Universal Healthcare

Remove all ads!

I don't think that's true in the South. I could be wrong but the urban centers in places like Al, MI, TN, SC, OK and Georgia are still pretty red. In my own state, TX, only two counties, Harris (Houston) and Dallas, went for Obama, while every other country in the state went for McCain. While both those counties are certainly urban, there were some other urban areas that went for McCain. But I think generally speaking, you are right.

 

This was an interesting article. It appears that more than just the right wing nutcases are opposing health care reform.

The Democrat's Senior Problem

As I said in one of my first posts ... shore up medicare and medicaid. Without that, you will not get the senior vote.

 

What a surprise this is:

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsme..._hoping_for_riot_at_rep_scotts_to.php?ref=fpa

You are still entitled to that opinion, T2. But older Americans would not benefit from a new govenment health care plan; most of them are already on one (Meidicare).

 

Did you read the article Chandos? It pretty much sums up that the older Americans see the reform as taking things away from them...

Although this sounds fairly accurate:

I think the key thing to take away from this is the seniors are not really happy with medicare as it is -- they accept it, and are glad to have something -- and any talk of taking anything away from the program just fuels a fire that the democrats will not be able to control. If there are improvements in the medicare system, the money needs to stay in the medicare system, not be funnelled to health care reform. Anything else will bring the AARP community out in force in 2010 and 2012.

 

I agree with this, but see it as more of a political reality than an actual one. There are a lot of corporate handouts currently in the medicare system, and cutting them may actually produce more funds than what are needed to shore up medicare. The pragmatic approach would be to trim the fat in medicare, use the freed funds to shore it up, and use what's left (if there's anything left after shoring up medicare, of course) to help fund health-care reform, but this will be impossible politically.

The corporations losing their handouts will go on the offensive and our seniors will look at any decrease in medicare spending -- whether the decrease affects them or not (or even if they benefit from it) -- as a cut. They can and will block such efforts.

In my mind, then, the best political move is to stop the corporate handouts entirely, improve efficiency where necessary, shore up the system where it is under-funded, and run medicare at a surplus for a few years in order to demonstrate that the excess money is not (and was not) needed there. After a few years of running medicare at a surplus, I doubt anyone will be able to credibly complain that we're "cutting" medicare when excess funding gets redirected.

 

Yes, I did read the article, and as I said, you are entitled to your opinion. My take on the article is the same as everything else in this debate: one side is trying to get reform and the other is trying to scare the hell out of everyone, including seniors.

You keep raniting that those on Medicare are unhappy, but I've yet to see that be the case, since there are a lot of seniors who have retired with some substantial investents and can afford private insurance (like my mom), but still take Medicare because they really don't see any difference. As I keep saying, you are entitled to your opinions about Medicare, and I have no problem with you voicing them - I just don't agree with much of what you are saying. You obviously don't believe Obama's comments on the Medicare issue - that's fine. But IMO, he has way more credibility than most of those on the other side of the issue, thusly I'm more inclinded to believe him. That's my opinion.

Edit - Here's the link to find out more about Medicare Advantage. Take a look at who is offering the plan (hint: it ain't the government).

http://www.humana-medicare.com/ad/i...m_guid=1-_-100000000000000009274-_-2639273603

This is right off the AARP website:

http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourhealth...rent_sure_healthcare_system_needs_repair.html

 

I need to rant for a bit.

I'm so annoyed with the Democrats at this point. I new that any type of single-payer system was never going to happen. That proposal was pretty much DoA in Congress. But I still had high hopes. Then they got rid of the personal mandate. Now there is talk about dropping the public option. This is not health care reform. It is now barely health insurance reform.

I can't believe they cannot get the 60 Democratic senators to agree to a plan. Bipartisanship has to go out the window at this point. Whether you make a compromise with the Republicans or not, you are getting exactly zero Republican votes for this. There's nothing to gain by continuing the debate. If health care is going to get done this year, it is the Democrats who are going to have to do it. The longer this drags out, the messier it's going to get.

I guess the star-studded medical plan that Congressmen get does not pay for testicle replacement surgury, because some of these Democrat senators really need to grow a set. Maybe they should give Hillary a call and see if they can borrow hers.

 

Hillary's set. Heh Heh. I like that.

You know, I don't care what system is enacted. As my Dad used to quote from a source I do not know, "the rich get richer, and the poor die young". It doesn't matter if you've got Universal health care or 100% capitalistism, that truism will never change.

 

It's Obama who needs of grow a set. The first thing he should do is put together a good bill - one that he believes will solve the coming health care crisis. Second, he should go tell the Republicans this is it, take or leave it. That is largely what Republicans did to the Democrats for the last 6 years. Last, he should tell Democrats to have their vote. Those who vote for, or against it will be on record with voters. If the vote passes he has reform; if not, then we can wait for the poop to hit the fan.

