Originally Posted by Proven

It was a good example of showing that there will be holes and it wont be perfect but you'll still be able to get to work/deliver goods/go see a movie. (ie have health insurance)

That's the main point of my argument. Having it doesn't mean ANYTHING if isn't readily available and costs continue to rise. Even if the ER stays the same (with respect to non-insureds), the outpatient medical office will be inundated with additional visits. Remember that over 80% of all healthcare is delivered outside the walls of the hospital.

Originally Posted by Proven

Pretty much why I said "for the most part" after stating those things. Also goes along with "there will be holes, wont be perfect"

If something to this nature gets passed, I guarantee you these will be Obama's words immediately after it goes into effect (in 2013 no less) and it starts to fail.

Originally Posted by Proven

Doesn't mean we don't need them

Right. A better analogy is that there is a much greater need for their services yet we are doing nothing to get more policemen and firemen. Do you think we would be just as safe against crime or fire if a significant amount of additional crime were being committed and fires started?

Until this HUGE flaw is fixed, any plan that comes out from the government will simply be a plea to get votes from the uninsured. No more, no less.

Originally Posted by Proven

Congrats, your a bad dude, A true Rambo if you will (hehe). Not everyone is like you, remember this, and think outside your circle.

What he's trying to convey is that in a life or death situation like a home invasion you have a window of time approximately 5-10 seconds which will determine whether or not you and your family will live or die, yet the response time from police even in the best areas of the country is MINUTES away. He recognizes the need to take matters in his own hands. If you draw the same parallel in healthcare, what will we have to do to provide immediate assistance as a "first line of defense?" All learn how to stitch major lacerations? Create a makeshift tourniquet or neck brace? Learn how to administer morphine?

Originally Posted by Proven

Speculation, prove to me that Government run healthcare will run similar to a 25% running car. Also prove to me that the current healthcare system is running anywhere near 100%

It isn't running at 100%, and that is why we are against shoehorning an additional 45,000,000 people into the system. Please tell me why you think that adding more patients into the current mix will help make the system more efficiently. Just one little tiny fact-based reason. We've all been waiting hundreds of replies worth of time to get to this answer.

Originally Posted by Proven

I agree, just look at our Military (just messing with you of course). But to touch in once again with what I just said. Show me how the current healthcare system has no holes and is perfectly run and you'll get my vote.

It is business suicide to attempt to grow without first putting infrastructure in place that allows you to grow. If you grow before your organization can support it, you will burst at the seams and your customers will suffer. We do not have the system efficient enough to jam 15% of our citizens in waiting rooms.

Originally Posted by Proven

Of course the workload will increase, and of course a Hospitals ability to handle the workload will be different, just choose the one that handles it according to your standards. Keep in mind that Doctors and Hospitals are Businesses. They work in an industry that’s about to see 44 million new customers. They will be seeing more business, which will allow them to hire more staff.

So, you are saying that a doctor will be able to see more patients in the same amount of time by simply adding millions of people into the healthcare mix and therefore make more money? Where will they get this extra time to see these additional patients? If they can't magically create more time in their day, where will they find additional doctors?

Originally Posted by Proven

In a sense your lucky to have coverage because you work for the government.

Seriously? I could see you throwing that out there if he was a paper-pusher for the USPS. In a sense, it is WE are lucky that he's in the military so we don't have to be.

Originally Posted by Proven

I said people calling him a socialist for wanting to offer healthcare are POS. re-read what I wrote not just what you think you saw.

Taking from one to give to another is a characteristic of socialism. Prove me wrong.

Originally Posted by Proven

People that dont have insurance that will get it with this bill I find beneficial. Its as simple as that.

See above. 70% of the 45 million uninsured claim to have access to healthcare and are overall happy with their health. Also keep in mind 26% of the remaining 30% are illegal aliens.

Originally Posted by Proven

I don’t think I mentioned anything about this bill curing cancer. What it will do though is help save the lives of people that have or get cancer that currently don’t have health insurance (along with the many other life threatening illnesses the uninsured have.)

Depends. If it takes 22 months to get a mammogram due to increased demand, how well will we be able to combat against breast cancer?

Originally Posted by Proven

Says the man whos life is in COMPLETE control of the govenment and doesnt mind

You just totally dodged the issue of affordability.

