Why Do You People Think You Deserve Free Health Care?

[Homeland Security]

This is just about people who want things they can't afford and are forcing others to pay for it. It is a form of stealing.

All these recent advancements in health care are expensive! And with these idiotic "ethics" doctors think they have to treat people who can't pay! If they're too poor to pay for their own health care, society would probably be better off with them dead!

It's bad enough to have so many people who contribute nothing to the economy loitering around, making cities look tacky, committing crimes, but they can't leave it at that -- they have to be an economic drag on those of us who add value. I guess with this so-called "President" from Kenya or Indonesia or wherever the hell he's from I shouldn't be surprised.

The only thing I've heard so far that sounded good was those "death panels" --- once old people can't work anymore and their money runs out, why keep them alive? What's the point?

Why do you people insist upon forcing others to take care of you? Why can't you take care of yourself? What happened to your families? Why is it my problem? Screw you!

[Blake]

Clearly you enrolled in public schools and I was forced to pay for it.

Screw you!

[Nbadan]

Why are we forced to pay for police and firemen? I've never used them..

...the military? Tell them to come take out that stump in my yard...

[SouthernFried]

It is a form of stealing...

The rest of your post is silliness.

[Wild Cobra]

It is a form of stealing...

The rest of your post is silliness.
How many of his posts aren't silly?

[TeyshaBlue]

...the military? Tell them to come take out that stump in my yard...

One Daisycutter ought to do the job.:downspin:

[Geezerballer]

Liberals actually believe you can make healthcare "free" by signing a bill. Therefore, anyone who opposes "free healthcare" must be truly diabolical. There's no other possible reason.

[boutons_deux]

Their ain't nothing free for nobody.


http://ndn1.newsweek.com/site/redesign/images/newsweek-print-logo.png (http://www.newsweek.com/)

The Five Biggest Lies in the Health Care Debate

By Sharon Begley (http://www.newsweek.com/id/183003) | NEWSWEEK
Published Aug 29, 2009

From the magazine issue dated Sep 7, 2009

To the credit of opponents of health-care reform, the lies and exaggerations they're spreading are not made up out of whole cloth—which makes the misinformation that much more credible. Instead, because opponents demand that everyone within earshot (or e-mail range) look, say, "at page 425 of the House bill!," the lies take on a patina of credibility. Take the claim in one chain e-mail that the government will have electronic access to everyone's bank account, implying that the Feds will rob you blind. The 1,017-page bill passed by the House Ways and Means Committee does call for electronic fund transfers—but from insurers to doctors and other providers. There is zero provision to include patients in any such system. Five other myths that won't die:

You'll have no choice in what health benefits you receive.

The myth that a "health choices commissioner" will decide what benefits you get seems to have originated in a July 19 post at blog.flecksoflife.com, whose homepage features an image of Obama looking like Heath Ledger's joker. In fact, the house bill sets up a health-care exchange—essentially a list of private insurers and one government plan—where people who do not have health insurance through their employer or some other source (including small businesses) can shop for a plan, much as seniors shop for a drug plan under Medicare part D. The government will indeed require that participating plans not refuse people with preexisting conditions and offer at least minimum coverage, just as it does now with employer-provided insurance plans and part d. The requirements will be floors, not ceilings, however, in that the feds will have no say in how generous private insurance can be.

No chemo for older Medicare patients.

The threat that Medicare will give cancer patients over 70 only end-of-life counseling and not chemotherapy—as a nurse at a hospital told a roomful of chemo patients, including the uncle of a NEWSWEEK reporter—has zero basis in fact. It's just a vicious form of the rationing scare. The house bill does not use the word "ration." Nor does it call for cost-effectiveness research, much less implementation—the idea that "it isn't cost-effective to give a 90-year-old a hip replacement."

The general claim that care will be rationed under health-care reform is less a lie and more of a non-disprovable projection (as is Howard Dean's assertion that health-care reform will not lead to rationing, ever). What we can say is that there is de facto rationing under the current system, by both Medicare and private insurance. No plan covers everything, but coverage decisions "are now made in opaque ways by insurance companies," says dr. Donald Berwick of the institute for healthcare improvement.

