|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 21, 2010 21:11:49 GMT
the problem is that das has thus far been unable to comprehend the simple reality that health care is the absolute RIGHT of every man, woman, and child, regardless of their ability to pay, and that it is the responsibility of those who can pay, to pay for those who can't. there's nothing difficult to comprehend about such a simple fact, but, there are some who refuse to You would be booted out the Labour Party for believing that!!!!! naw. i would never be so stupid as to belong to such an ignorant group. i would never register republican here, so i sure wouldn't be labour there. i ALWAYS choose truth over ideology, and truth is anathema to republicans and labour of course, the name is a lie to begin with, since they are so anti labor
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 21, 2010 21:14:47 GMT
No worries riotgrrl - I agree with what you said. Wouldn't dream of thinking you were annoying. I agree it's an open debate about the best systems for the future and a lot of what the USA does has much to commend it. I don't see it as a p*ssing contest between the two systems. We should learn from each other and anyone who reads The Lancet and BMJ will see that, among professionals, that is what is happening. But I too hate the way the NHS is often so falsely portrayed in the USA, just as dislike urban myths about US medicine. the thing is, the medicine in the u.s. is the best in the world. the delivery system is the worst
|
|
|
Post by beth on Feb 22, 2010 2:17:07 GMT
Well, this is a no-brainer. Since the holidays, less propaganda has been pumped out by the usual suspects (health insurance companies via right wing politicians)) because they had high hopes health care reform had been dealt a serious blow and would either die amid partisan bickering or be passed as a pale facsimile of the original effort. Likewise, there has been less commentary about the Democratic pledge to let the tax breaks for the wealthy run their course and fold, possibly because somebody, somewhere, believed the tea party cries against high taxes would cause the Democrats in congress to fear rocking the boat. Now, over the past week, it's become pretty obvious health care reform IS going to be a reality . . . and, those in the upper income brackets ARE going to lose their wriggle room and pick up their tax burden again. Clearly, both situations call for the right-wing water carriers to fill the pails and go to work. Don't work up a lather, das. I trust it's all wasted effort this time.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 22, 2010 14:57:49 GMT
unfortunately, it looks like they're just going to try and rollback the unconscionable premium increases. that is simply not good enough. if they set the amount that insurance companies could charge at a reasonable, $200 a month for a family of four, amount, that would fix part of the problem, but still wouldn't solve the problem of the people who can't even afford that. total price controls would be a baby step in the right direction, but a long way from giving EVERYONE the health care that they are entitiled to
|
|
|
Post by beth on Feb 22, 2010 15:22:32 GMT
unfortunately, it looks like they're just going to try and rollback the unconscionable premium increases. that is simply not good enough. if they set the amount that insurance companies could charge at a reasonable, $200 a month for a family of four, amount, that would fix part of the problem, but still wouldn't solve the problem of the people who can't even afford that. total price controls would be a baby step in the right direction, but a long way from giving EVERYONE the health care that they are entitled to Keep watching. Rumor has it the final bill will be better that that - possibly because Harry Reid and others have awoken to the fact that a notable majority of the voting public want it that way. Might come to nothing, but I still have a hope or two.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 22, 2010 17:25:21 GMT
unfortunately, it looks like they're just going to try and rollback the unconscionable premium increases. that is simply not good enough. if they set the amount that insurance companies could charge at a reasonable, $200 a month for a family of four, amount, that would fix part of the problem, but still wouldn't solve the problem of the people who can't even afford that. total price controls would be a baby step in the right direction, but a long way from giving EVERYONE the health care that they are entitled to Keep watching. Rumor has it the final bill will be better that that - possibly because Harry Reid and others have awoken to the fact that a notable majority of the voting public want it that way. Might come to nothing, but I still have a hope or two. you're more optimistic than i am. the republicans could care less how many people die, as long as cigna makes an unconscionable profit, and they do have enough votes in the senate to stonewall giving people healthcare
|
|
|
Post by beth on Feb 25, 2010 14:59:39 GMT
The shrieking and wailing has ramped up to a roar this a.m.. Anyone interested in seeing a couple of U.K. health care smears - check out The Drudge Report. It's getting more attention than the weather report - showing we're in line for blizzard like conditions. By tonight, if things don't go to suit them, little rightie heads are going to be popping off across the land. This article is somewhat informative. robertreich.org/post/402861360/its-time-to-enact-health-care-with-51-senate-votes
|
|
|
Post by clemiethedog on Feb 25, 2010 15:06:32 GMT
"I am suprised they haven't claimed the NHS was started by Nazis"
Actually the fanatics who comprise the Tea Bagger movement have made such claims.
|
|
|
Post by Ben Lomond on Feb 28, 2010 18:28:19 GMT
A query for our American cousins. I understand that under your health system, even those millions who have no medical insurance have access to emergency treatment. At least I think they do. But what is their position if they need long term and ongoing medical care (eg cancer, or HIV and the like), and what is their position if they need treatment that is not an emergency, and is not life threatening (EG. a new hip joint, and the like) If they can't pay, and they have no insurance...what do they do? ?
|
|
|
Post by june on Feb 28, 2010 19:58:46 GMT
A query for our American cousins. I understand that under your health system, even those millions who have no medical insurance have access to emergency treatment. At least I think they do. But what is their position if they need long term and ongoing medical care (eg cancer, or HIV and the like), and what is their position if they need treatment that is not an emergency, and is not life threatening (EG. a new hip joint, and the like) If they can't pay, and they have no insurance...what do they do? ? die in pain I think
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Feb 28, 2010 20:05:57 GMT
"Total price controls would be a baby step in the right direction, but a long way from giving EVERYONE the health care that they are entitiled to GULP! No one is really entitled to something that they can't afford. The government has no money. The only way they can get it is to confiscate it from the citizens in the form of unfair taxes earmarked for redistribution to others. I'm not against health care, food, clothng, shelter, and a comfortable life for everyone. However, I am strongly opposed to income redistribution by government. If you can figure out how to pay for it without confiscation and redistribution then count me in.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Mar 1, 2010 13:44:32 GMT
"Total price controls would be a baby step in the right direction, but a long way from giving EVERYONE the health care that they are entitled to GULP! No one is really entitled to something that they can't afford. The government has no money. The only way they can get it is to confiscate it from the citizens in the form of unfair taxes earmarked for redistribution to others. I'm not against health care, food, clothng, shelter, and a comfortable life for everyone. However, I am strongly opposed to income redistribution by government. If you can figure out how to pay for it without confiscation and redistribution then count me in. Would "unfair taxes" be your take on allowing Bush's huge tax breaks for the wealthy to run down and out without renewal? If so, I submit to you that the taxes are fair, the breaks were not.
|
|
|
Post by clemiethedog on Mar 1, 2010 14:11:03 GMT
"If you can figure out how to pay for it without confiscation and redistribution then count me in."
What you call 'confiscation' is what Oliver W. Holmes (a Republican) called the price of civilization. And the fairest method, that is the most efficient, is to tax the wealthy at a higher rate. This concept comes from Adam Smith, a free-market kind of guy.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 1, 2010 14:11:13 GMT
A query for our American cousins. I understand that under your health system, even those millions who have no medical insurance have access to emergency treatment. At least I think they do. But what is their position if they need long term and ongoing medical care (eg cancer, or HIV and the like), and what is their position if they need treatment that is not an emergency, and is not life threatening (EG. a new hip joint, and the like) If they can't pay, and they have no insurance...what do they do? ? they die. you're right that everyone can get emergency treatment. it is against the law for an emergency room to refuse to treat someone. however, once they are stabilized, and no longer in danger of dying today, they are booted out. actually, if someone has an illness or injury that disables them for more than a year, they can apply for ssi or social security disability, and will then have medicare or medicaid. of course, the average time to be approved for either is two years, so, in the case of something which, if left untreated, will kill you in less than that, you are shyt out of luck
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 1, 2010 14:13:48 GMT
"Total price controls would be a baby step in the right direction, but a long way from giving EVERYONE the health care that they are entitiled to GULP! No one is really entitled to something that they can't afford. The government has no money. The only way they can get it is to confiscate it from the citizens in the form of unfair taxes earmarked for redistribution to others. I'm not against health care, food, clothng, shelter, and a comfortable life for everyone. However, I am strongly opposed to income redistribution by government. If you can figure out how to pay for it without confiscation and redistribution then count me in. it's called government programs lad. the "confiscation and redistribution" idiocy is nothing more than your hallucinations, and the hallucinations of nutjobs such as rush, ann, and sean, along with glenn of course
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 1, 2010 14:15:07 GMT