Originally Posted by Proven

Haha! I just pictured that scene (seriously, im laughing with you here). But I just don't think it will be like that. The amount of bleeding injured people isn’t going to increase just because they now have coverage. In the systems current state a lot of those bleeding people (without insurance) are stiffing the bill hurting the Hospitals and insurance which in turn of course raises costs

>80% of healthcare is delivered outside the walls of a hospital. Hospitals will always be packed with emergencies due to your reason above. It is the outpatient side that will really suffer from a quality and availability perspective.

What is the difference between the patient stiffing the ER and them now being insured? Either way, they don't foot the bill. Both are being subsidized by the taxpayer, so why pump through a bill like this if the outcome is going to be the same?

Also, you are wrong about what is driving up costs. Among other things, the government (Medicare and Medicaid) underpaying physicians is what raises costs. They need to make up their losses elsewhere, and they do it with higher reimbursement rates from private insurers. And on top of this, Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement is being cut annually. When government cuts their reimbursement to physicians, the private insurances must increase in cost for that doctor to remain in business.

Originally Posted by Proven

Ha! I'm sure shes a tuff cookie, your a lucky man. But not everyone is like you or your wife (military trained). Most of your American people need the assistance that police offer regardless of how fast they can get there.

If you are dead in your home, there is no assistance that the police can provide outside of lugging you out before you stain the carpet.

[ILLJIM69]

Originally Posted by Proven

I can imagine most people with current healthcare coverage would say they aren’t happy with how they are treated by insurance companies. Using insurance companies and how they conduct business compared to what you think, maybe, might happen with how government runs healthcare is also a terrible example.

But you are merely using a prediction as to how awesome the government run health care plan will be. The only difference is that we know the federal government pretty much screws up everything they do. They are too big and they should leave each individual state to make their own provisions for health care. Massachusetts did it, seems to be working out for them.

Originally Posted by Proven

It was a good example of showing that there will be holes and it wont be perfect but you'll still be able to get to work/deliver goods/go see a movie. (ie have health insurance)

Pretty much why I said "for the most part" after stating those things. Also goes along with "there will be holes, wont be perfect"

You're just assuming there will only be holes. You seem to skip right over the part where it will cost us ONE TRILLION dollars, just to start the damn thing. Wait until all the bills start pouring in, it will only get bigger. And don't use any other debt we have accrued over the last 10 years or so as reasoning. Just because we are already in debt up to our eyeballs doesn't mean we need to add to it.

Originally Posted by Proven

Doesn't mean we don't need them

I don't. I already mentioned why police do me no good in terms of a problem on my property. As for fire, I am prepared to take a total loss on my house if there was a fire. It would burn up so quick, it wouldn't be funny.

But to give into your argument, yes, most people use those services. As it stands right now, the only thing cops do for me is allow me to stimulate the local government by issuing tickets, ha ha ha, which I don't mind paying since I do speed at times.

Originally Posted by Proven

Congrats, your a bad dude, A true Rambo if you will (hehe). Not everyone is like you, remember this, and think outside your circle.

I am not a true Rambo, I love people like you who always liken those who don't have a problem with defending their family and home to Rambo.

It has nothing to do with "my circle" but has everything to do with the fact that it IS NOT my job to provide for other people's families, it's their job. If people paid attention to their own little circles, we wouldn't be in such bad shape.

Originally Posted by Proven

Speculation, prove to me that Government run healthcare will run similar to a 25% running car. Also prove to me that the current healthcare system is running anywhere near 100%

How about YOU prove that the government run health care would run better than what we have now. The burden of proof is on you sir, not me. You're the one pushing for an entity that can't run anything right to take control of our health care. You can't provide one service that the Fed runs that isn't screwed up and corrupt.

Originally Posted by Proven

Of course the workload will increase, and of course a Hospitals ability to handle the workload will be different, just choose the one that handles it according to your standards. Keep in mind that Doctors and Hospitals are Businesses. They work in an industry that’s about to see 44 million new customers. They will be seeing more business, which will allow them to hire more staff.

And I bet you that either less people will get into the medical field or the quality of those in it will drop, mainly due to the pay scale moving down for these jobs. Guess what funds research and development.......yeppers, MONEY!

Oh and hey, can you PLEASE rattle off a few medical marvels that have come from France or Sweden? I ask all the time since people love using those two as examples for socialized health care but they never answer. Once you find a few examples of ground breaking medical discoveries, drugs, procedures or training, I want you to compare it with the list America has.