Regarding all the flap about Medicare: Obama can get the funding he needs to save it. Or he can ask all those seniors how they feel about having to buy their own private insurance and see how that flies with the voters who don't like the "government option." Of course, he will have to convince the big fat insurance companies, who don't like to take sick people, how they feel about having 50 million new customers who require enormous amounts of money to care for, rather than all those young and middle-aged workers who they have now. The insurance companies will really like that switch. Problem solved.

 

C'mon Chandos - you know it doesn't work that way. Even when Bush was in office he did not write major legislation that was sent directly to a vote on the floor. When you're talking about this kind of money, it's going to have to go through committees. Now, I do agree that Obama should be doing some serious arm-twisting this month. We're about half way through the August recess, and I'm hoping the Dems are more organized when they return.

 

Aldeth - I know, I wasn't really serious about that part, but I was about crafting a bill (with Dems in Congress) that he believed in, rather than giving most of it away just to get "a bill."

Now that you mention it, Aldeth, I wanted to include a bit of how GWB operated with Congress on his major bill regarding health care reform:

Much like Obama, it appears that Bush had just as much trouble with his own party. But he found a few "interesting" ways to overcome some objections.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Prescription_Drug,_Improvement,_and_Modernization_Act

 

One of the most absurd moments in the US so-called health care debate was when the US Investor's Business Daily has said that if Stephen Hawking were British, he would be dead because British socialised medicine ... death panels ... would have considered him unworthy of life. Well, Stephen Hawking is both British and not dead.

Right wing nuts or nut impersonators like Glenn Beck like to say that the US has the best healthcare system in the world, and, for good measure ... speakers of the parliament of Australia!!! ... Well, however true or deluded that may be, as far as standard of treatment is concerned old socialist Europe doesn't look all that bad, just watch the video below.

​

 

This is a great essay and a glimpse into how propaganda works in America:

This is interesting as well:

You can read more:

http://www.rense.com/general12/believe.htm

 

Hello all, I have been away for sometime, but my summer work is now over!

I have read through this topic a bit, but I'll admit that I definitely have not read all of the posts. I also understand that this discussion relates mostly to Healthcare in the United States. However, recently there have been critics of President Obama's healthcare plan stating that if American healthcare moves public to be similar to Canada's problems will arise. There were even comparisons to former Soviet trouble providing public health, and the shortages and mismanagements that happened under a Communist government.

I have recently gotten into the habit of reading public opinion polls (I know, I know... can be very inaccurate). There have been two polls released recently by two different polling firms that show Canadian opinion on public health.

EKOS Politics released a report stating that Canadians were generally approving of Obama, mixed about the idea of a two-party democracy, and loving of their public health.

Harris/Decima released a similar report but showed a lot more love for the Canadian system, and a lot more distaste for the American one.

 

Best healthcare system in the world? My a**, Glenn Beck!

Hah, the top five myths on Healthcare. I only post that article because it says so many nice things about Germany ...

I wonder from where the R's take the demented notion that rules of the market only apply in the 'Only Free Country In The World™', America. The Rest Of the World (ROW) must calculate, too, because the iron laws of the market transcend borders, and the ROW, miraculously, gets along, and, in some respects better than in the US. Maybe the US ought to consider being ... 'competitive' ?

 

This is the one point that I'll take issue with. And not so much that it's wrong as that it's misleading. The majority of appointments in the US are pre-scheduled on a regular basis. For example, dental checkups every 6 months, and they're usually scheduled at the end of the last checkup. That's a 6 month 'wait', but it's not waste. Now, I don't know how that compares to how it's done in Europe, but there's not much you could do to improve that system. The only way to reduce the 'wait' time would be to schedule appointments more frequently.

As for surgeries, note the selective language there. They apparently have a lower wait time for elective surgeries, meaning unnecessary things like Botox, cosmetic surgery, and the like. Necessary surgeries are something else altogether, and the article is conspicuously silent on them. These are the things people are worried about. I don't think anyone's worried about being forced to wait longer for their cleft pallet to be corrected, but rather waiting for things like Dialysis, appendectomies, and heart bypasses.

 

That would not surprise me, since a lot of our wait times are horrendous. And the last time I took a co-worker to the emergency room here in Houston, we were told that the wait was so long, that we may as well drive to another hospital. In the emergency room! Talk about "rationed" care....

Before my dad retired from the police force, he had to take my mom to the emergency room on his side of town. He was in uniform, since it was an emergency, and the wait was so long, that my dad threatened to arrest the guy behind the desk. It worked, since they took my mom a few moments later. Really, it's a true story. My dad loves to tell it.

Here's an example what this debate is like at the moment. The opposition is even heckling sick people in wheelchairs:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/32672017#32672017

 

And how is Obamacare going to make this better? An emergency room is run on a triage basis. How quickly they see a patient is a factor of how busy the emergency room is, how serious the issues is, and how many doctors are on staff.

If you really want to talk about rationing and wait periods, why don't you compare the wait times for knee replacements.

 

Obamacare? What's that? Let me know, Snook, when you are willing to have an adult conversation about the shortcomings of the different bills being decided on by congress.