Thanks Obama

[victoriavengeance (1)]

ew. thanks gaf. ugh.

I don't agree with paying for people's abortions either.

but that's a totally different can of worms I won't open.

[phee]

ew. thanks gaf. ugh.

I don't agree with paying for people's abortions either.

but that's a totally different can of worms I won't open.

mmmm aborted worms.....

[Scar My Machine]

As a Canadian I can say that this is a load of crap that has been fed to your entire country. I can always get into my doctor's office the day that I call for an appointment and it doesn't cost me a dime.

Wait times for procedures are also minimal. I have a close friend that recently had a tumor removed from his spine and it only took 3 weeks from the initial phone call to his family doctor until his actual surgery. This included 2 MRI's and a visit with the surgeon. FYI, this is in a city with a so-called "shortage" of neurosurgeons. Three weeks is comparable to the time it took my American boyfriend to have his brain tumor removed in Michigan. The difference? My boyfriend had a $100,000 hospital bill and my friend payed for nothing thanks to our free health care. I will take our Canadian health care, thanks.

Well this helps to kill the scare tactics that the anti national health care pundits have been using as part of their argument. "Obamacare is just like the Canadian health care system and it sucks. Canadians hate it. You'll die before you see a doctor.....ect."

And, it hasn't killed their economy.

When you believe scare tactics you end up missing the truth.

[Scar My Machine]

In my subjective opinion works the system well. You get treatment directly and the additional costs for medication are minor.

Nearly every treatment is covered even gender reassignment surgery and abortion.

Maybe the system could get instable in a few years because of changing demography.

so far

According to the anti free health care people your countries health care system also sucks because that's what they either read or are told by the health insurance companies that fear competition/profit loss.

[Slogo]

The demo-reps, are tearing this fucking country apart!

Anytime I can bring this into conversation...I do

[phee]

I was listening to NPR on the way home last night (I know I am such Socialist Liberal Jerk-Wad for listening to such dribble... but anyway) But there was a British economist on who said "With all due respect your current healthcare system is crazy, people in America pay more and get less than every other developed country on earth."

He did admit that several other healthcare systems are imperfect, but the very thought that those who cannot pay simply do not get treated the same as those who can was off. He mentioned Germany as a fairly decent system for example.

I guess what I am asking is... financial welfare vs. social justice.... where should the line be drawn?

[Scar My Machine]

I guess what I am asking is... financial welfare vs. social justice.... where should the line be drawn?

We should give corporate welfare only to the most financially wealthy (because our country depends on them making more money for our survival) and deny as much as possible to the less fortunate whom have obviously not worked very hard and therefor are undeserving of the same kind of handouts er, bailout that wealthy wall street investors/banks are entitled too. They have worked hard enough to deserve my tax dollar without my having a say in it.

It's the only way our nation will prosper, didn't you know Phee?

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

free health

Does not exist. Anywhere.

Someone always has to pay. You (leftist sheep who support "free healthcare") can't seem to grasp that. You all seem to be perfectly happy letting hard working people pay your salary (unemployment checks for up to 4 years) and your "free" healthcare. All the while bitching that the people you are forcing to pay your way in life dont want to do it.

[phee]

According to the anti free health care people your countries health care system also sucks because that's what they either read or are told by the health insurance companies that fear competition/profit loss.

Just so people can see where the "Free Health Care" quote came from in it's original context.

Does not exist. Anywhere.

Someone always has to pay. You (leftist sheep who support "free healthcare") can't seem to grasp that. You all seem to be perfectly happy letting hard working people pay your salary (unemployment checks for up to 4 years) and your "free" healthcare. All the while bitching that the people you are forcing to pay your way in life dont want to do it.

And I am working about 60 hours a week, and I have never been on unemployment.

And again... (Making the comparison)... why are you so perfectly happy for Troy/donaters/mods upkeep DGN that you use for free... Free Website... if you hold to the principle that such a thing is so wrong for those who pay to support those who get things for free?

[Scar My Machine]

Does not exist. Anywhere.

Someone always has to pay. You (leftist sheep who support "free healthcare") can't seem to grasp that. You all seem to be perfectly happy letting hard working people pay your salary (unemployment checks for up to 4 years) and your "free" healthcare. All the while bitching that the people you are forcing to pay your way in life dont want to do it.

You know me so well. You know how hard I've worked and just everything about my life in general.

I don't call it free, I call it national health care. I'm talking about a health care plan that those that don't/can't afford it now pay into in an attempt to get medical coverage.

You on the other hand, seem to be content with thinking that anyone like myself that understands the difference and is not supporting your side is somehow clueless/un educated and somehow must not work and is therefore expecting a hand out from you.

