Well....... here we go.

[Texas Yellow Fever]

I can't trust Obama. I've liked some of the things he's said but I get this feeling it's just telling people what they want to hear in order to make it into office. I don't know what his true agenda is once he gets into office. He may do a complete about face from what he's been selling us. I think we've seen some of it leak out already with his ex-preacher and not putting his hand over his heart etc.

I feel like there are some racial and religious tendencies there that he is suppressing to further his cause. I agree that the country needs "change" but we need to hear his plans on how he's going to make things better for us all. And I don't think that's what he has in mind. Call me suspicious.

I agree, there's a dark side to that man.

 

[76574srt10]

Prof,

I don't know if I should be offended or flattered by your last post...

S

 

[Prof]

I agree, there's a dark side to that man.

Steve, Steve, Steve...he is a Chicago politician...of course there are dozens of skeletons in his closet...Chicago...Chicago...noting happens in Chicago that does not line the pockets of some insider...

His neighbor, friend, fund raiser and the man that arranged the purchase of his million dollar home was just convicted (day before yesterday) of influence peddling for the Governor, and it will spill onto Obama to some extent...

Prof,

I don't know if I should be offended or flattered by your last post...

S

No one should be offended by my posts. I just run off at the mouth because I am too old to think about things before I spout off. Never any personal attacks intended...only observations...unless you talk bad about our service people, fire fighters or police officers. Then I come a little unglued.

Peace.

 

[eddie102870]

ill post my opinion but it will be later dont have the time right now but this thread has turned into something that makes you think. i proud of the response from everyone. could have went downhill in a bad way.

 

[supercar1of1]

It's over folk's!!!!

All is lost!


We are DOOMED!


Last night I learned that Ed McMann is having his house foreclosed!!!

Before the disbelief could wear off, it was just announced that

Evander"REAL DEAL" Hollyfield was getting the boot from his home also.

All hope is lost.

 

[Scrambler1]

I am VERY much against universal healthcare. There have been threads on this before, but the biggest problem that I see is funding. Some of us already pay more than 1/2 our earned income in taxes, nevermind other forms like sales tax, fuel taxes, taxes on investments, etc. I personally can't stomach the government taking any more away. We currently have hospitals going broke around the country. If we can't fund those now, how are we going to be able to keep a universal healthcare system going? As pointed out earlier, the primary users of this will be the people who pay nothing into the pot. As the baby boomers continue to get older, their medical bills are only going to increase... social security is already going to be broke, should we take all healthcare down with it??

Some other issues with it... In countries that currently have a universal system is their quality of care better or worse than ours? You will find it far worse, long waits to see doctors (like weeks) even for life threatening diseases, forget about the latest and greatest very expensive treatments, and finally I don't want the government to decide if I'm too expensive to continue to live.

Will we still be able to get the quality of doctors that we currently have if the government sets their salary? What was the last government employee you thought did a good job or was even helpful?

Will pharmaceutical companies continue to pour money into new medicines and curing diseases like cancer and alzheimers when the govt sets the price? Right now the US has the most modern medicine in the world, I personally don't want to give that up.

Universal healthcare is my biggest disagreement with both Hillary and Obama. I don't have the answer but I am fairly certain that is not it.

Joe

 

[supercar1of1]

I am VERY much against universal healthcare. There have been threads on this before, but the biggest problem that I see is funding. Some of us already pay more than 1/2 our earned income in taxes, nevermind other forms like sales tax, fuel taxes, taxes on investments, etc. I personally can't stomach the government taking any more away. We currently have hospitals going broke around the country. If we can't fund those now, how are we going to be able to keep a universal healthcare system going? As pointed out earlier, the primary users of this will be the people who pay nothing into the pot. As the baby boomers continue to get older, their medical bills are only going to increase... social security is already going to be broke, should we take all healthcare down with it??

Some other issues with it... In countries that currently have a universal system is their quality of care better or worse than ours? You will find it far worse, long waits to see doctors (like weeks) even for life threatening diseases, forget about the latest and greatest very expensive treatments, and finally I don't want the government to decide if I'm too expensive to continue to live.

Will we still be able to get the quality of doctors that we currently have if the government sets their salary? What was the last government employee you thought did a good job or was even helpful?

Will pharmaceutical companies continue to pour money into new medicines and curing diseases like cancer and alzheimers when the govt sets the price? Right now the US has the most modern medicine in the world, I personally don't want to give that up.

Universal healthcare is my biggest disagreement with both Hillary and Obama. I don't have the answer but I am fairly certain that is not it.

