Nutjobs and health care

[Peter Parka]

Interesting...

The U.S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds. The United Kingdom, which spends just six percent of GDP on health services, ranks 18 th .

WHO | World Health Organization Assesses the World's Health Systems

The World Health Organisation obviously disagrres with those of you saying our healthcare is crap and the USA's is the best in the world.

 

[Docc_eee_aww]

...but if you're really rich, you can fly in and get the best tummy tucks in the world! Maybe even score a kidney and a nose job.

 

[Peter Parka]

Browns join Twitter war over NHS
Gordon and Sarah Brown have joined a Twitter campaign to defend the NHS, which is under fire in the US.
The prime minister posted a message on the welovetheNHS page after critics of Barack Obama's health reforms dubbed it "Orwellian" and "evil".
A Tory MEP who attacked the NHS on US TV, saying he "wouldn't wish it on anyone", has been rebuked by the party.
It said Daniel Hannan had done the NHS a "disservice" by giving Americans "such a negative and partial view".
The Twitter campaign has attracted more than a million followers and thousands of messages of support - including tweets from Sarah Brown, who wrote welovetheNHS "more than words can say", Health Secretary Andy Burnham and former deputy prime minister John Prescott.
Rationing
On Wednesday evening a message was posted on it from the Downing Street Twitter feed, saying: "PM: NHS often makes the difference between pain and comfort, despair and hope, life and death. Thanks for always being there".
Many of the tweets in support of the NHS are from members of the public saying they owe their families' or their own lives to its care.
Professor Stephen Hawking has also hit back at claims in American newspaper that NHS rationing would mean he "wouldn't have a chance in the UK", saying on a visit to Washington to collect an award: "I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS".
The NHS has been held up by opponents of Barack Obama's health reforms as an example of an overly bureaucratic "socialized" system which rations care and denies treatment to the elderly.
Mr Obama's critics claim he would set up "death panels", a reference to the UK's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, which decides which drugs receive funding.
Republican former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin said such a system was "downright evil".


“ I find it incredible that a free people living in a country dedicated and founded in the cause of independence and freedom can seriously be thinking about adopting such a system ”
Daniel Hannan, Conservative MEP

Tory MEP Daniel Hannan, who has long campaigned for the NHS to be dismantled and replaced with a system of "personal health accounts", has joined in the criticism on US television, where he described it in April as a "60-year mistake".
Speaking on Fox News on Friday, Mr Hannan continued his criticism.
"The most striking thing about it is that you are very often just sent back to the queue," he told the Glenn Beck programme and spoke of elderly patients "left starving in wards".
He described the NHS as a product of wartime planning, like rationing, and added: "I find it incredible that a free people living in a country dedicated and founded in the cause of independence and freedom can seriously be thinking about adopting such a system in peacetime and massively expanding the role of the state when there's no need."
Cameron vow
Mr Hannan gained worldwide fame on YouTube earlier this year with a strongly-worded attack on Gordon Brown in the European Parliament, which earned him a strong grassroots following among Conservative members and a high-profile speaking slot at the party's spring conference.
The party leadership has taken a dim view of his latest media appearances - but it has stopped short of formally disciplining him.


“ I support the NHS 100% and the Conservative Party supports the NHS 100% ”
David Cameron, Conservative leader
Shadow health secretary Andrew Lansley said: "There are millions of people who are grateful for the care they have received from the NHS.
"It does them and the NHS a disservice for Daniel Hannan to give Americans such a negative and partial view.
"That we can access healthcare free at point of use, based on need, is something others envy. Our task is to ensure that the quality of care is consistently excellent.
"And the service is efficient and responsive to patients. Choice, competition and information, focused on outcomes, will deliver this".
Tory leader David Cameron, who has pledged to protect the health service from public spending cuts, also sought to distance himself from Mr Hannan's comments when he was tackled about them on a walkabout in his constituency.
He told BBC News: "I support the NHS 100% and the Conservative Party supports the NHS 100%.
"We are the party that gives the biggest amount of support to the NHS. It is incredibly important to my family. It is incredibly important to this country."
He vowed to "nurture the NHS" if he came to power, "and improve it and make sure it is there for everyone in this country".
Writing on his Daily Telegraph blog, Mr Hannan said he was a strong supporter of Mr Cameron, but disagreed with him on health.
"I am not the Conservative Party's healthcare spokesman. I'm fond of (shadow health secretary) Andrew Lansley, and I strongly support David Cameron as party leader. On this issue, though, I disagree with both of them."