You are so wrong and uninformed it's not even real. You can continue to believe whatever helps you sleep at night but if you are so against our nation having a national health care system (because it's socialist) then back up your words and pay back the free education you got and if you have children in school, put them in a private school and stop freeloading on tax payers whom are paying their education.

I am not one to favor hypocrites whom only want the "free" (as you call it) things that benefit them.

And sir, I have worked harder in life than you would ever be willing to acknowledge so please, stop talking about me as if I don't work for a living and have only gotten your tax money to live on.

You support corporate welfare (from what I read I gather this since you have not denounced it) but God forbid the people of America (whom spoke when they elected Obama) should be allowed to have some kind of health care plan.

[Scar My Machine]

And I asked Gaff to post links to back up his statements but are not seeing any such links.

I guess if you simply say, this blah blah blah, is the truth then it must be true.

Am I allowed to do the same Gaff?

I have linked the reason why I disapprove private health care companies. They allow people to die in an attempt to save money. Two people on DGN from the two countries I hear conservatives claim have horrible national health care system state the opposite. They like their health care system.

So, where's your proof that their countries have bad national health care?

I think it would be hella awesome if our country had something like they have in Canada. But the conservative supporters say no, it's scocialism which will lead to communism (and as we all know, Canada is a very communist country) but the truth is, the wealthy corporate CEO's are the ones that are lobbying against national health care because they stand to lose the mose. Most profits that is.

Edited December 7, 2010 by Scar My Machine

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

You know me so well. You know how hard I've worked and just everything about my life in general.

I don't call it free, I call it national health care. I'm talking about a health care plan that those that don't/can't afford it now pay into in an attempt to get medical coverage.

You on the other hand, seem to be content with thinking that anyone like myself that understands the difference and is not supporting your side is somehow clueless/un educated and somehow must not work and is therefore expecting a hand out from you.

You are so wrong and uninformed it's not even real. You can continue to believe whatever helps you sleep at night but if you are so against our nation having a national health care system (because it's socialist) then back up your words and pay back the free education you got and if you have children in school, put them in a private school and stop freeloading on tax payers whom are paying their education.

I am not one to favor hypocrites whom only want the "free" (as you call it) things that benefit them.

And sir, I have worked harder in life than you would ever be willing to acknowledge so please, stop talking about me as if I don't work for a living and have only gotten your tax money to live on.

You support corporate welfare (from what I read I gather this since you have not denounced it) but God forbid the people of America (whom spoke when they elected Obama) should be allowed to have some kind of health care plan.

Perhaps you should read more. I am and was whole hardely against the various bail outs... Bush's and Obama's. Perhaps you should stop using the words "free healthcare" if you want people to believe you don't say it.

I would be all for a national healtcare system that is going to work. What we have is a bunch of bloated handouts to special interests that is causing health care costs to rise.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Hiding the True Cost

CBO ups the cost of Healthcare reform

Edited December 7, 2010 by Gaf The Horse With Tears

[Reaper]

Personally for me, the HRA accounts worked for me. I haven't needed to use healthcare for anything serious in many years. And with an HRA I could have banked up a lot of money for something expensive that could arise. My personal national healthcare would let me use a national HRA account. Then it would give me incentive to stay healthy and bank up for a bad day. Link for what an HRA is: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/hra.asp

For people like me, I would rather have something saved up for a rainy day, which is why I favored an HRA. My employer would have $2000 into an account each year and if it went unused, another $2000 would be thrown into the account making it $4000 altogether. Each year accrued more and more. And if we wanted, we would opt an additional side insurance like AFLAC which would cover anything outside of work which was fairly cheap at $25 a week for a lot of coverage. My current Blue Cross/Blue Shield insurance is like $10 a week but we are very limited on what we get. What I am wanting more is the dental coverage which is ok, although I need to find a dentist that has no overhead. Last dentist I used sent me to a root canal specialist that ate up over $800 of my $1000 yearly. Had I went to someone who didn't have much overhead, that would be half. That is my 2 cents.

[taysteewonderbunny]

Personally for me, the HRA accounts worked for me. I haven't needed to use healthcare for anything serious in many years. And with an HRA I could have banked up a lot of money for something expensive that could arise. My personal national healthcare would let me use a national HRA account. Then it would give me incentive to stay healthy and bank up for a bad day. Link for what an HRA is: http://www.investope...terms/h/hra.asp

For people like me, I would rather have something saved up for a rainy day, which is why I favored an HRA. My employer would have $2000 into an account each year and if it went unused, another $2000 would be thrown into the account making it $4000 altogether. Each year accrued more and more. And if we wanted, we would opt an additional side insurance like AFLAC which would cover anything outside of work which was fairly cheap at $25 a week for a lot of coverage. My current Blue Cross/Blue Shield insurance is like $10 a week but we are very limited on what we get. What I am wanting more is the dental coverage which is ok, although I need to find a dentist that has no overhead. Last dentist I used sent me to a root canal specialist that ate up over $800 of my $1000 yearly. Had I went to someone who didn't have much overhead, that would be half. That is my 2 cents.