Joe

:congrats: :rock: :congrats: :rock: :congrats: :rock: :congrats:

 

[bigike]

Well said Joe.

 

[76574srt10]

I can share a story about Canada's health care system. Some of my inlaws live north of Toronto in a town called Bracebridge. My sister inlaw kept noticing their son always seemed to have a low grade fever. She would take him to the clinic and wait to see whom ever was on duty that shift and they would diagnose a bladder infection and medicate accordingly. Never really broke the fever. This went on for years, finally came down here to spend a winter with us, took him to the medical center when he spiked again, found out it was an ear infection. He now has heavy build up of scar tissue in his ears and because of this and the infections he was unable to hear well and is now considered learning disabled.

"...the primary users of this will be the people who pay nothing into the pot..."

This is already the case, it is an epidemic, no pun intended, those that have no medical plan now visit the emergency room for any number of minor ailments. There are billions spent each year treating the uninsured, some are even people here illegally. The only difference with a UHC system is they may be better funded. Given the choice today, would you continue to use the medical care you have or sign up for an HMO type of socialized medicine? I like going to the doctor or hospital knowing that I am getting the best quality care money can buy.

I agree with the statements regarding cutting philanthropic care to other nations when we have enough that it need it here, our government should use the moneys set aside for those plans within this country. But to add another level of bureaucracy to the plan would not help. I don't want to consider that the health of my grandchildren will be decided by some government employee who happened to collect enough points in the application process to qualify for the job.

While I write this I also think that a lot of this talk is just pandering for the vote. Do you really believe in our system that was founded in Free Enterprise that the drug companies, insurance companies, and these hospital chains will allow socialized medicine to take over?

 

[OCBob]

OK, so everybody is against health care for those that can't afford it? Interesting. If you don't have the cash to pay, you and your children don't deserve to be afforded health care.

Well, I can't afford insurance for my kids right now. But I have paid more than my share of taxes into the system, not to mention the years I gave in service. So I guess my family is just shit out of luck, huh? Like I said, interesting.

 

[stick]

Statistics from the World Health Organization's "The World Health
Report 1995" place Costa Rica third, in life expectancy in the world, sandwiched neatly behind Japan and France and ahead of Great Britain
and the United States; and with a per capita income about one tenth
that of the other four.



costa has gov healthcare

 

[76574srt10]

No sir that is not what I'm saying. I do feel we need some form of regulation on the industry and feel that the funds earmarked for outside the country should be set aside for the "citizens" of this nation. Cobra was setup for people that have lost their job but is expensive and has limits. Why not use the moneys, earmarked for strangers that don't give a damn about Americans and couldn't find it on the map, here at home to create a more affordable health care system for those that have done their time and made contributions that can be verified. But if the government takes it over completely then that is one more thing that will get screwed up. I read somewhere that the government now employs over 1.8 million people. Talk about getting lost in the shuffle...

Regarding Iraq, I said it in passing a few years ago that maybe Saddam had it right...

 

[Prof]

I am VERY much against universal healthcare. There have been threads on this before, but the biggest problem that I see is funding. Some of us already pay more than 1/2 our earned income in taxes, nevermind other forms like sales tax, fuel taxes, taxes on investments, etc. I personally can't stomach the government taking any more away. We currently have hospitals going broke around the country. If we can't fund those now, how are we going to be able to keep a universal healthcare system going? As pointed out earlier, the primary users of this will be the people who pay nothing into the pot. As the baby boomers continue to get older, their medical bills are only going to increase... social security is already going to be broke, should we take all healthcare down with it??

Some other issues with it... In countries that currently have a universal system is their quality of care better or worse than ours? You will find it far worse, long waits to see doctors (like weeks) even for life threatening diseases, forget about the latest and greatest very expensive treatments, and finally I don't want the government to decide if I'm too expensive to continue to live.

Will we still be able to get the quality of doctors that we currently have if the government sets their salary? What was the last government employee you thought did a good job or was even helpful?

Will pharmaceutical companies continue to pour money into new medicines and curing diseases like cancer and alzheimers when the govt sets the price? Right now the US has the most modern medicine in the world, I personally don't want to give that up.

Universal healthcare is my biggest disagreement with both Hillary and Obama. I don't have the answer but I am fairly certain that is not it.

Joe

Joe your concerns are the concerns of many. Let me try to present the concept a little differently, just to try to present the other side for mental chewing...