GULP! No one is really entitled to something that they can't afford. The government has no money. The only way they can get it is to confiscate it from the citizens in the form of unfair taxes earmarked for redistribution to others. I'm not against health care, food, clothng, shelter, and a comfortable life for everyone. However, I am strongly opposed to income redistribution by government. If you can figure out how to pay for it without confiscation and redistribution then count me in. Would "unfair taxes" be your take on allowing Bush's huge tax breaks for the wealthy to run down and out without renewal? If so, I submit to you that the taxes are fair, the breaks were not. but, but, but, that is reality, which is anathema to those as deluded as das
|
|
|
Post by Ben Lomond on Mar 1, 2010 16:30:00 GMT
A query for our American cousins. I understand that under your health system, even those millions who have no medical insurance have access to emergency treatment. At least I think they do. But what is their position if they need long term and ongoing medical care (eg cancer, or HIV and the like), and what is their position if they need treatment that is not an emergency, and is not life threatening (EG. a new hip joint, and the like) If they can't pay, and they have no insurance...what do they do? ? they die. you're right that everyone can get emergency treatment. it is against the law for an emergency room to refuse to treat someone. however, once they are stabilized, and no longer in danger of dying today, they are booted out. actually, if someone has an illness or injury that disables them for more than a year, they can apply for ssi or social security disability, and will then have medicare or medicaid. of course, the average time to be approved for either is two years, so, in the case of something which, if left untreated, will kill you in less than that, you are shyt out of luck Then really it is no contest. America provides excellent health care for those who can afford it; probably with better results than are achieve by our NHS. But the NHS provides such all inclusive treatments to all comers. Our waiting times for non urgent procedures could be improved, and in fact things ARE getting better in this area. So on fairness and a civilised approach to medical care for all, the NHS wins hands down!. Like I say, it really is no contest!
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 1, 2010 21:02:05 GMT
they die. you're right that everyone can get emergency treatment. it is against the law for an emergency room to refuse to treat someone. however, once they are stabilized, and no longer in danger of dying today, they are booted out. actually, if someone has an illness or injury that disables them for more than a year, they can apply for ssi or social security disability, and will then have medicare or medicaid. of course, the average time to be approved for either is two years, so, in the case of something which, if left untreated, will kill you in less than that, you are shyt out of luck Then really it is no contest. America provides excellent health care for those who can afford it; probably with better results than are achieve by our NHS. But the NHS provides such all inclusive treatments to all comers. Our waiting times for non urgent procedures could be improved, and in fact things ARE getting better in this area. So on fairness and a civilised approach to medical care for all, the NHS wins hands down!. Like I say, it really is no contest! no, it's not. i said before that the u.s. has the best medical care in the world, but the worst delivery of it in the western world
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Mar 1, 2010 21:25:30 GMT
Then really it is no contest. America provides excellent health care for those who can afford it; probably with better results than are achieve by our NHS. But the NHS provides such all inclusive treatments to all comers. Our waiting times for non urgent procedures could be improved, and in fact things ARE getting better in this area. So on fairness and a civilised approach to medical care for all, the NHS wins hands down!. Like I say, it really is no contest! no, it's not. i said before that the u.s. has the best medical care in the world, but the worst delivery of it in the western world On a point of logic.... If the care is delivered so badly it cannot be the best. If anything happens to me, I can waltz into A&E no problem. If anything, American health care is without doubt the most expensive and it is far from universal.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 2, 2010 14:05:22 GMT
no, it's not. i said before that the u.s. has the best medical care in the world, but the worst delivery of it in the western world On a point of logic.... If the care is delivered so badly it cannot be the best. If anything happens to me, I can waltz into A&E no problem. If anything, American health care is without doubt the most expensive and it is far from universal. you're right. i phrased it badly. we have the best doctors in the world. by definition, health insurance companies are identical to incompetent furniture movers. you pay for the best piece of furniture around, but the movers nick and scratch it up in bringing it to you. you end up with the best piece of furniture around that looks like shyt
|
|