Story from BBC NEWS:

 

[Docc_eee_aww]

here's an example (this woman is against "socialism", big fan of Rush, and is on Medicare":
Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck stir the pot over Medicare cuts. - By Timothy Noah - Slate Magazine

 

[Docc_eee_aww]

She is probably against 'kankles' as well.

 

[Accountable]

It must not be forgotten that it is especially dangerous to enslave men in the minor details of life. For my own part, I should be inclined to think freedom less necessary in great things than in little ones, if it were possible to be secure of the one without possessing the other.

Subjection in minor affairs breaks out every day, and is felt by the whole community indiscriminately. It does not drive ment to resistance but it crosses them at every turn, till they are led to surrender the exercise of their will. Thus their spirit is gradually broken and their character enervated; whereas that obedience, which is exacted on a few important but rare occasions, only exhibits servitude at certain intervals, and throws the burden of it upon a small number of men. It is vain to summon a people, which has been rendered so dependent on the central power, to brief exercise of their free choice, however, important it may be, will not prevent them from gradually losing the faculties of thinking, feeling, and acting for themselves, and thus gradually falling below the level of humanity.
​

Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

 

[dt3]

So here's an idea I came up with in the car this morning. Feel free to criticize and tell me I'm dumb, even if you have no better alternative.

What if, instead of this current atrocity trying to be forced down our throats, the government went to the insurance companies and told them that for every X number of currently uninsured people they give policies to, the company can then write off the amount of the coverage from their taxes.

It doesn't require any money up front from the government, uninsured people get free coverage, and it seems like it'd be a very powerful incentive for the companies too.

 

[Minor Axis]

However you view Obama and Universal Health Care, if you are an "average" U.S. citizen, just keep in mind this fact- the Republican Party/Conservatives have no interest in Universal Health Care, (as they have no interest in laws designed to help working class citizens) if in their perception it is in anyway going to adversely effect big business, which it does. There is no such thing as moderation because maximum profits leaves no room for good deals for workers. They will never choose you, no matter how good it is for citizens in general, they will always choose business. They may even pretend, you, the blue collar worker, are in their club, but as a worker, you'll never be a valued member other than to support their position and agenda with your vote. Don't be a sucker.

They have no plans to implement any worker good deals, only to throw up roadblocks to delay and stop UHC in it's tracks. Just think about who exactly they are fighting so hard for. It's not you buddy.

 

[retro]

However you view Obama and Universal Health Care, if you are an "average" U.S. citizen, just keep in mind this fact- the Republican Party/Conservatives have no interest in Universal Health Care, (as they have no interest in laws designed to help working class citizens) if in their perception it is in anyway going to adversely effect big business, which it does. There is no such thing as moderation because maximum profits leaves no room for good deals for workers. They will never choose you, no matter how good it is for citizens in general, they will always choose business. They may even pretend, you, the blue collar worker, are in their club, but as a worker, you'll never be a valued member other than to support their position and agenda with your vote. Don't be a sucker.

They have no plans to implement any worker good deals, only to throw up roadblocks to delay and stop UHC in it's tracks. Just think about who exactly they are fighting so hard for. It's not you buddy.

What about us libertarians out there that think that universal health care is a horrible idea? What about all of the blue dog Democrats that are by and large refusing to vote for a universal health care program. You accused me of using "typical republican scare tactics" when I voiced my very valid concerns about UHC... yet you're even worse. You're running around like a little child parroting the democratic party line that republicans are evil and only care about big businesses and that the Democrats are the only ones who care about the poor oppressed working class. But if you actually look deep, you'll see that in a lot of cases, it's the Democrats that are against the working class. Look at California... we have at least 40k farm workers out of work right now, and the Democrats are completely unwilling to do anything about it. These are places that vote overwhelmingly democratic, people who voted for Obama, that are switching party allegiances in droves because it's obvious that the Democrats don't give a shit about them. The Obama administration's response was to offer cash assistance... these people don't want welfare, they want water, because they want to work.

