Page 11 of 289 FirstFirst ... 7891011121314152161111 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 4335
  1. #151
    Joined
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Auckland
    Age
    40
    Posts
    30,912

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    Hmmm. Didn't really want health care costs going up or being less efficient however I think you get what you end up with or whatever.

  2. #152
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Kern River Valley, CA
    Age
    71
    Posts
    21,595

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    I thought this was going to happen. Health care costs going up. Should have been more efficient. Did you take my advice to do something about it? No. You guys should have been more efficient. Anyway. I'm very satisfied with my health care in NZ.
    Quote Originally Posted by 3dfxrain View Post
    Hmmm. Didn't really want health care costs going up or being less efficient however I think you get what you end up with or whatever.


    You’ve lost me what in the world are you talking about?

  3. #153
    Joined
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Auckland
    Age
    40
    Posts
    30,912

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    Health care.

  4. #154
    Joined
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Corruptfornia
    Posts
    3,785

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    La Raza wants BO and company to make sure the Wets get theirs
    as well. How bout they just back from where they've come..?

    http://www.fairus.org/site/R?i=0f2nlD89fNNK12ChdXv9hg
    La Raza Demands Obama's Health Reform Plan Cover Illegal Aliens

    On Monday, June 15, the National Council of La Raza (La Raza), an open borders advocacy group, issued a statement calling upon Congress to ensure that illegal aliens are given health benefits if and when Congress considers health care reform.

    La Raza's statement "strongly urge[d] President Obama and Congress to make every effort to ensure that health care reform reaches all communities" in the United States, and stressed that "one out of every three uninsured persons and roughly 40% of all uninsured children [in the United States] are Latino," and demanded "health care reform that makes coverage affordable and accessible for everyone — all families and all children."

    La Raza President and CEO Janet Murguía used the statement to emphasize that "everyone in the U.S. should contribute to a new health system," and that "Latinos [would] accept their responsibility" to contribute to a new health care system and "will pay their fair share for the health coverage they need."
    Boy that's rich. They won't spend any money or time getting legal
    here in the U.S., why would they bother to pay for this ? They
    aren't doing so now here Corruptfornia..

    While the statement does not reference illegal immigration specifically, or distinguish between legal and illegal aliens, it does express concern that adding new, expensive verification and documentation procedures for immigrants would "severely restrict access to health care coverage." (La Raza Press Release, June 15, 2009).
    This is NOT a free run ! I'm having to pay 350.00 a month for
    private coverage. Yea I have the V.A. avail, but they're pretty
    busy trying to put true hero's back together presently. I would
    feel ashamed to go to the V.A. for a cold or something, when
    I see so many brave warriors missing parts, etc. Man I couldn't
    do it.

    I don't know about you all, but I CANNOT for the life of me figure
    out why we should reward these characters when they've BROKEN
    THE FRIGGIN' LAW BY COMING HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE without
    taking steps to get legal.

    I just don't get it..
    Ah, crap. Went off topic again...
    Last edited by no2guncntrl; 06-25-2009 at 02:34 PM.

  5. #155
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Kern River Valley, CA
    Age
    71
    Posts
    21,595

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    Quote Originally Posted by no2guncntrl View Post
    I don't know about you all, but I CANNOT for the life of me figure
    out why we should reward these characters when they've BROKEN
    THE FRIGGIN' LAW BY COMING HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE without
    taking steps to get legal.

    I just don't get it.


    It is mind boggling when you think about it. Don’t try to make sense of it because it is totally ridiculous. It’s all about politics, power and the vote.

  6. #156
    Joined
    Feb 2003
    Location
    SC
    Age
    66
    Posts
    314

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    Quote Originally Posted by no2guncntrl View Post
    La Raza wants BO and company to make sure the Wets get theirs
    as well. How bout they just back from where they've come..?

    http://www.fairus.org/site/R?i=0f2nlD89fNNK12ChdXv9hg


    Boy that's rich. They won't spend any money or time getting legal
    here in the U.S., why would they bother to pay for this ? They
    aren't doing so now here Corruptfornia..



    This is NOT a free run ! I'm having to pay 350.00 a month for
    private coverage. Yea I have the V.A. avail, but they're pretty
    busy trying to put true hero's back together presently. I would
    feel ashamed to go to the V.A. for a cold or something, when
    I see so many brave warriors missing parts, etc. Man I couldn't
    do it.