Originally Posted by Proven

Keep in mind that your employer pays your healthcare and that there’s millions of other Americans that also work hard (even risk their lives) and can’t afford it or get it. In a sense your lucky to have coverage because you work for the government.

Hey, they can go see their local recruiter and get the same thing I do. Be careful what you wish for though, military health care isn't exactly world renowned for being the best. It's great for saving your life on the battlefield, but not so great for anything else.

Originally Posted by Proven

I said people calling him a socialist for wanting to offer healthcare are POS. re-read what I wrote not just what you think you saw.

Well I guess I am a POS, although it's more than just his health care stance.

Originally Posted by Proven

People that dont have insurance that will get it with this bill I find beneficial. Its as simple as that.

You are right, too bad those who have health care insurance already and who are happy with it, are going to be forced to subsidize a plan that they don't use. I say if you don't want the government plan, you shouldn't have to pay for it either. They can revamp MedicAid if they want, lord knows it could use a tune up.

Originally Posted by Proven

I don’t think I mentioned anything about this bill curing cancer. What it will do though is help save the lives of people that have or get cancer that currently don’t have health insurance (along with the many other life threatening illnesses the uninsured have.)

YAY! So now my tax dollars get to pay for the cancer treatment of guys who smoked for 30 years. My tax dollars will pay for fat people who don't feel the need to exercise and eat fast food every day. Yeah, we should pity those people.

Originally Posted by Proven

Says the man whos life is in COMPLETE control of the govenment and doesnt mind

Didn't you use this on me before? Dude, it's by choice. If it gets so bad, I can get out. Nobody forced the Army on me, which is the opposite way this health care bill will be, you will be forced to pay for it regardless if you actually use it. For that matter, people who send their kids to private schools shouldn't pay school taxes. Kind of the same idea.

Originally Posted by Proven

Haha! I just pictured that scene (seriously, im laughing with you here). But I just don't think it will be like that. The amount of bleeding injured people isn’t going to increase just because they now have coverage. In the systems current state a lot of those bleeding people (without insurance) are stiffing the bill hurting the Hospitals and insurance which in turn of course raises costs

Dude, you're nuts. If you don't think people who wouldn't normally run to the doc for every sniffle, sneeze and cut won't start doing so just because they can, I have some bad news for you. I see it all the time here. The military is really a microcosm of America, sometimes we are even social test beds for programs and products. These are facts.

Originally Posted by Proven

Ha! I'm sure shes a tuff cookie, your a lucky man. But not everyone is like you or your wife (military trained). Most of your American people need the assistance that police offer regardless of how fast they can get there.

Well the training differs from job to job. As much as the guy in my sig wants to think I am, I am actually not infantry. The wife is only tough with me when it comes to me buying car mods, ha ha ha. I was just saying that she isn't a stranger when it comes to firing weapons.

Most Americans are scared to shoot someone. Why? Probably because liberals make you choose between being the victim or getting sued for shooting an intruder.

[ILLJIM69]

Originally Posted by importpower99

Private run fire dept? Hmm.....what is wrong with that? I am hoping you are joking about that. And you say if someone breaks into your house you will deal with it? You want PA to become Texas? (No I'm kidding, I could care less, what you do in your home)
So what if you live in a town house, and your neighbors house is on fire, but doesn't have the funds to pay the fire dept, then what? I guess that means your house will burn down, right! Privatizing the police and fire dept make no sense what so ever.
And that would mean the police and fire dept would now have to turn a profit. No longer will they put there life on the line. If you are trapped in your house due to a fire, they will not risk their life to rescue you. And then do I need to bring up corruption? Privetizing those types of organzations will only lead to the downfall of america, because now the police depts can be paid off by drug dealers (like mexico). And if you don't think corruptions would happen, look at halliburton, KBR, and then look at some corporations.

It was sort of said in jest. I am not saying private police or fire departments would be ideal, just saying that what the government doesn't provide, businesses will. This is fact.

[ILLJIM69]

Originally Posted by importpower99

Of course people abuse the system, I'm just tring to say that it's not everybody.
And as far as disabilty is concerned:
Well there's two sides, yes I know there are people that abuse the hell out of it. But there is people who may seem fine, but may be in constant pain. The good thing is, that there are more people who don't care to abuse the system and keep it funded for the people that need it.