A related myth is that health-care reform will be financed through $500 billion in Medicare cuts. This refers to proposed decreases in Medicare increases. That is, spending is on track to reach $803 billion in 2019 from today's $422 billion, and that would be dialed back. Even the $560 billion in reductions (which would be spread over 10 years and come from reducing payments to private Medicare advantage plans, reducing annual increases in payments to hospitals and other providers, and improving care so seniors are not readmitted to a hospital) is misleading: the house bill also gives Medicare $340 billion more over a decade. The money would pay docs more for office visits, eliminate copays and deductibles for preventive care, and help close the "doughnut hole" in the Medicare drug benefit, explains Medicare expert Tricia Neuman of the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Illegal immigrants will get free health insurance.

The House bill doesn't give anyone free health care (though under a 1986 law illegals who can't pay do get free emergency care now, courtesy of all us premium paying customers or of hospitals that have to eat the cost). Will they be eligible for subsidies to buy health insurance? The house bill says that "individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States" will not be allowed to receive subsidies.

The claim that taxpayers will wind up subsidizing health insurance for illegal immigrants has its origins in the defeat of an amendment, offered in July by Republican Rep. Dean Heller of Nevada, to require those enrolling in a public plan or seeking subsidies to purchase private insurance to have their citizenship verified. Flecksoflife.com claimed on July 19 that "hc [health care] will be provided 2 all non us citizens, illegal or otherwise." Rep. Steve king of Iowa spread the claim in a USA today op-ed on Aug. 20, calling the explicit prohibition on such coverage "functionally meaningless" absent mandatory citizenship checks, and it's now gone viral. Can we say that none of the estimated 11.9 million illegal immigrants will ever wangle insurance subsidies through identity fraud, pretending to be a citizen? You can't prove a negative, but experts say that Medicare—the closest thing to the proposals in the House bill—has no such problem.

Death panels will decide who lives.

On July 16 Betsy McCaughey, a former lieutenant governor of New York and darling of the right, said on Fred Thompson's radio show that "on page 425," "congress would make it mandatory … That every five years, people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner, how to decline nutrition." Sarah Palin coined "death panels" in an Aug. 7 Facebook post.

This lie springs from a provision in the House bill to have Medicare cover optional counseling on end-of-life care for any senior who requests it. This means that any patient, terminally ill or not, can request a special consultation with his or her physician about ventilators, feeding tubes, and other measures. Thus the house bill expands Medicare coverage, but without forcing anyone into end-of-life counseling.

The death-panels claim nevertheless got a new lease on life when Jim Towey, director of the White House office of faith-based initiatives under George W. Bush, claimed in an Aug. 18 Wall Street Journal op-ed that a 1997 workbook from the Department of Veterans Affairs pushes vets to "hurry up and die." In fact, the thrust of the 51-page book, which the VA pulled from circulation in 2007, is letting "loved ones" and "health care providers" "know your wishes." Readers are asked to decide what they believe, including that "life is sacred and has meaning, no matter what its quality," and that "my life should be prolonged as long as it can...using any means possible." But the workbook also asks if readers "believe there are some situations in which I would not want treatments to keep me alive." Opponents of health-care reform have selectively cited this passage as evidence the government wants to kill the old and the sick.

The government will set doctors' wages.

This, too, seems to have originated on the Flecksoflife blog on July 19. But while page 127 of the House bill says that physicians who choose to accept patients in the public insurance plan would receive 5 percent more than Medicare pays for a given service, doctors can refuse to accept such patients, and, even if they participate in a public plan, they are not salaried employees of it any more than your doctor today is an employee of, say, Aetna. "Nobody is saying we want the doctors working for the government; that's completely false," says Amitabh Chandra, professor of public policy at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.

To be sure, there are also honest and principled objections to health-care reform. Some oppose a requirement that everyone have health insurance as an erosion of individual liberty. That's a debatable position, but an honest one. And many are simply scared out of their wits about what health-care reform will mean for them. But when fear and loathing hijack the brain, anything becomes believable—even that health-care reform is unconstitutional. To disprove that, check the commerce clause: Article I, Section 8.