    I don't know about you all, but I CANNOT for the life of me figure
    out why we should reward these characters when they've BROKEN
    THE FRIGGIN' LAW BY COMING HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE without
    taking steps to get legal.

    I just don't get it..
    Ah, crap. Went off topic again...
    I say send all the illegals back to their country, and let their piece of $hit country pay for their health care.
    Dr. Seuss for 2011:I do not like this Uncle Sam, I do not like his health care scam. I do not like these dirty crooks, or how they lie and cook the books. I do not like when Congress steals, I do not like their secret deals. I do not like ex-speaker Nan, I do not like this 'YES WE CAN'..I do not like this spending spree, I'm smart, I know that nothing's free. I do not like their smug replies, when I complain about their lies. I do not like this kind of hope. I do not like it. Nope, nope, nope!

  7. #157
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,280

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    Ya.. don't take captain bullsh*t's rhetoric seriously. Too bad rhetoric is all this empty suit has.

    White House Backtracks on Promise That Americans Will Be Able to Keep Their Doctors
    Majority of Americans Worry Government-Run Health Care Would Lead to Loss of Their Health Care Plans


    Washington, Jun 24 - During the campaign and throughout the ongoing health care “reform” debate, President Obama has made a promise to the American people – one that he repeated in a speech to a convention of the American Medical Association last week: “No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people. If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.”

    Now that the Democrats’ health care plan has been brought into greater focus, that promise doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. A Lewin Group study confirms that under a new government-run health plan more than 100 million Americans may lose their current health care coverage and be forced onto government rolls. Last week, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported that 23 million Americans would lose their current plans if a Senate Democratic health care “reform” bill was enacted. As a result, the White House began to walk back from its promise, with the Associated Press reporting, “White House officials suggest the president’s rhetoric shouldn’t be taken literally.” At his news conference yesterday, the President continued the reversal, answering a question about the promise with some rather tortured language:

    JAKE TAPPER, ABC NEWS: “I’m sorry, but what about keeping your promise to the American people that they won’t have to change plans even if employers –“

    THE PRESIDENT: “Well, no, no, I mean – when I say if you have your plan and you like it and your doctor has a plan, or you have a doctor and you like your doctor that you don’t have to change plans, what I’m saying is the government is not going to make you change plans under health reform.”
    In an interview today on Good Morning America, the backtracking continued, with the President telling ABC’s Diane Sawyer, “I can’t pass a law that says, ‘I’m sorry, employers, you can never make changes to the health care plans that you provide your employees.’” In other words, the Administration has gone from “If you like your plan, you get to keep it” to “Well, we really can’t promise much of anything.” That’s “change” alright – but not exactly the type of change Americans were hoping for during this new era in Washington.

    The reason this broken promise is especially painful for the Administration is because it underscores just the real fear Americans have about a government takeover of health care. Today’s Washington Post reports:
    “Part of the reason so many are nervous about future changes is a fear they may lose what they currently have. More than eight in 10 said they are satisfied with the quality of care they now receive and relatively content with their own current expenses, and worry about future rising costs cuts across party lines and is amplified in the weak economy.”
    No wonder Washington Democrats are doing anything and everything they can to NOT answer questions about how and why tens of millions of Americans will lose their current plan under Democratic versions of health care “reform.”

    House Republicans believe there’s a better way: one that keeps patients and doctors – not government bureaucrats – in charge of critical medical decisions. Led by Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO), the House GOP Health Care Reform Solutions Group has outlined a Health Care Reform Solutions group proposal to reduce costs, expand access, and increase the quality of care in a way Americans can afford – without new taxes, costly mandates, or a government takeover. For more information on the GOP plan, visit the House GOP Health Care Solutions Group website HERE. And for more information on the Democrats’ government takeover of health care, visit http://healthcare.gopleader.gov.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  8. #158
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,280

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    ObamaCare: $4 trillion in costs

    We warned that the Democratic Party estimates of $1 trillion in costs for ObamaCare were far too low, and now Congress has had this confirmed. In testimony before a House subcommittee on the health-care industry on Tuesday, Dr. Stephen Parente of the University of Minnesota gave the real numbers on the cost of ObamaCare. It’s as bad as we predicted (via Yid with Lid):

    There are two things people most want to know from these proposals. One, how many uninsured will be covered? Two, what will it cost the nation in one year and in ten years?