I think HRA's are an excellent supplement, but a highly inadequate substitute, for health insurance. But, I say that not knowing all the details.

Are their limits on what your HRA will pay?

What you have put forth makes it sound like you have a limit on what is being deposited annually. Does this mean that you can only draw on what you have accrued?

If that is the case, what you have may be adequate for a generally healthy person to keep tabs on general health with check-ups and the like and, perhaps, visits for minor illnesses like a persistent cold or something, but with costs the way that they are, how much are you going to be set back by something as simple as a broken arm?

My examples may be on the high end, since pins were needed in both cases, but the costs totaled out at $12,000 and $20,000 in the two cases that came up when I googled those estimates.

I want to know, if you have an expensive condition, will they pay all the costs in the first year and then usurp your funds in future years to cover those expenditures if you have drained your accrual?

What happens in the case of a chronic condition?

Though I REALLY like the idea of having people shop around for non-emergency health services (how better to make people be responsible in receiving preventive care?), in the case of life-threatening conditions or those potentially resulting in permanent impairments, I think it unethical to force the patient to try to shop around, pitting costs against quality of care. It's enough concentrating on getting well without having to worry if better care will bankrupt the family.

Edited to add: I found a better link for estimating the real costs of a broken arm, with and without surgery.

Also edited for clarity.

Edited December 12, 2010 by taysteewonderbunny

[Reaper]

That is why I said, personally, it fit for me. It wouldn't do much good for someone with many conditions or constant health drama. I have never had any broken bones or serious health conditions to date that would cost me a lot in healthcare. *knocks on wood* But yeah, you are limited in the beginning to how much you can use before you would have to pay for the rest. But as I said, for me, it would normally be continually growing without a stopping point, thus saving up for a rainy day. I don't want to have to pay out the nose for penalties for not opting into the healthcare. If they want me to stay healthy, they should give me incentives to do so. I personally think that a national healthcare would give anyone an excuse to come in for the common cold. Me? Rest, plenty of liquids, and keeping things sanitary are my incentives for staying healthy and not costing the taxpayer any money for coming in with a simple health problem.

Edit: Oh and for the broken arm thing, that is why I would opt something like AFLAC to help the costs with the health care. Its a good SUPPLEMENT for things non-work related.

Edited December 12, 2010 by Reaper

[JohnKnow70]

Unless you make over $2000,000 a year which I doubt you do as you always complain that everything is either to far away or to expensive Obama has doing nothing but benefit you're life. Those of us who follow politics are more annoyed with the Republican Just say no approach to everything. Sadly Obama has not gone far enough to the left to truly make the changes we need. If you honestly think McCain would have been a better leader to transition us into the future I have a bridge I would LOVE to sell you.

John Mccain would have been just as bad but that doesn't excuse Obama's poor record and the health care bill will only add to the deficit (the CBO redid it's projections and found it adds quite a bit) and the socialized nations are now facing budget cuts because simply put: most nations can NOT afford socialized health care. Every nation on earth that has tried it is in massive debt.

Our system needs work too and our healthcare system is also too expensive but for different reasons.

[JohnKnow70]

And I asked Gaff to post links to back up his statements but are not seeing any such links.

I guess if you simply say, this blah blah blah, is the truth then it must be true.

Am I allowed to do the same Gaff?

I have linked the reason why I disapprove private health care companies. They allow people to die in an attempt to save money. Two people on DGN from the two countries I hear conservatives claim have horrible national health care system state the opposite. They like their health care system.

So, where's your proof that their countries have bad national health care?

I think it would be hella awesome if our country had something like they have in Canada. But the conservative supporters say no, it's scocialism which will lead to communism (and as we all know, Canada is a very communist country) but the truth is, the wealthy corporate CEO's are the ones that are lobbying against national health care because they stand to lose the mose. Most profits that is.

Canada's sytem sucks and is very unpopular in Canada. In fact they ranked almost as bad as the US in the last WHO rankings

[Slogo]

Canada's sytem sucks and is very unpopular in Canada. In fact they ranked almost as bad as the US in the last WHO rankings

I'm still going to agree with the Canadian (siren) seeing as she knows more about their health care system than most of us

[JohnKnow70]

ROFL ROFL ROFL! Agian let me go back to a simple question. Have you ever been outside North America? It's always the ones with zero global perspectives that seem to think Nationalized health care does not work. Take a few minutes and look up where we rank in world in Healthcare. Had you spent in real time outside our borders you may have a more balanced perspective. I also would like to point out that raising taxes on the richest 1% will not cause anyone to lose their jobs. Facts are more important than conjecture and the fact is the disparity between the top tier earners and the lower has never been greater. This is a NOT tax increases but just letting the hugely irresponsible tax rates put in by Bush to expire. The main reason it should be let go is it's UNFUNDED which means it's making us hemorrhage money every year. You can't give a tax break without paying for it. Again if you think returning them to the proper tax rate will cause us to lose jobs you really need to come look at this bridge I have for sale it's perfect for you./

I have been all over the world and can tell you that you're wrong. Period. In Great Britain the NHS is the 3rd largest employer in the world and is growing at an alarming rate. You also sourced the WHO but we had the same health care system in the 1980's and we ranked in the top 10. The reason the US does so poorly in the WHO rankings is because of the explosion of type 2 diabetes in the U.S. which is dramatically higher than other Nations.

You also said Bush's tax cuts were irresponsible and you are wrong again, Bush took in higher tax revenues as a % of GDP than the historical 60 year average and took in more corporate tax receipts than any of the Clinton years. Much like the Reagan years, the tax cuts paid for themselves and you are spouting Democrat propaganda. Even Christine Romer, Obama's former Economic advisor, said Bush's tax cuts worked.

by the way I hate Bush and Reagan but all the left's vitriol on taxes is b.s.

Edited December 13, 2010 by JohnKnow70

[JohnKnow70]

I'm still going to agree with the Canadian (siren) seeing as she knows more about their health care system than most of us

Apparently the rest of Canada doesn't agree with Siren

http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/08/18/the-best-solution-to-canadas-healthcare-woes-according-to-an-ipsos-reid-polled/

Edited December 13, 2010 by JohnKnow70

[JohnKnow70]

Pointless War

The Economy

The Lack of Scientific Research

Education

Foreign Policy

The list goes on and on about the I told you soness of that one....

We should look at the past to make sure we don't make the same mistakes. But you're only half right in your assertions above. Yes the Iraq war was pointless, Bush's views on scientific research was absurd and his foreign policy was ill advised across the board.

Bush had nothing to do with the financial collapse, that was caused by the Housing Crisis which started because of a Global Savings Glut and the Federal Reserve setting interest rates too low which caused malinevestment. Even if you are going to say that Wall Street was deregulated (it really wasn't) and that caused Banks to do what they did - well those deregulations mostly happened during the Clinton years

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/10/bill_clinton_defends_deregulat.asp

The economy was incredibly hot during the middle of the Bush administration and unemployment went down to 4.5% but I don't give him credit for that and I don't give Clinton credit for the bubble he presided over either.

[*Siren*]

Canada's sytem sucks and is very unpopular in Canada. In fact they ranked almost as bad as the US in the last WHO rankings

Funny how the WHO links Jinx posted stated the opposite.

Apparently the rest of Canada doesn't agree with Siren

http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/08/18/the-best-solution-to-canadas-healthcare-woes-according-to-an-ipsos-reid-polled/

Nowhere does this say that we don't like our National Health Care and every Canadian I know wants to keep it. Is it perfect? No. Is there a system out there that is perfect? I seriously doubt it.

The link you posted is purely about FUNDING, not whether or not we like or dislike our entire system. Obviously, with the baby boomers aging there are increased costs for health care involved. This poll is asking Canadians how they think we should compensate for the increased demand.

More efficient spending: 61%

Using more of existing tax dollars: 21%

Canadians paying for more out of their own pockets: 11%

Would you like anything else clarified?

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Nice bit of spin there...

You seem to have left out key words... like...

"more efficient ways to deliver health care" so, the health care provided is not done efficiently...

"put more of public tax dollars into existing system" so, it's under funded...

"pay for thier own" so, they want another option...

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

We should look at the past to make sure we don't make the same mistakes. But you're only half right in your assertions above. Yes the Iraq war was pointless, Bush's views on scientific research was absurd and his foreign policy was ill advised across the board.

Bush had nothing to do with the financial collapse, that was caused by the Housing Crisis which started because of a Global Savings Glut and the Federal Reserve setting interest rates too low which caused malinevestment. Even if you are going to say that Wall Street was deregulated (it really wasn't) and that caused Banks to do what they did - well those deregulations mostly happened during the Clinton years

http://www.weeklysta...s_deregulat.asp

The economy was incredibly hot during the middle of the Bush administration and unemployment went down to 4.5% but I don't give him credit for that and I don't give Clinton credit for the bubble he presided over either.

You didn't seem to mention that it has been the Obama administration, not Bush's, who has been busted twice now altering scientific reports for political reasons.