Find this article at http://www.newsweek.com/id/214254

[SpurNation]

While a public option could piggyback on the Medicare bureaucracy to maximize savings and have the advantage of simplicity, the emerging Baucus-Conrad scheme would add an array of cooperatives to the already confusing mix of insurance plans. For many Americans, these new entities won’t present an appealing alternative to private insurance.
If such a “compromise” emerges, a few Republicans might vote yes; the industry would be happy; and the Obama administration could have a “bipartisan” signing ceremony.
But the American people might find themselves left out of the celebration. The federal government might even compel the uninsured – under penalty of fines – to sign up with an existing insurance company whether they feel they can afford it or not. Mandated coverage could mean a big windfall for the insurance industry, pushing nearly 50 million new customers into its arms.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/062809.html

[mookie2001]

kenya!

[boutons_deux]

"The federal government might even compel the uninsured"

It says "might", but let's assume there will be no mandate to participate, so, like now, even people who can afford health insurance can continue to remain uninsured, aka, "play medical bankruptcy casino".

When they have a serious, EXPENSIVE disease or accident ($100K+ in medical bills), and they show up at the county hospital ER (which has been so far required to provide care), the county hospital (paid for by insured citizens and taxpayers) will reserve the right to say "we can't find you in ANY insurance plan, so GTFO"

[antimvp]

http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/index.php/2009/08/19/matt-taibbi-on-health-care-reform-sick-and-wrong/#

[jack sommerset]

Pretty fun vid.

9NkoWIH8_wA&eurl

[BadMoodBob]

^^ Nice 'stache Boutons. That shirt was a little too much however.

[hope4dopes]

This is just about people who want things they can't afford and are forcing others to pay for it. It is a form of stealing.

All these recent advancements in health care are expensive! And with these idiotic "ethics" doctors think they have to treat people who can't pay! If they're too poor to pay for their own health care, society would probably be better off with them dead!

It's bad enough to have so many people who contribute nothing to the economy loitering around, making cities look tacky, committing crimes, but they can't leave it at that -- they have to be an economic drag on those of us who add value. I guess with this so-called "President" from Kenya or Indonesia or wherever the hell he's from I shouldn't be surprised.

The only thing I've heard so far that sounded good was those "death panels" --- once old people can't work anymore and their money runs out, why keep them alive? What's the point?

Why do you people insist upon forcing others to take care of you? Why can't you take care of yourself? What happened to your families? Why is it my problem? Screw you! No dude this is about the state trying to steal and oppress the people under the guise of compassion.

[Nbadan]

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/618fb6cbf2/gus-porter-american-legend-with-thomas-haden-church

[mogrovejo]

I'm an European. We have "free" health care here.

Shocking news: it's not free. Doctors still get paid, nurses still get paid, hospital builders still get paid, pharmaceutical companies still get paid, etc. The difference is that the taxpayers, even those who aren't born yet, are the ones paying, not the guys using it. On the other hand, what you get is an amazing degree of inefficiency. You know, the guy who's ill and needs healthcare isn't the one paying for it anyway, the client is an abstract identity called "the government", that will always pay the bill anyway, so why should you care?

I've always been amazed why people who defend an universal and free healthcare system don't also defend an universal and free clothing, universal and free housing, universal and free restaurants and food stores, etc. Aren't those essential goods as well? If it works, what are we waiting for?

[Winehole23]

Shocking news: it's not free. Doctors still get paid, nurses still get paid, hospital builders still get paid, pharmaceutical companies still get paid, etc.Shh. You are not too subtly undermining the meme that government health care will destroy the health care sector...


I've always been amazed why people who defend an universal and free healthcare system don't also defend an universal and free clothing, universal and free housing, universal and free restaurants and food stores, etc. Aren't those essential goods as well? If it works, what are we waiting for? Another economic panic.

When prime and jumbo debts start to fail, along with commercial real estate, there may be another economic shock. Whenever that happens, public provision of the *essentials* you describe may become relevant in the USA.

One friend of mine says to get ready for a *bank holiday* in the USA this fall.

[SnakeBoy]

One friend of mine says to get ready for a *bank holiday* in the USA this fall.

So why do you think everyone is saying the worst is over? Even libertarianish
economists are saying it now. I just don't see anything that makes me think we are done but then again I'm no economist.

[Winehole23]

So why do you think everyone is saying the worst is over? Even libertarianish
economists are saying it now. I just don't see anything that makes me think we are done but then again I'm no economist.I don't either. It's more happy talk.

[Winehole23]

Beat's me why they're doing it. It's a temporizing move at best. The facts may overrun it pretty soon.

[Nbadan]

I'm an European. We have "free" health care here.