There is an underlying reality that there are very few that go without health care today. Those who are not insured wait until they are severely ill and then go to an emergency room where they are treated and admitted if necessary. Attempts are made to make them pay but usually fail. But the care is provided and it is sucked up by the institution and physicians.

If you are still with me, the health care perspective is that if those uninsured were insured in some way they would avail them selves of primary care and most of their serious illnesses would be identified and cared for on a sub-acute level...much less stress on the system and way cheaper.

So with universal care, everyone can be treated in a primary care mode rather than in the high cost environment of the ER.

Another underlying concept of universal care is that if children are all covered then their life span will be healthier and consequently a less intensive/less expensive future will be theirs and ours.

The entire concept of universal care is to get health care on the front end of the wellness/illness path to identify and solve small problems early rather than treat sever problems in a crisis mode later in life.

My data is a little dated so be tolerant of this old hospital administrator...but over 30% of the current Medicare Budget is spent during the last thirty days of life...that is $200 Billion a year. The entire philosophy of universal care is to spend the dollars in preventative and early diagnosis rather than in critical corrective care.

The concept requires a long range mind set...but it has to move in that direction as soon as possible. In 2020, projections say that just our Medicare expense will consume 40% of our tax dollars...and than only cares for those over the age of 65.

By 2015 our national health care expenditures will be over $4 Trillion dollars annually. Under universal coverage employers will be mandated to provide coverage to their employees, unemployed will be covered by the government for primary care and catastrophic problems...that is what happens now, due to cost shifting by hospitals and physicians.

The bottom line is that we are paying now...the hope is that under universal health care the future will be less intensive problems due to the availability of treatment for those that are currently a huge burden on the system.

About your access and quality questions:

This is not government employed doctors and hospitals...it is insurance for those that are not currently covered, mostly by businesses, with some governmental subsidy of the unemployed. There is a huge difference.

If you are currently covered by your employer...little will change, other than the premiums will continue to rise. I think you are confusing universal care with socialized medicine...there is no correlation.

Does this register with anyone? Health care was my career...I was a hospital administrator, a health care CEO and an executive with Blue Cross Blue Shield . Not that any of that makes me an expert on universal care...but I really felt that the misconceptions about universal care are just perpetuated...and never really addressed from a factual perspective.

Sorry for the lecture...but this is the only testable part:

If we don't refocus our health care dollars on prevention and early detection for all, we will have to go to a socialized medical delivery system within 20 years.

 

[Scrambler1]

I understand your point Prof, and no Bob my point is not tough luck to your family and those in a similar situation.

I view this idea as a great big HMO. Also "mandating" employers to provide a service to employees is not something I agree with. You mention premiums continuing to rise, they are already a big expense to companies that provide health care to their employees. There are plenty of companies, especially smaller ones, that leave it to the employees to handle and pay their own healthcare, its part of their comission or pay structure. For a company of that size it becomes cheaper for most everyone as some employees drive up the premiums by being smokers or being very overweight. We all pay for that... which brings up the question if the govt can outlaw smoking and drinking for the good of the population at large? I hope not.

I've had family members and friends of family have problems dealing with HMO's when dealing with a serious disease. While they didn't have to see a particular doctor they also couldn't go out of state to seek the best possible treatment. Are we all going to be subject to that or just those who don't have their own health insurance? I guess the bottom line is that it will never be "fair." Everyone will never have access to the same treatment, not and it still be exceptional.

I do understand about preventative medicine, but some of the worst diseases are not currently preventable, at least not with pills. That is a lifestyle issue and out of the government's control.

Prof, maybe I'm missing your point and you certainly have more experience with healthcare than I do, but I struggle to see how preventative medicine can offset the cost of this system.

Joe

 

[OCBob]

Hey Scott and Joe. I realize that what you had in mind wasn't really a tough shit for my family. I was merely trying to put a face (so to speak) on the issue.

It wasn't that long ago that I was a single guy making big bucks and spending big bucks. So I was taxed coming and going, and I paid a whole lot of money into the "system".

But, a couple of bad breaks (and maybe a couple of bad decisions) and here I am. I could have gotten Cobra when I was let go. At a cost of close to $2k a month! That's a tough nut to crack when you are unemployed. And the thing is, it can happen to anybody.

But it isn't just me I'm talking about. I believe with all my heart that every child born in this country deserves every chance we can give them to succeed. Health care and education are paramount to this. If we want to continue to be a world leader, this is something that we must do.

And I also believe that it is cheaper in the long run, on both issues. It's a lot cheaper to send someone to school than it is to send them to prison. It's a lot cheaper to give a kid an inoculation, than to treat a communicable disease later on.