If you bothered to go look for it, you'll see the there are Republicans out there offering up plans that would help people who don't have insurance, or who have Medicaid. Do yourself a favor and go look up the Patient's Choice Act... it certainly isn't perfect, but it's something. It's taking the same subsidies that people would be getting by using Medicaid and giving the opportunity to get actual health care insurance. It certainly has it's flaws... but it isn't something that's going to put millions of people out of work, insure illegal immigrants, and give the government control over people's health. Oh, and don't bother trying to tell me that I'm using scare tactics and speaking untruths... go look at the House plan. There are provisions that would make it illegal for insurance companies to offer new policies, it just grandfathers in those that already have insurance... effectively making the government's health care program the only one after a period of time. There are also provisions that insure illegal immigrants... provisions that republicans have tried to get removed from the bill in committee, provisions that the Democrats have protected every step of the way. There are also provisions for the government having the right to send "trained experts" to people homes to offer young and expectant families "guidance" on how to raise their children. It's all in there, you just have to dig through the 900 pages of pork to find it. It's rather telling that the Democrats have also shot down proposals that would require members of Congress to use this UHC. If it's good enough for the citizens of the country, for the working class that they're supposedly looking out for, why the hell isn't it good enough for them?

Do yourself a favor and open your mind and your eyes. You've demonized one side's agenda and completely turned a blind eye to the agenda of the other side.

 

[Meirionnydd]

These are places that vote overwhelmingly democratic, people who voted for Obama, that are switching party allegiances in droves because it's obvious that the Democrats don't give a shit about them. The Obama administration's response was to offer cash assistance...

That doesn't make sense.

If the Democrats didn't give a shit about them, wouldn't they just do nothing? Instead of giving them cash assistance.

There are also provisions that insure illegal immigrants... provisions that republicans have tried to get removed from the bill in committee, provisions that the Democrats have protected every step of the way.

The plan is not going to insure illegal immigrants.

There are also provisions for the government having the right to send "trained experts" to people homes to offer young and expectant families "guidance" on how to raise their children. It's all in there, you just have to dig through the 900 pages of pork to find it.

Oh.

You mean Social Workers. Employed by the Government, providing assistance for raising children in their early developmental stages?

Wow. That's something that's.... completely logical and normal.

But in other words. The Government is sending workers, to people's homes, in order to indoctorinate their children in Socialist political ideology.

Also, the Government is going to kill your grandma and put your child with down-syndrome in front of a Government death panel.

Patient's Choice Act... It certainly has it's flaws, it certainly isn't perfect

We need to put all our support behind this imperfect, flawed piece of legislation.

 

[retro]

That doesn't make sense.

If the Democrats didn't give a shit about them, wouldn't they just do nothing? Instead of giving them cash assistance.

Yes, because cash assistance is going to help people who want to be able to work, cash assistance isn't going to amount to anything.

The plan is not going to insure illegal immigrants.

Oh really?

Sec. 152, Pg. 50-51

IN GENERAL.—Except as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to
personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of
high quality health care or related services.

Also, go read Sec. 59B, Pg. 170, Line 1

Oh.

You mean Social Workers. Employed by the Government, providing assistance for raising children in their early developmental stages?

Wow. That's something that's.... completely logical and normal.

But in other words. The Government is sending workers, to people's homes, in order to indoctorinate their children in Socialist political ideology.

Not what I said, this is what I'm referring to... and it isn't logical and normal

Sections 440 and 1904 of the House bill (Page 838), under the heading "home visitation programs for families with young children and families expecting children." The programs (provided via grants to states) would educate parents on child behavior and parenting skills.