Shocking news: it's not free. Doctors still get paid, nurses still get paid, hospital builders still get paid, pharmaceutical companies still get paid, etc. The difference is that the taxpayers, even those who aren't born yet, are the ones paying, not the guys using it. On the other hand, what you get is an amazing degree of inefficiency. You know, the guy who's ill and needs healthcare isn't the one paying for it anyway, the client is an abstract identity called "the government", that will always pay the bill anyway, so why should you care?

I've always been amazed why people who defend an universal and free healthcare system don't also defend an universal and free clothing, universal and free housing, universal and free restaurants and food stores, etc. Aren't those essential goods as well? If it works, what are we waiting for?

That's not at all what they are proposing here.....clinics, hospitals and emergency rooms would continue to operate much like they do now, what is reformed is who pays for care after it has been delivered...

[Winehole23]

Dan, do you recall this:



Shocking news: it's not free. Doctors still get paid, nurses still get paid, hospital builders still get paid, pharmaceutical companies still get paid, etc.

Compare with:


clinics, hospitals and emergency rooms would continue to operate much like they do now, what is reformed is who pays for care after it has been deliveredI had a college professor who did this. He would ask a question. Then he shake his head and say yes, or nod it and say no.

He liked to do this with correct answers. He would nod his head yes and say <<No!>>, then repeat the correct answer you had just given back to you.

You have just done something like this.

[BRHornet45]

pretty fun vid.

9nkowih8_wa&eurl

lmao!

[spursncowboys]

people who work hard and budget are expected to pay for the ones who rather have unlimited minutes and internet on their iphone.

[txallstar]

yeah death panels, it will happen. omg run for your lives, gov run health care oh no, socialist, socialist

wow, i guess we should get rid of medicare/medicade for seniors and health care for our vets, since the gov and our taxes pay for it....damn that free health care,

[spursncowboys]

Of course death panels will happen. Every socialized medicine program in the world has led to rationing. America has the best doctor, medicine, and private programs. That is why citizens of socialized medicine countries come to America

[Yonivore]

yeah death panels, it will happen. omg run for your lives, gov run health care oh no, socialist, socialist
Rationing care is the equivalent of a death panel.


wow, i guess we should get rid of medicare/medicade for seniors and health care for our vets, since the gov and our taxes pay for it....damn that free health care,
I would suggest these institutions are broken but, if they weren't, there is certainly a place for limited public health care; particularly for the aged and our military veterans.

But, back to death panels...

The Death Book for Veterans (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204683204574358590107981718.html)


Last year, bureaucrats at the VA's National Center for Ethics in Health Care advocated a 52-page end-of-life planning document, "Your Life, Your Choices." It was first published in 1997 and later promoted as the VA's preferred living will throughout its vast network of hospitals and nursing homes. After the Bush White House took a look at how this document was treating complex health and moral issues, the VA suspended its use. Unfortunately, under President Obama, the VA has now resuscitated "Your Life, Your Choices."

Who is the primary author of this workbook? Dr. Robert Pearlman, chief of ethics evaluation for the center, a man who in 1996 advocated for physician-assisted suicide in Vacco v. Quill before the U.S. Supreme Court and is known for his support of health-care rationing.

"Your Life, Your Choices" presents end-of-life choices in a way aimed at steering users toward predetermined conclusions, much like a political "push poll." For example, a worksheet on page 21 lists various scenarios and asks users to then decide whether their own life would be "not worth living."
You think Obamacare will be any less odious?

[Shastafarian]

Of course death panels will happen. Every socialized medicine program in the world has led to rationing. America has the best doctor, medicine, and private programs. That is why citizens of socialized medicine countries come to America

I doubt people come here to have babies. We have the 46th lowest infant mortality rate in the world. Countries of note with a lower infant mortality rate:

Canada (36)
United Kingdom (32)
Australia (29)
Denmark (22)
Israel (18)
Switzerland (16)
France (8)
Japan (4)

[Shastafarian]

The WHOs rankings of health care system by country:

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
38 Slovenia
39 Cuba

hey at least we're ahead of Cuba

[Mr. Peabody]

The WHOs rankings of health care system by country:

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
38 Slovenia
39 Cuba

hey at least we're ahead of Cuba

Screw the French and their death panels!

[Shastafarian]

Screw the French and their death panels!

Look at #22. Crazy.