And the money is there. I'm sure I could find it if given the opportunity. Way too many handouts and pork projects exist, politics at it's finest.

 

[supercar1of1]

Are We Safer?

On the stump, Barack Obama usually concludes his comments on Iraq by saying, "and it hasn't made us safer." It is an article of faith on the left that nothing the Bush administration has done has enhanced our security, and, on the contrary, its various alleged blunders have only contributed to the number of jihadists who want to attack us.

Empirically, however, it seems beyond dispute that something has made us safer since 2001. Over the course of the Bush administration, successful attacks on the United States and its interests overseas have dwindled to virtually nothing.

Some perspective here is required. While most Americans may not have been paying attention, a considerable number of terrorist attacks on America and American interests abroad were launched from the 1980s forward, too many of which were successful. What follows is a partial history:

1988
February: Marine Corps Lt. Colonel Higgens, Chief of the U.N. Truce Force, was kidnapped and murdered by Hezbollah.
December: Pan Am flight 103 from London to New York was blown up over Scotland, killing 270 people, including 35 from Syracuse University and a number of American military personnel.

1991
November: American University in Beirut bombed.

1993
January: A Pakistani terrorist opened fire outside CIA headquarters, killing two agents and wounding three.
February: World Trade Center bombed, killing six and injuring more than 1,000.

1995
January: Operation Bojinka, Osama bin Laden's plan to blow up 12 airliners over the Pacific Ocean, discovered.
November: Five Americans killed in attack on a U.S. Army office in Saudi Arabia.

1996
June: Truck bomb at Khobar Towers kills 19 American servicemen and injures 240.
June: Terrorist opens fire at top of Empire State Building, killing one.

1997
February: Palestinian opens fire at top of Empire State Building, killing one and wounding more than a dozen.
November: Terrorists murder four American oil company employees in Pakistan.

1998
January: U.S. Embassy in Peru bombed.
August: Simultaneous bomb attacks on U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania killed more than 300 people and injured over 5,000.

1999
October: Egypt Air flight 990 crashed off the coast of Massachusetts, killing 100 Americans among the more than 200 on board; the pilot yelled "Allahu Akbar!" as he steered the airplane into the ocean.

2000
October: A suicide boat exploded next to the U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 American sailors and injuring 39.

2001
September: Terrorists with four hijacked airplanes kill around 3,000 Americans in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.
December: Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber," tries to blow up a transatlantic flight, but is stopped by passengers.

The September 11 attack was a propaganda triumph for al Qaeda, celebrated by a dismaying number of Muslims around the world. Everyone expected that it would draw more Muslims to bin Laden's cause and that more such attacks would follow. In fact, though, what happened was quite different: the pace of successful jihadist attacks against the United States slowed, decelerated further after the onset of the Iraq war, and has now dwindled to essentially zero. Here is the record:

2002
October: Diplomat Laurence Foley murdered in Jordan, in an operation planned, directed and financed by Zarqawi in Iraq, perhaps with the complicity of Saddam's government.

2003
May: Suicide bombers killed 10 Americans, and killed and wounded many others, at housing compounds for westerners in Saudi Arabia.
October: More bombings of United States housing compounds in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killed 26 and injured 160.

2004
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

2005
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

2006
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

2007
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

2008
So far, there have been no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

I have omitted from the above accounting a few "lone wolf" Islamic terrorist incidents, like the Washington, D.C. snipers, the Egyptian who attacked the El Al counter in Los Angeles, and an incident or two when a Muslim driver steered his vehicle into a crowd. These are, in a sense, exceptions that prove the rule, since the "lone wolves" were not, as far as we know, in contact with international Islamic terrorist groups and therefore could not have been detected by surveillance of terrorist conversations or interrogations of al Qaeda leaders.

It should also be noted that the decline in attacks on the U.S. was not the result of jihadists abandoning the field. Our government stopped a number of incipient attacks and broke up several terrorist cells, while Islamic terrorists continued to carry out successful attacks around the world, in England, Spain, Russia, Pakistan, Israel, Indonesia and elsewhere.