The bill says that the government agents, "well-trained and competent staff," would "provide parents with knowledge of age-appropriate child development in cognitive, language, social, emotional, and motor domains ... modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices," and "skills to interact with their child to enhance age-appropriate development."

The government shouldn't be in the business of telling parents how to raise their children

Also, the Government is going to kill your grandma and put your child with down-syndrome in front of a Government death panel.

Now you're making yourself sound like an idiot, because I didn't say that at all

We need to put all our support behind this imperfect, flawed piece of legislation.

Did I say that? No. I said that they were attempting to do something... and have you even bothered to go do any reading on it?

Thanks for trying though.

 

[Meirionnydd]

Oh really?

Sec. 152, Pg. 50-51


Also, go read Sec. 59B, Pg. 170, Line 1

Ya rly.

Asked by CBS News' Katie Couric in an exclusive interview whether illegal immigrants should be covered under a new health care plan, President Obama responded simply, "no." But he said there may need to be an exception to that policy for children.

"First of all, I'd like to create a situation where we're dealing with illegal immigration, so that we don't have illegal immigrants," he said. "And we've got legal residents or citizens who are eligible for the plan. And I want a comprehensive immigration plan that creates a pathway to achieve that."

"The one exception that I think has to be discussed is how are we treating children," he continued. "Partly because if you've got children who may be here illegally but are still in playgrounds or at schools, and potentially are passing on illnesses and communicable diseases, that aren't getting vaccinated, that I think is a situation where you may have to make an exception."

Obama: No Health Care For Illegal Immigrants - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

You have to draw a distinction between insuring illegal immigrants, and insuring their children. You don't get many votes with a 'Fuck the children' policy platform.

Not what I said, this is what I'm referring to... and it isn't logical and normal. The government shouldn't be in the business of telling parents how to raise their children

It is logical and normal, in many places of the world, there are government programs that help educate parents practices regarding the raising of children. This kind of stuff isn't mandatory either, it's voluntary, which is explicitly stated.

And your quote is pulled from a blog from Chuck Norris.

Dude. Are you serious? Okay, he's kind-of a good actor, but he's not a Political Scientist or anything. He goes on to say this later in the article:

Are we to assume the state's mediators would understand every parent's social or religious core values on parenting? Or would they teach some secular-progressive and religiously neutered version of parental values and wisdom? And if they were to consult and coach those who expect babies, would they ever decide circumstances to be not beneficial for the children and encourage abortions?

Chuck Norris : Dirty Secret No. 1 in Obamacare - Townhall.com

It's so absurd that it rebuts itself.

And, speaking from experience, in parental planning, Social Workers are prohibited from advocating abortions.

And another gem from Mr. Norris

It is so simple that any socialist can understand it.

- Let me just say, i'm a Socialist, and I have no fucking idea on what he's on about.

Now you're making yourself sound like an idiot, because I didn't say that at all

I know you didn't. I'm just repeating bunch of other scare-mongering tactics that certain people are using in the healthcare debate. Matching it up to what you said earlier, it fits in quite well.

Did I say that? No. I said that they were attempting to do something... and have you even bothered to go do any reading on it?

Thanks for trying though.

Oh right. But their attempt to do something is, in your words 'not perfect' and 'flawed'. So why should we support this bill as opposed to what the Democrats are offering?

Apart from the usual 'Government tyranny' viewpoint, beneath the surface, your arguments don't hold much water. Especially when you agree with Chuck Norris.

 

[retro]

Ya rly.

Obama: No Health Care For Illegal Immigrants - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

You have to draw a distinction between insuring illegal immigrants, and insuring their children. You don't get many votes with a 'Fuck the children' policy platform.

Obama didn't write the House bill, and the verbiage to cover illegal immigrants is there... whether you chose to admit it or not.

It is logical and normal, in many places of the world, there are government programs that help educate parents practices regarding the raising of children. This kind of stuff isn't mandatory either, it's voluntay, which is explicitly stated.

Not logical and normal to me for the government to send people to tell me how to raise my children. Do you have any kids? I'm doubting it, because if you did, I seriously doubt you'd be okay with someone else coming into your home and telling you how you should raise your children.

And your quote is pulled from a blog from Chuck Norris.

Are you daft, dumb, or just plain stupid? Honestly. I pulled it from the Chuck Norris blog because it was where I could readily grab it... I'm so glad that you paid attention to the fact that there was no opinion by Norris in what I quoted, there was merely quotes straight from the House bill itself.

Dude. Are you serious? Okay, he's kind-of a good actor, but he's not a Political Scientist or anything. He goes on to say this later in the article:

Chuck Norris : Dirty Secret No. 1 in Obamacare - Townhall.com

It's so absurd that it rebuts itself.

again, if you paid attention at all, you would've noticed that I didn't quote anything having to do with Norris' personal opinions.

And, speaking from experience, in parental planning, Social Workers are prohibited from advocating abortions.

I said nothing about abortions, and if you're referring to Norris again, I'll say once more that I didn't quote Norris' opinions merely the text from the House bill that was conveniently in his blog.

And another gem from Mr. Norris

- Let me just say, i'm a Socialist, and I have no fucking idea on what he's on about.

See above. I love how you're incapable of arguing against my points, so you rant and rave about Chuck Norris instead.

I know you didn't. I'm just repeating bunch of other scare-mongering tactics that certain people are using in the healthcare debate. Matching it up to what you said earlier, it fits in quite well.

If you're telling me that I'm using scaremongering tactics, you really don't read well do you. Everything that I've said I've backed up with hard evidence. The same cannot be said about you. Except for quoting an Obama interview with Katie Couric saying that illegal immigrants wouldn't be covered... which directly contradicts the text of the House bill. Obama is not the bill author, he doesn't write legislation anymore (like he ever did), and he's said in previous interview that he doesn't know all of the facets of the bill.

Oh right. But their attempt to do something is, in your words 'not perfect' and 'flawed'. So why should we support this bill as opposed to what the Democrats are offering?

Again, I'm not saying to support it... I'm saying that things are being done on the other side to try and bring about reform in a different manner than more government programs, more money spent, and more government intrusions into people's lives. I'm saying that neither one should be supported... but that the Republican's version is a whole helluva lot more agreeable than the democrats UHC that they're trying to pass off as "reform"

Apart from the usual 'Government tyranny' viewpoint, beneath the surface, your arguments don't hold much water. Especially when you agree with Chuck Norris.

Arguments that don't hold water? Go look at your own if you want to make that judgment. I've backed up what I've said with facts... like I said, the same can't be said about your "arguments".

Oh, and like I said before... give it a rest on Chuck Norris. I used his blog to quote the portions of the bill I was referring to... nothing in what I quoted was a direct opinion from him. Learn to read before you make assumptions that make you look like a complete fool.

 

[retro]

oh, and you want to talk about "scaremongering". Go look at Obama's comments from his town hall meeting the other day when he came out and claimed the surgeons simply decide to perform surgeries such as amputations for diabetics because they make $30,000-$50,000 then later went on to say that they decide to do tonsillectomies so that they can "make a lot of money". Don't believe me? Here's the YouTube video with the amputation quote.

[youtube]SG56B2et4M8[/youtube]

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/new...th-system-reform-bulletin/hsr-12aug2009.shtml

 

[retro]

(next part of the post since this forum doesn't seem to like things being posted after a YouTube video)

You want to know the real facts? The real facts are that a surgeon gets paid, on average according to the American College of Surgeons, between $740 and $1,140 by Medicare for a foot amputation... that payment includes the evaluation of the patient on the day of the operation plus patient follow-up care that is provided for 90 days after the operation. Private insurers pay some variation of the Medicare reimbursement for this service. The figures that the AMA has come out with say from $541.72 to $708.71 for one of two procedures involving a foot amputation. It is possible that the total bill, hospital stay, rehabilitation, prosthesis, etc. may approach the larger amount mentioned.

Sounds like the "scaremongering" is coming from the President himself. He can't even get his facts straight... he's throwing things out there to attack physicians without knowing any facts, or so it would seem.