I guess I should note this was done in 2000. Still, you don't jump 36 spots in 9 years. If anything it has gotten worse here.

[SouthernFried]

Well, if you want Colombia's health care system...go there.

I don't. I don't want France's, England's, or anyone elses either. I want to choose my own health care, and I don't want the govt involved in my decision in any way...shape...or form.

And that is what this is all about.

Not anyone else's "statistical" statistics.

[Winehole23]

Some people do want it. It's about that too.

[Shastafarian]

Well, if you want Colombia's health care system...go there.

I don't. I don't want France's, England's, or anyone elses either. I want to choose my own health care, and I don't want the govt involved in my decision in any way...shape...or form.

And that is what this is all about.

Not anyone else's "statistical" statistics.

:lol Who cares if it works better?!?! If you want to choose your own healthcare you better let your insurance company know. They might have something to say about it.

[spursncowboys]

I doubt people come here to have babies. We have the 46th lowest infant mortality rate in the world. Countries of note with a lower infant mortality rate:

Canada (36)
United Kingdom (32)
Australia (29)
Denmark (22)
Israel (18)
Switzerland (16)
France (8)
Japan (4)

Silly silly socialist. So the Brittish people who have their children in the hospital hallways. Do you really think if they could, they would not come to America? Also Canadians aren't coming over to America to have their kids?
Its not about mortality. It's about having a doctor who speaks your language (brittish ppl usually have an indian doctor) or having the luxuries like a nurse on hand and maybe only two ppl per room. I would take your comrads serious if they too would use this nationalized healthcare, but they still will keep their own govt. paid platinum package. I have a form of nationalized healthcare in the military and it is horrible. To go to the emergency room with a two year with a 103 degree temp. you will still wait in the waiting room for hours. I waited for eight hours in the waiting room when I had the flu before I gave up and left. To make an appointment, you have to call the appointment line and these ppl have all the power. If you are rude to them, they won't have an opening for months. If you miss an appointment, good luck getting another one. And they are rude!! They are like the people at the McDonalds drive thru.

[Yonivore]

The WHOs rankings of health care system by country:

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
38 Slovenia
39 Cuba

hey at least we're ahead of Cuba
Tell me when anyone leaves the United States of America -- or any other country -- to travel to one of the first 36 for health care.

[Shastafarian]

Silly silly socialist.You don't know what that means either do you?

So the Brittish people who have their children in the hospital hallways. Do you really think if they could, they would not come to America?Rather have them in a hallway than DEAD.

Also Canadians aren't coming over to America to have their kids? No

Its not about mortality.Um, ok I'll see where you're taking this. Because honestly if it's not about your baby dying, I'm not sure what it is about.

It's about having a doctor who speaks your language (brittish ppl usually have an indian doctor)Oh. I guess it's about being a bigot

or having the luxuries like a nurse on hand and maybe only two ppl per room.Have you ever been to a hospital in Canada or any place outside the US?

I would take your comrads serious if they too would use this nationalized healthcare, but they still will keep their own govt. paid platinum package. Coherence. Look it up too.

I have a form of nationalized healthcare in the military and it is horrible.Sorry.

To go to the emergency room with a two year with a 103 degree temp. you will still wait in the waiting room for hours.So you're claiming any nationalized healthcare system would be the same?

I waited for eight hours in the waiting room when I had the flu before I gave up and left.The emergency room or an actual doctor's office?

To make an appointment, you have to call the appointment line and these ppl have all the power.How is that different than the current system?

If you are rude to them, they won't have an opening for months.That has nothing to do with the system. It has everything to do with people being assholes

If you miss an appointment, good luck getting another one.Why did you miss the appointment?

And they are rude!! They are like the people at the McDonalds drive thru.again that has nothing to do with the system and everything to do with people being assholes.

[Yonivore]

I doubt people come here to have babies. We have the 46th lowest infant mortality rate in the world. Countries of note with a lower infant mortality rate:

Canada (36)
United Kingdom (32)
Australia (29)
Denmark (22)
Israel (18)
Switzerland (16)
France (8)
Japan (4)
It's because we are able to sustain a baby in our state of the art NICU's at a much younger age than any of those other countries you list. Babies born earlier are less likely to survive. In fact, the bulk of our infant mortality rate are of babies that would have been considered still borns (and therefore, not counted) in many of the countries you list.

Again, tell me when people travel to those places for treatment at the rate they travel to the USA for treatment.