There are a number of possible reasons why our government's actions after September 11 may have made us safer. Overthrowing the Taliban and depriving al Qaeda of its training grounds in Afghanistan certainly impaired the effectiveness of that organization. Waterboarding three top al Qaeda leaders for a minute or so apiece may have given us the vital information we needed to head off plots in progress and to kill or apprehend three-quarters of al Qaeda's leadership. The National Security Agency's eavesdropping on international terrorist communications may have allowed us to identify and penetrate cells here in the U.S., as well as to identify and kill terrorists overseas. We may have penetrated al Qaeda's communications network, perhaps through the mysterious Naeem Noor Khan, whose laptop may have been the 21st century equivalent of the Enigma machine. Al Qaeda's announcement that Iraq is the central front in its war against the West, and its call for jihadis to find their way to Iraq to fight American troops, may have distracted the terrorists from attacks on the United States. The fact that al Qaeda loyalists gathered in Iraq, where they have been decimated by American and Iraqi troops, may have crippled their ability to launch attacks elsewhere. The conduct of al Qaeda in Iraq, which revealed that it is an organization of sociopaths, not freedom fighters, may have destroyed its credibility in the Islamic world. The Bush administration's skillful diplomacy may have convinced other nations to take stronger actions against their own domestic terrorists. (This certainly happened in Saudi Arabia, for whatever reason.) Our intelligence agencies may have gotten their act together after decades of failure. The Department of Homeland Security, despite its moments of obvious lameness, may not be as useless as many of us had thought.

No doubt there are officials inside the Bush administration who could better allocate credit among these, and probably other, explanations of our success in preventing terrorist attacks. But based on the clear historical record, it is obvious that the Bush administration has done something since 2001 that has dramatically improved our security against such attacks. To fail to recognize this, and to rail against the Bush administration's security policies as failures or worse, is to sow the seeds of greatly increased susceptibility to terrorist attack in the next administration.
John H. Hinderaker

 

[bigike]

There is no such thing as uninsured in America.

It is unlawful to not treat someone that needs care. You don't even have to pay. But it is good to repay when you can.

You also need to align yourself to other opportunities that offer health care. Maybe less hourly, less cable, less high speed internet, less big screen tv, less car, for more health care.

A lot of folks talk about what they can't afford, but never take into account what they are choosing to afford and could do without to free up money's for the more important things. Handing over the most important industry to government is not the answer.

Hell why not have the gov pay for my house when i can't afford it, why not have them pay for my car as i can't survive without it, how bout my kids cloths because they need that also. Where would we stop the government paying for the things that we can't afford?

If I lost my job today I'd have to restructure pretty quickly and make hard decisions but the top of my list would be a getting a job with health care and a livable wage, and always keep my feelers out for better opportunities.

RIP Chief Tripplet.................. USS COLE......................... MY MENTOR AND FRIEND............. shame on you Clinton for what
you did not do.

Also............ Kids usually start out as Democrats until they start earning money, then turn Republican. As they reach retirement sometimes relying on others again they make the switch back to democrats. It's a viscous cycle.

 

[TheSickness]

LOL damn :argh:

 

[Black1]

OK, so everybody is against health care for those that can't afford it? Interesting. If you don't have the cash to pay, you and your children don't deserve to be afforded health care.

Well, I can't afford insurance for my kids right now. But I have paid more than my share of taxes into the system, not to mention the years I gave in service. So I guess my family is just shit out of luck, huh? Like I said, interesting.

It is interesting... I don't have any health insurance either. But, I don't complain that someone needs to come to my rescue. My wisdom teeth have needed removed for over 5 years now. I get migraines every day from them pushing on my other teeth. But, I keep them clean, and try to hold out until I can afford to get them removed. Sarah doesn't have health care either. She does have "needs" that need to be addressed and goes to the clinic regularly. Even though it's a "free" clinic, she still has to pay because she "makes too much money" (read: she has a job). She doesn't complain either... it's cheaper than paying $400/month in insurance ($1200/month for both of us). Unemployed folks, and poverty stricken families have many options, in bigger cities, for health care needs... There are free clinics everywhere. These clinics (at least here, and in MI) are staffed by Doctors that have there own practice and volunteer their time in a rotation. Sure, you may have to wait a while in the waiting room, but we can't have it all now can we. Me and Sarah have had excellent care, when we needed it, through these clinics... we had to pay... but, it was cheaper than lining some HMO's pockets.

 

[Venom Power]

WOW this thread turned out to be some really great reading material. Like Prof said, you guys rock. I sure wish we could all meet up face to face over a few beers and hammer this debate out together. That would be a really interesting discussion. But for now we'll just watch and see how our new presumtive Democratic nominee will measure up leading to November.

No matter who runs the country it is evident that the old notion, "you can please some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time," is always in in full effect. Being commander in chief is a tough job that I certainly wouldn't want.