Don't believe me? Here's the links to the ACS and AMA press releases

News from the American College of Surgeons: Statement from the American College of Surgeons Regarding Recent Comments from President Obama
AMA - Health System Reform Bulletin - Aug. 12, 2009

 

[Meirionnydd]

Obama didn't write the House bill, and the verbiage to cover illegal immigrants is there... whether you chose to admit it or not.

The President said, that the bill isn't going to cover illegal immigrants. There's little reason to believe that he isn't telling the truth.

And... CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - CNN Truth Squad: Will new health bill cover illegal immigrants? « - Blogs from CNN.com

The verdict: False. The language of the House version of the bill as it is now written restricts coverage to U.S. citizens and legal residents — and as far as illegal immigrants are concerned, "It simply is not a truthful argument that they will be covered," Treadwell said.

Not logical and normal to me for the government to send people to tell me how to raise my children. Do you have any kids? I'm doubting it, because if you did, I seriously doubt you'd be okay with someone else coming into your home and telling you how you should raise your children.

I don't think you understand. The Government isn't going to send people to your house to force you to teach your children in a certain way.

Rather, Social Workers, from the relevant state or federal authority, are going to, upon voluntary request. Are going to coach you in parenting strategies for children.

What sounds so wrong with that?

Are you daft, dumb, or just plain stupid? Honestly. I pulled it from the Chuck Norris blog because it was where I could readily grab it... I'm so glad that you paid attention to the fact that there was no opinion by Norris in what I quoted, there was merely quotes straight from the House bill itself.

Actually. Two things.

In what you quoted, there is a subtle bias in the content of the quote. Like when it said 'government agents'.

Secondly, if you're willing to post something written by Chuck Norris, and then have views that echo the content of his article, then it makes his talking points a valid subject for discussion.

If you're telling me that I'm using scaremongering tactics, you really don't read well do you. Everything that I've said I've backed up with hard evidence. The same cannot be said about you. Except for quoting an Obama interview with Katie Couric saying that illegal immigrants wouldn't be covered... which directly contradicts the text of the House bill. Obama is not the bill author, he doesn't write legislation anymore (like he ever did), and he's said in previous interview that he doesn't know all of the facets of the bill.

Hard evidence? You've just taken passages from the bill out of context and applied your own spin to them.

And directly contradicts the text of the House bill?

Page 143, Line 3, Section 246: "No Federal Payment for Undocumented Aliens. Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States."

That's incredibly contradictory. Maybe you should check your facts?

 

[Minor Axis]

Do yourself a favor and open your mind and your eyes. You've demonized one side's agenda and completely turned a blind eye to the agenda of the other side.

I'm stating a philosophical fact. Every law that benefits average citizens that has EVER been passed in the country has been on behalf of liberal entities, not conservative ones. The choices are not perfect by any means but with the Republican Party, you are betting against yourself. They give up something to average citizens only when they are forced to. If you prefer, just use this info as a consideration when you judge the motivations of proposals being pushed.

I was watching tapes from some of the out of control town hall meetings. That is the best argument I've ever seen against Democracy...

 

[Alien Allen]

The President said, that the bill isn't going to cover illegal immigrants. There's little reason to believe that he isn't telling the truth.

Man you really swallowed the Obamamania hook line and sinker. So you think because he said it then it must be so eh? :24::24::24:

That is so rich

Ya know he also said AARP endorsed the bill. Only problem is AARP has not endorsed it.

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good fable pal :24:

 

[Minor Axis]

I realize these forums are just for venting and very rarely changing someones mind. But it must make us all feel good...

 

[Meirionnydd]

Man you really swallowed the Obamamania hook line and sinker. So you think because he said it then it must be so eh? :24::24::24:

That is so rich

Ya know he also said AARP endorsed the bill. Only problem is AARP has not endorsed it.

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good fable pal :24:

Maybe you didn't read my last post?

1) CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - CNN Truth Squad: Will new health bill cover illegal immigrants? « - Blogs from CNN.com

2) Page 143, Line 3, Section 246: "No Federal Payment for Undocumented Aliens. Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States."