[Shastafarian]

Tell me when anyone leaves the United States of America -- or any other country -- to travel to one of the first 36 for health care.

I know of plenty of people who go to Canada. And if flights were cheap and the person had a place to stay, I'm sure they'd go to the other countries as well.

[Mr. Peabody]

Tell me when anyone leaves the United States of America -- or any other country -- to travel to one of the first 36 for health care.

Wasn't there an issue with US citizens going to Canada for medicine? Also, here in South Texas, there are plenty of people who go into Mexico for basic medical care and prescription drugs.

[Shastafarian]

It's because we are able to sustain a baby in our state of the art NICU's at a much younger age than any of those other countries you list. Babies born earlier are less likely to survive. In fact, the bulk of our infant mortality rate are of babies that would have been considered still borns (and therefore, not counted) in many of the countries you list.Source?

[SouthernFried]

:lol Who cares if it works better?!?! If you want to choose your own healthcare you better let your insurance company know. They might have something to say about it.

Govt control of 1/6th of the economy is ok, if you think it would then be better than Colombia's health care? Under your's and WHO's determination, Colombia's health care is better than ours?

And the whole point of choosing my own healthcare, is whether or not I even decide to have health "insurance." And then I choose which insurance company I would then go with...so, of course I would "let them know"

But, they have "no say about" who I choose to go with, or if I even want "insurance."

That's called individual liberty. Something you won't have under Obamacare. You will be forced to have insurance.

That's not what freedom and liberty is about. You may be willing to give up that...I'm not.

[Shastafarian]

And the whole point of choosing my own healthcare, is whether or not I even decide to have health "insurance."It's not a real choice. You either have insurance and are covered or you don't and you pay exorbitant amounts of money for healthcare (or never seek it).



That's called individual liberty. Something you won't have under Obamacare. You will be forced to have insurance. Which "Obamacare" are you referring to?

[Yonivore]

Wasn't there an issue with US citizens going to Canada for medicine? Also, here in South Texas, there are plenty of people who go into Mexico for basic medical care and prescription drugs.
Medicine, not medical care.

Well, except wild-ass, out-of-the-mainstream, voodoo medical treatments...(to Mexico)

[SouthernFried]

It's not a real choice. You either have insurance and are covered or you don't and you pay exorbitant amounts of money for healthcare (or never seek it).


Which "Obamacare" are you referring to?

It's not a real choice?

Of course it is.

I choose to have "insurance," or I choose not to.
I choose which type of "insurance" I may want, or not.
I choose which company I want and which I don't.

That's called individual liberty, Freedom...and responsibility.

Govt should not be involved in any way, shape, or form with my...or your, liberties and freedoms. Even if you don't want them, and are willing to have the govt take care of you...that's not what this country has ever been about.

Maybe Colombia...

[Shastafarian]

It's not a real choice?

Of course it is.

I choose to have "insurance," or I choose not to. If you don't choose insurance you're either insanely wealthy or insanely stupid. It's like choosing to keep money in a bank or choosing to keep it on your doorstep.

I choose which type of "insurance" I may want, or not.You'll get that choice with "Obamacare"

I choose which company I want and which I don't.Why does it make a difference. I'll be interested to see your answer to this.



Govt should not be involved in any way, shape, or form with my...or your, liberties and freedoms.By providing us means to live.

Even if you don't want them, and are willing to have the govt take care of you...that's not what this country has ever been about.Where does it say that in the constitution?


Maybe Colombia...
Maybe Colombia has better healthcare than us.

[boutons_deux]

"I choose to have "insurance," or I choose not to."

so you can refuse your employer's insurance and take the equivalent as salary? and pay full income tax on it?

"I choose which type of "insurance" "

your "choice of one" is that offered by your employer, very few offer a choice of two.

"choose which company I want and which I don't."

again, for most people their employer offers one plan, one company.

a public option would be ... optional. no loss of freedom or choice.

"govt take care of you"

bullshit, lying strawman. who said the govt public OPTION is "going to take care of you".

[SouthernFried]

That's right...If I don't want insurance I'm insanely stupid or insanely wealthy. Regardless if you think those are the only 2 reasons not to have insurance...the point is...it's your choice. Your freedom and Liberty to make that choice.

If OBAMACARE allows me to choose any type of Health plan or Insurance I want...why do we need Obamacare...I have that choice now.