    HSI estimates, like CBO’s recent results, find there is no free lunch to expand health insurance coverage. Our early assessment of the Senate Finance committee proposal shows a 74% reduction in the uninsured with a 10 year cost of [$]2.7 trillion using public option plan modeled after the Massachusetts Connector. We also modeled an FEHBP version of the public plan and got a cost of over [$]1.3 trillion, but with a 30% reduction in the uninsured.
    The $1 trillion number doesn’t even tickle the meter, and that’s a big problem for Democrats. They argue that the reforms will save a trillion dollars, making ObamaCare deficit-neutral over ten years, but none of the plans come in under that price. Just to move 30% net of the uninsured onto health plans will take more that $300 billion above that ceiling, making it an addition to an already astronomical deficit pattern.

    To move most of the uninsured — net, again — onto health-insurance plans, it will take more than double the cheapest version of ObamaCare. But that’s not the final word:

    CBO scored the Kennedy Bill last week at approximately a 30% reduction for 1 trillion over ten years. Using the ARCOLA model, we found nearly everyone would be covered if all elements of the Kennedy bill were enacted at a ten year cost of 4 trillion. That 4 trillion estimate over 10 years assumes a public option plan with Bronze, Silver and Gold levels in the proposed insurance exchange with a subsidy for premium support that is income-adjusted and calibrated for assistance at the Silver level. The Silver level is equivalent of PPO plan with medium levels of generosity, something with 15% coinsurance rate, manageable copays and average level of access to physicians and hospitals. We accounted for the public plan being reimbursed at 10% above Medicare reimbursement, which is also 10% below commercial insurance premiums.
    Let’s break that down carefully. What exactly does $4 trillion and a public plan buy us, besides even higher deficits over the next ten years? A “medium” level of generosity for the Silver plan, with an “average” level of access to physicians and hospitals. On top of that, the plan still underpays providers with even the 10% boost over Medicare payments, which no one is suggesting will remain permanent. And that will only still cover “nearly everyone,” a measure Dr. Parente doesn’t explain in his statement.

    And to answer Nate Silver, what happens to the private market when this “average” and “medium” plan gets implemented?

    Because the public plan can compete with the individual and group market private sector offering, we saw a crowd out resulting from the public plan of 79 million covered lives with the majority people leaving their employer sponsored medium PPOs and HMOs.
    In other words, almost a third of all covered Americans would get thrown out of their current plans and onto government-paid care.

    Parente included this warning:

    As a nation, we are on the verge of making multitrillion dollar gamble that more per capita health care deficit spending will make us better off as a society. We are wagering with starting bids in the trillions that excessive spending into the healthcare system accelerates breakthrough medical technologies that can eliminate whole diseases, like diabetes or Alzheimer’s, in ways similar to the innovations introduced over half a century which reduced tuberculosis from being one the leading causes of death.

    It is not an unreasonable wager, since federal funding for heart disease and cancer either directly through research or indirectly through Medicare has yielded state of art medical care. But it is a wager nonetheless, and we may find our reckoning is not only with the future debt of our children, but their security where the economic crisis has brought international scrutiny upon the US from the principal purchasers of our treasuries. Furthermore, saving businesses from paying health care costs or a state government with federal intervention is simply an accounting cost shift that only saps our long term economic strength.
    These numbers show that without a doubt.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  9. #159
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,280

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    Odd none of this type of stuff made it into that hard hitting ABC infomercial..

    Video: Ezra Klein in 2008 on “sneaky” stalking horse of a public plan

    As Morgen Richmond does, I like Ezra Klein. He’s unmistakably and unapologetically liberal, but he’s honest, and on the couple of occasions I’ve chatted with him, a friendly and reasonable guy. Even when he disagrees with me, he generally gives me credit for not being disingenuous as well, and argues on facts rather than strawmen. That’s why when Morgen put up this video from 2008 at Verum Serum, I give Ezra credit for explaining explicitly what the “public plan” in ObamaCare is — a “sneaky” stalking horse for single-payer:



    Got that? Everything conservatives have been saying about the public plan is true, and that’s just fine with Ezra. He’d like to throw tens of thousands of people out of work and collapse an entire industry, one that satisfies over 80% of its clients mind you, because he doesn’t care for it. So instead of actually arguing for its elimination, as Ezra does more honestly than most of his colleagues, they trot out a “public plan” that Ezra concedes will do covertly what he wants to do overtly.