If they can use that disability to pay bills or go shopping, then clearly they can find a job, even if it's part time, as a clerk, data entry person, etc. My point is that the only people who can't do SOMETHING to be productive are generally bound to a bed and honestly if I were stuck in bed for the rest of my life in constant pain, I would love to be put out of my misery because what's the point of living at that point?

Which brings me to a point that is sort of on topic, but I think doctor assisted suicide should be legal. If I want to die, that is my business. Same goes for anyone else out there that just can't hack it or is in great amounts of pain.

[ILLJIM69]

Originally Posted by bastid

A large majority of folks (89% as of Oct 2006) were happy with their insurance. 54% of them were NOT happy with the quality of the medical system. 70% of those without insurance claim they have access to healthcare and are pleased with their health. This study was done by Kaiser:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...alth-poll1.htm




That's the main point of my argument. Having it doesn't mean ANYTHING if isn't readily available and costs continue to rise. Even if the ER stays the same (with respect to non-insureds), the outpatient medical office will be inundated with additional visits. Remember that over 80% of all healthcare is delivered outside the walls of the hospital.




If something to this nature gets passed, I guarantee you these will be Obama's words immediately after it goes into effect (in 2013 no less) and it starts to fail.



Right. A better analogy is that there is a much greater need for their services yet we are doing nothing to get more policemen and firemen. Do you think we would be just as safe against crime or fire if a significant amount of additional crime were being committed and fires started?

Until this HUGE flaw is fixed, any plan that comes out from the government will simply be a plea to get votes from the uninsured. No more, no less.



What he's trying to convey is that in a life or death situation like a home invasion you have a window of time approximately 5-10 seconds which will determine whether or not you and your family will live or die, yet the response time from police even in the best areas of the country is MINUTES away. He recognizes the need to take matters in his own hands. If you draw the same parallel in healthcare, what will we have to do to provide immediate assistance as a "first line of defense?" All learn how to stitch major lacerations? Create a makeshift tourniquet or neck brace? Learn how to administer morphine?



It isn't running at 100%, and that is why we are against shoehorning an additional 45,000,000 people into the system. Please tell me why you think that adding more patients into the current mix will help make the system more efficiently. Just one little tiny fact-based reason. We've all been waiting hundreds of replies worth of time to get to this answer.



It is business suicide to attempt to grow without first putting infrastructure in place that allows you to grow. If you grow before your organization can support it, you will burst at the seams and your customers will suffer. We do not have the system efficient enough to jam 15% of our citizens in waiting rooms.



So, you are saying that a doctor will be able to see more patients in the same amount of time by simply adding millions of people into the healthcare mix and therefore make more money? Where will they get this extra time to see these additional patients? If they can't magically create more time in their day, where will they find additional doctors?



Seriously? I could see you throwing that out there if he was a paper-pusher for the USPS. In a sense, it is WE are lucky that he's in the military so we don't have to be.



Taking from one to give to another is a characteristic of socialism. Prove me wrong.



See above. 70% of the 45 million uninsured claim to have access to healthcare and are overall happy with their health. Also keep in mind 26% of the remaining 30% are illegal aliens.



Depends. If it takes 22 months to get a mammogram due to increased demand, how well will we be able to combat against breast cancer?



You just totally dodged the issue of affordability.




>80% of healthcare is delivered outside the walls of a hospital. Hospitals will always be packed with emergencies due to your reason above. It is the outpatient side that will really suffer from a quality and availability perspective.

What is the difference between the patient stiffing the ER and them now being insured? Either way, they don't foot the bill. Both are being subsidized by the taxpayer, so why pump through a bill like this if the outcome is going to be the same?

Also, you are wrong about what is driving up costs. Among other things, the government (Medicare and Medicaid) underpaying physicians is what raises costs. They need to make up their losses elsewhere, and they do it with higher reimbursement rates from private insurers. And on top of this, Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement is being cut annually. When government cuts their reimbursement to physicians, the private insurances must increase in cost for that doctor to remain in business.



If you are dead in your home, there is no assistance that the police can provide outside of lugging you out before you stain the carpet.

Well said, I was hoping that I was making sense to someone else besides myself, lol.

[OutlawzPrez]

Figure I'd jump back in this after reading alot of this. I really hope that everyone doesn't believe the number of uninsured Americans that the Obama Administration & the people that wants this passed told you, right? They want this bill passed & will tell you the worst case scenerio & just numbers, but would they ever break it down like this? NO! Just like i said b4, they just want it passed. Here is some "mind opening facts".

With the help of the U.S. Census Bureau, let’s break down the real empirical data behind the “50 million uninsured” in America. Who exactly are they? FACTS:

* 17 Million live in households earning more than $50,000 (38% of American uninsured)



* 9 Million live in households earning more than $75,000 (20% of American uninsured)



* 18 Million of the “young invincibles” (ages 18-34) who spend more money on “cigarettes, entertainment & cell phone bills. (40% of uninsured)



* 14 Million are eligible for Medicaid and SCHIP due to low income and do not enroll. (31% of uninsured)



* There are also 12 Million illegal aliens (and growing) who don't buy Health Insurance but still get "free" health care.



So how many are legitimately uninsured? About 8 Million. That's just 18% of the 45 Million we constantly here about.

Watch “Uninsured in America”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKCWb...e=channel_page

[importpower99]

Originally Posted by ILLJIM69

If they can use that disability to pay bills or go shopping, then clearly they can find a job, even if it's part time, as a clerk, data entry person, etc. My point is that the only people who can't do SOMETHING to be productive are generally bound to a bed and honestly if I were stuck in bed for the rest of my life in constant pain, I would love to be put out of my misery because what's the point of living at that point?

Which brings me to a point that is sort of on topic, but I think doctor assisted suicide should be legal. If I want to die, that is my business. Same goes for anyone else out there that just can't hack it or is in great amounts of pain.

I agree with you 100% on this issue, very few people are 100% disabled. Yes, give them a job holding up stops signs that have fallen over, I don't care. Theres no reason that can't do nothing at all.
And if they changed the name from "assisted suicide" to "I just want to f**kin die, now leave me alone", then it probablywouldn't be illegal.

[importpower99]

Originally Posted by bastid

That's the main point of my argument. Having it doesn't mean ANYTHING if isn't readily available and costs continue to rise. Even if the ER stays the same (with respect to non-insureds), the outpatient medical office will be inundated with additional visits. Remember that over 80% of all healthcare is delivered outside the walls of the hospital.

The golden statement right there.... Can you see the light!
If people could afford to get annual or semi-annual check ups, more people would be healthier.

Here is a good questions:
"Why do people die from cancer, when it's 99.9 percent treatable?"

Answer: Because do one goes for check-ups, because they cost to much to do when your uninsured. And you are aware cancer is 100% treatable in its early stages, right?

And I'm debating the fact that if check-ups were more affordable, and people were more healthier, there would be no need for a gov't public option.

[Proven]

Originally Posted by bastid

A large majority of folks (89% as of Oct 2006) were happy with their insurance. 54% of them were NOT happy with the quality of the medical system. 70% of those without insurance claim they have access to healthcare and are pleased with their health. This study was done by Kaiser:

This Bill focuses on both insurance companies and the quality of the medical system. I'm sure most of that 89% are happy that they even have insurance more then happy with their insurance Companies. That 54% should be happy Obama wants to make the system more efficient. The 70% are "claiming" and are happy with their current health, not the healthcare system.

I've taken one of those surveys and they are very bias. One of the Qs. I had to answer was - and I quote "Do you think all Americans should get health coverage along all illegal immigrants" I almost lost my mind, this would clearly lead to most if not all saying no to that qs. Surveys don't tell us sh**.

Right. A better analogy is that there is a much greater need for their services yet we are doing nothing to get more policemen and firemen. Do you think we would be just as safe against crime or fire if a significant amount of additional crime were being committed and fires started?

The bill doesn't say anything about Hospitals or private practices not being able to hire more staff.

It isn't running at 100%, and that is why we are against shoehorning an additional 45,000,000 people into the system. Please tell me why you think that adding more patients into the current mix will help make the system more efficiently. Just one little tiny fact-based reason. We've all been waiting hundreds of replies worth of time to get to this answer.

The bill isn’t just trying to get 45 million people to storm doctor’s offices without proposing a way to make the system more efficient. Ways to make the system more efficient are in the bill.

It is business suicide to attempt to grow without first putting infrastructure in place that allows you to grow. If you grow before your organization can support it, you will burst at the seams and your customers will suffer. We do not have the system efficient enough to jam 15% of our citizens in waiting rooms.

I actually 100% agree on this. Your right when it comes to businesses with competitors. But, I do feel they will eventualy catch up because in this case the customers can’t go anywhere else. If the bill passes things wont start off amazing for sure, Obama himself has admitted this. Just like any Business things start off ruff and then smooth out over time when things are adjusted. NO business has ever started off 100% profitable, efficient, and smooth running

So, you are saying that a doctor will be able to see more patients in the same amount of time by simply adding millions of people into the healthcare mix and therefore make more money? Where will they get this extra time to see these additional patients? If they can't magically create more time in their day, where will they find additional doctors?

The Doctors wont be able to magically create time (Although some quantum physicists will argue they can hehe! - sorry, that’s another thing I’ve been studying about). What Doctors will be able to do though is magically bring in other doctors to the practice. It turns out every year people graduated from Medical school looking for jobs, my guess is that’s where they will start looking for help with the flood of the basic check ups coming in.

Taking from one to give to another is a characteristic of socialism. Prove me wrong.

Characteristic of. Everyday I try to eat some vegetables, doesn’t make me a Vegetarian.

.

...........................................

[bastid]

Originally Posted by Proven

...........................................

Originally Posted by Proven

This Bill focuses on both insurance companies and the quality of the medical system. I'm sure most of that 89% are happy that they even have insurance more then happy with their insurance Companies. That 54% should be happy Obama wants to make the system more efficient. The 70% are "claiming" and are happy with their current health, not the healthcare system.

Please point me to specific clauses where the Bill increase the quality and delivery of medicine.

Originally Posted by Proven

I've taken one of those surveys and they are very bias. One of the Qs. I had to answer was - and I quote "Do you think all Americans should get health coverage along all illegal immigrants" I almost lost my mind, this would clearly lead to most if not all saying no to that qs. Surveys don't tell us sh**.

Kaiser is huge and one of the most respected medical organizations in the world. Their studies are not half-witted.

Originally Posted by Proven

The bill doesn't say anything about Hospitals or private practices not being able to hire more staff.

How do you hire doctors when there won't be enough doctors to hire? PEOPLE ARE NOT GOING INTO MEDICINE!!! There will be a 50,000 physician shortage by 2016 in primary care alone (some say upward of 200,000 by 2020). More and more people do not want to be doctors in America anymore. Our largest demographic of new physicians is coming from overseas (primarily India).

[QUOTE=Proven;1492866]The bill isn’t just trying to get 45 million people to storm doctor’s offices without proposing a way to make the system more efficient. Ways to make the system more efficient are in the bill./quote]

Name one.

Originally Posted by Proven

I actually 100% agree on this. Your right when it comes to businesses with competitors. But, I do feel they will eventualy catch up because in this case the customers can’t go anywhere else. If the bill passes things wont start off amazing for sure, Obama himself has admitted this. Just like any Business things start off ruff and then smooth out over time when things are adjusted. NO business has ever started off 100% profitable, efficient, and smooth running

Medicine is a business. Your alternative is that physicians are social servants.

Originally Posted by Proven

The Doctors wont be able to magically create time (Although some quantum physicists will argue they can hehe! - sorry, that’s another thing I’ve been studying about). What Doctors will be able to do though is magically bring in other doctors to the practice. It turns out every year people graduated from Medical school looking for jobs, my guess is that’s where they will start looking for help with the flood of the basic check ups coming in.

You don't get it. There will not be enough doctors to hire. Paying them less, which is what this Bill proposes through a government plan that "cuts costs" through underpayment will widen the gap between how many physicians we need vs. what we have.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...shortage_x.htm
http://www.managedcaremag.com/archiv....shortage.html
http://www.newmajority.com/the-coming-doctor-shortage
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1726479.shtml
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/he...cy/27care.html
http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2009/...echnology-tec/
http://www.thedailyjournal.com/artic...TYLE/908310302
http://www.cleveland.com/nation/inde...concerned.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/healt...ors_01-06.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...072100432.html

Originally Posted by Proven

Characteristic of. Everyday I try to eat some vegetables, doesn’t make me a Vegetarian.

Unbelievable.

I'm done with this thread. I'll come back when someone can actually argue their points with logic and reason.