Are all Insurance companies exactly the same? That is your assertion if you think it doesn't make a difference which one you "choose." Why would OBAMACARE offer you different companies then? Again, I don't care if they are all the exact same, like Pontiac and Oldsmobile...I don't want anyone telling me anything about my choices. Not your's...or Obama's biz.

"by providing us a means to live." Not sure what your talking about here.

Where does it say in the Constitution that the govt should take care of you. Remember...if it's NOT in the Constitution, the govt can't do it. We're talking about Govt action here, after all. Has to be Constitutional. And it is not.

Yeah, mebbe Colombia is where you want to go for your Healthcare. Personally, I like my Doc here just fine.

[SouthernFried]

"I choose to have "insurance," or I choose not to."

so you can refuse your employer's insurance and take the equivalent as salary? and pay full income tax on it?

If that's what you choose.

"I choose which type of "insurance" "

your "choice of one" is that offered by your employer, very few offer a choice of two.

You don't have to take what's offered by your employer. You can have none, or get your own...or get your employers. That's what "choice" and Freedom is all about.

"choose which company I want and which I don't."

again, for most people their employer offers one plan, one company.

a public option would be ... optional. no loss of freedom or choice.

Discussed too many ways, and I'm sure you understand them...that a public option, supported by those already paying Health Insurance premiums somewhere else, would drive private insurance out of business (why should someone pay their own health "insurance" as well as subsidize someone elses?) Using tax dollars from people already paying their own health insurance, to also subsidize other peoples health "insurance" is both immoral, and unconstitutional.

"govt take care of you"

bullshit, lying strawman. who said the govt public OPTION is "going to take care of you".

Why else would you want it? If you choose it, the govt would be taking care of you. Whether making it "cheaper" for you, or making it "free" for you...it would be taking care of you.

[txallstar]

basically it's medicare for all citizens as an Option not a requirement, chill the fuck out...

[SouthernFried]

Under the plans I've seen, unless they've changed it...you don't have the option NOT to have "insurance."

[txallstar]

no one is forced onto a federal insurance plan and if you pay for your own you'll have it unless who ever you have decides they don't want to offer that plan for you any more and that can happen now

[SouthernFried]

no one is forced onto a federal insurance plan and if you pay for your own you'll have it unless who ever you have decides they don't want to offer that plan for you any more and that can happen now

Again...I'll repeat myself.

From what I've seen, unless it's been changed...you WILL be forced to have Health "insurance." There is no option to not have it.

Now, you and others may think people may be "insane," or "insanely wealthy" to not have health "insurance." But, I assure, there have been many, many reasons throughout this country's history, of people not wanting health "insurance"...for as many reasons as there are people.

Govt mandating you have "insurance"...is giving up your Freedom and Liberties.

You may not think this is a big deal...but, I assure you...it's a VERY big deal.

And notice one more thing...this isn't about real healthcare at all...it's about "Insurance."

And if you don't believe or agree with anything else I say, believe this...When the govt gets involved in anything, it's always about money and power.

They're not doing this for your well-being and welfare...they are doing it for the reasons above.

[spursncowboys]

All the socialists keep bringing up medicaid. We don't have the money for medicaid. We still need to fix that before 2030. How can we afford this?

[spursncowboys]

How do we pay for a nationalized healthcare?

[Yonivore]

Source?
Years of reading stories like this...


'Doctors told me it was against the rules to save my premature baby' (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211950/Premature-baby-left-die-doctors-mother-gives-birth-just-days-22-week-care-limit.html)


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_hnqpvFwIwnw/SqbJIWAxvJI/AAAAAAAAEH0/Ww_XYAKoshw/s400/1.jpg

That is Jayden Capewell in the picture.

When Jayden Capewell was born, he needed intensive care.

British doctors denied him that care and Jayden Capewell die.

The National Health Service rules require doctors to do that.

It saves money.

And the British health system is all about saving money — not lives.

So what does this have to do with infant mortality rates?

You see, even though he was born alive, the British do not consider his to be a live birth.

His mother’s pregnancy was two days shy of the 22-week minimum to be considered a birth and therefore worthy of treatment.

So the British consider him to be a fetus, not an infant.

That is one way to keep the infant mortality rate down.

The rules aren't dissimilar in some of the other countries on your list.