    As far as disagreeing with me, though, Ezra is just a little less honest this time:

    There’s really no reason to think Ed Morrissey actually believes Obama is proposing a health system in which people are legally barred from purchasing care beyond what their insurers would provide. Ed’s a smart guy. He follows politics. And he certainly doesn’t offer any evidence for such a view. But his post takes it as a given that that is in fact what Obama is proposing.
    So it was OK for progressives to deduce in 2008 that Obama’s health-care proposals were really just stalking horses for eliminating private insurance altogether, but Ezra’s puzzled when conservatives deduce it in 2009? Plus, if Obama (or Ezra) got to wipe insurance companies out with the stroke of a pen or through a stalking-horse strategy of a “public plan,” then the only people who could take advantage of what would be left of private care would be … who? Those wealthy enough to pay full price out of pocket. Well, that’s certainly egalitarian!

    Besides, Obama seems to at least appreciate locking out private transactions altogether, and that’s not a terribly difficult deduction, either. If you accept Ezra’s view (and mine) that the public plan is a stalking horse for single payer, then that’s Step 1. Step 2 would be Obama’s praise for the Canadian system, which does bar private insurance, and whose providers are all in the government system. Canadians who want private care have to leave … and come to the United States. And that makes his stated intent to use his money to get what he would wind up denying most other Americans very hypocritical.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  10. #160
    Joined
    Sep 2004
    Location
    In a House
    Posts
    968

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    from scooter's post's link

    House Republicans believe there’s a better way: one that keeps patients and doctors – not government bureaucrats – in charge of critical medical decisions
    This is the biggest lie ever. Insurance companies are now in charge of critical healthcare decisions, not the doctors and the patients.

    Just another scare tactic from the party who brought you the Iraq war.
    Fox News watchers are less informed - The Proof

    I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
    - Thomas Jefferson

  11. #161
    Joined
    Jun 2004
    Location
    In a house
    Posts
    5,755

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    This is the biggest lie ever. Insurance companies are now in charge of critical healthcare decisions, not the doctors and the patients.
    the quote doesn't say they wanted to keep things the way they are NOW.

    Your trying to be misleading it actually says

    one that keeps patients and doctors – not government bureaucrats – in charge of critical medical decisions
    you make it sound as if the government should be making the choices.

    because that's how BO's UHC will be look No farther than VA/medicaid/medicare for the model.

  12. #162
    Joined
    Sep 2004
    Location
    In a House
    Posts
    968

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    Quote Originally Posted by /\/\adGamer View Post
    the quote doesn't say they wanted to keep things the way they are NOW.

    Your trying to be misleading it actually says

    you make it sound as if the government should be making the choices.

    because that's how BO's UHC will be look No farther than VA/medicaid/medicare for the model.
    No, they are omitting the insurance part, which is an important part.

    Why shouldn't those legal citizens who are not insured, and those with pre-existing conditions, at least get part of what most of the country can afford to get. It's basic healthcare, prisoners get better care!
    Fox News watchers are less informed - The Proof

    I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
    - Thomas Jefferson

  13. #163
    Joined
    Jun 2004
    Location
    In a house
    Posts
    5,755

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    No, they are omitting the insurance part, which is an important part.
    You are omitting the part of where the government is going to be the one who says what you get and dont get that my friend is even more important.


    It's basic healthcare, prisoners get better care!
    Everyone gets health Care its just not free and never will be FREE. Same with prisoners they get free of charge to them health care we the working people still have to pay for it. Free to them doesn't make it better.

  14. #164
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,280

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    Can't hardly wait to see the ambulance chasers feeding frenzy if the messiah gets his public gubberment run plan rammed thru congress unread like every other POS he's proposed so far.

    Ford Pinto School of Cost Analysis

    Like all countries with government-run health care systems, the UK has a limited amount of resources to fund its National Health Service while trying to meet an infinite demand. The result is low quality care, waiting lists, and rationing. In most areas of health care, that means longer waiting lists for procedures and treatments. The NHS would love to be able to tell pregnant mothers that they will have to wait another three months to deliver, but of course they can't because nature won't wait.

    Babies are born whether the hospital and its staff are ready for them or not, which means the hospitals must then make do with what they have for these laboring mothers, and that is a frightening prospect. According to a UK report, the maternity care in London was so understaffed that women were pushed into waiting rooms, where they were required to stand for hours while they were in labor because no beds were available. A 23-year-old was turned away by midwives only an hour before she delivered because there weren't any beds. She said she was reduced to going to the bathroom where she slapped herself to keep her mind off of her labor pain. Another in a labor and delivery room was horrified to see cockroaches in her "eating area." One woman said she "cried" when she walked into her room to find a filthy shower and paint peeling off the walls. This is in the United Kingdom, not some third-world nation.

    Even worse than long waits and filthy labor and delivery rooms is that hospital maternity departments are so woefully understaffed that they must close their doors and send laboring women to other hospitals. These diversion procedures cost time, which increases the risks of tragedies happening. Rachel Canter was pregnant and in the late stages of labor with her third child, a boy she had planned to name Jake, when she was turned away from Barnet Hospital because its maternity department was so full they had to close their admissions. Rachel was told to go to Chase Farm Hospital, 20 minutes away. Unfortunately, baby Jake suffered breathing difficulties and died shortly after he was born. She blames the understaffing of the hospitals for her son's death. The midwives at Barnet Hospital concede that the facility has serious understaffing issues and report that the maternity department must close its doors three times a week as a result. You would think in 21st century Britain pregnant women would no longer get the very old line: "sorry, there is no more room at the inn."

    Because there are limited funds that need to cover all areas of health care, the NHS has found itself in a yo-yo pattern of increasing and then decreasing maternity care funding over the years. The Royal College of Midwives said the erratic funding has made it very difficult for maternity departments to provide consistent care that keeps pace with the increase in birth rates.

    With midwives stretched thin and unable to provide the one-on-one care that is necessary during childbirth, inevitably, tragedies occur. Unfortunately, they seem to happen so often that according to figures released by the NHS, half of all the £2.2 billion (about $3.6 billion) of negligence payouts since 1995 are for cases involving deaths and injuries that take place in maternity care. That is £946.5 million (about $1.5 billion) in payouts since 1995 that have been paid to parents whose babies either died or were injured by the care they received from the NHS.

    Negligence claims are only going to get worse, too. According to the BBC, these claims are expected to increase by 80 percent next year. This year £400 million ($653.7 million) were set aside for negligence claims; next year, however, the NHS will be required to set aside £713 million ($1.2 billion). Conservatives in Parliament say that in order to pay these claims, health care funding that is already inadequate will have to be cut by one third, which will certainly drive negligence claims even higher as doctors, nurses, midwives, and hospitals will have to cope with a significant loss of funding.

    Rather than taking a close look at the inadequacies inherent in its government-run system, and making the changes necessary to improve it as the Dutch did a few years ago by infusing much needed free market reforms, the NHS is circling the wagons and blaming the lawyers instead for the rising costs of negligence payouts. In the mean time, they continue on as usual with their failing system. There's a name for this kind of insanity. It's called the Ford Pinto school of cost analysis.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  15. #165
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Kern River Valley, CA
    Age
    71
    Posts
    21,595

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    Quote Originally Posted by liteman View Post
    No, they are omitting the insurance part, which is an important part.

    Why shouldn't those legal citizens who are not insured, and those with pre-existing conditions, at least get part of what most of the country can afford to get. It's basic healthcare, prisoners get better care!


    You are omitting those that can afford to pay for healthcare and don’t. You are also omitting those that are eligible for Medicaid and choose not to enroll. In that 40 or 50 million that government says have no healthcare at least 12 million of those are in the country illegally.

    Do you think those that can pay for their own, those that are eligible for Medicaid and those that are Illigal should get healthcare at the cost of the taxpayers. Heh, if millions are eligible for Medicaid why make them double eligible with another government run healthcare plan? Those that can afford to pay for their own healthcare should be forced to do so. If they don’t want to pay for their own screw them.

    It seems to me there must be a much better way that won’t cost 1.6 trillion+++.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •