Reply With Quote
In Britain, the government floated a proposal to ration health care based upon a person's habits. So if you didn't exercise often enough, or if you weighed too much, they could deny you health care, and just let you die.
Well, some more of your big brother government. These are
the people that you want to control your health care. And
I do mean CONTROL. The all knowing members of government knows what is best for you. Anyhow, the
leader of conservation and the enviorment is now going to
take over how cool or warm you house is. Even if you
don't agree with them. Make you feel better about big
government? Thought it would.
The Rest Of The Story.
In Britain, the government floated a proposal to ration health care based upon a person's habits. So if you didn't exercise often enough, or if you weighed too much, they could deny you health care, and just let you die.
Health care is already rationed in USA by "people that you want to control your health care", aka the the health "care" system.
If you can't afford health insurance or health care, you don't get early/sufficient medical care, and end up getting sicker for longer and dying preventable deaths vs. the people who can afford health care, aka social/economic Darwinism, over which no conservatives shed any tears.
You're dumb and ignorant to say conservatives shed no tears. Seriously, you must be the dumbest mother er on this board.
Do you even understand where the Democraps are coming from with their universal health care? They want to model it on England's. Which means, for example, when you are older and have health problems, you go to the back of the line.
Yeah, Hillary and co. sure have their together on this one
Okay... elitists shed no tears.You're dumb and ignorant to say conservatives shed no tears. Seriously, you must be the dumbest mother er on this board.
Do you even understand where the Democraps are coming from with their universal health care? They want to model it on England's. Which means, for example, when you are older and have health problems, you go to the back of the line.
Yeah, Hillary and co. sure have their together on this one
By most measures, Canada and Europe have better health care for less money, though it probably won't work here because we have to payoff special interests (see Medicare prescription).
As for big brother, BushCo has surveillance on your emails and telephone calls. Controlling your thermostat hardly compares, yet because it's "liberals" doing it, the "conservatives" (not muchinterest in conserving energy) are crying.
England sucks at big projects and in organizational management, including NHS, which is probably the worst national health care system in Europe.
Show me where any Dems want to model US healthcare specifically on the English model?
Never fear, conservative s, super-wealthy SIGs have the $2T US healthcare industry and you by the short&curlies, and will never let go. Is why any health care plans talk about how primarily to pay for the rip-off, rather than how to reduce costs and stop the rip-off. The profits from that $2T buys a lot of lobbyists and politicians at every level of govt, subsidizes bogus studies, and "independent" think tanks that will lie on $command.
You want to know who has who by the 'short and curlies'? It's the ing lawyers. Until tort reform happens, health care costs will continue to be a drain due to the cost of malpractice insurance. And tort reform is pretty much a dead point because there are more lawyers in D.C. than probably anywhere else in the world, and a lot of them are elected officials.
You want to bring medical costs down?
1. Tort reform
2. Release the restrictions on prescription drugs.
The second one is becoming more moot though, if you know where to look. Costco and Walmart both buy in such volumes that they are selling at greatly reduced prices and also have programs in place for those that cannot afford name brand drugs.
But that's a small drop in the bucket, companies and pharmacies need to be able to import drugs from Canada and other places.
As for big brother, BushCo has surveillance on your emails and telephone calls. Controlling your thermostat hardly compares
You're right, it's worse.
If that was true, Texas would be one place to find proof of your theory, since there is essentially no more medical malpractice litigation in this state following the Legislature's tort reform efforts a few years ago -- you get hurt or even killed because a doctor was negligent? Too bad for you; the noneconomic damages available in those suits (limited by statute) are too small for Plaintiffs' attorneys to take them.
Where are malpractice insurance premiums in Texas? I honestly don't know.
Last edited by FromWayDowntown; 01-13-2008 at 04:56 PM.
ing red (-state) herring
Tort reform, capped payout, has done all to reduce health care costs for "consumers" in TX or other states.
The docs pay less for liability insurance, the insurance companies payout less, the docs haven't reduced the bills to clients, they just pocket the diff of lower premiums, while malpractice victims often now have no redress because lawyers, expecting 30%, won't take on a case that will payout only $250K max. Their $75K cut isn't enough to cover their costs and make multi-$100/hour profit.
Anyway, the malpractice/tort reform was always red-herring BS anyway from the docs and insurance cos, who bought enough politicians to over the victims. Malpractice claims represent a tiny %age of over all health care costs.
Tort reform would help some. We would need to accept as a society that it is not doctors who end up paying out the malpractice awards, but rather all the other patients. However, tort reform alone might lower health care costs by 10%. That's it. It is an easy talking point for conservatives to claim that tort reform would solve all of our health care problems, because it fits in well with Republican ideology, and it is an easy answer. Oh, if only it were true.
Releasing the "restrictions" on prescription drugs would lower the costs, but it also effectively make pharmaceutical innovation cease. As it is right now, a person economically can get any drug regimen that was state of the art back in 1991.
Health care is very much a "tragedy of the commons" issue. It really, actually is very expensive to get the best quality of care available. However, for the most part, people want to live. But who pays for it? If people have good insurance, some will abuse it and go to the doctor every other week. We spend a disproportionate amount of money on end-of-life care, to extend life a year or two. And, quite simply, many of our most amazing new treatments are incredibly expensive.
People got all bent out of shape last week when a report came out showing that blacks tend to die more often when they suffer heart attacks in hospitals than whites do. After the race baiting died down, it became clear that rather than health care professionals caring less about blacks, it was an issue of class; poor people in taxpayer-funded public hospitals don't get the same quality of care as wealthier people in private hospitals that are paid by insurance. This, too, was seen as some kind of injustice.
But who is going to pay for everybody to have state-of-the-art health care?
Stout - I'm not saying that tort reform will solve all the problems with health care costs. It's but one component. But until you see the folks in D.C. deal with it and prescription medicine costs (to start with), you won't see any other meaningful reform come about.
Sure, if a democrat gets elected in November more people will have access to that sub-par public hospital care you talk about, but that only solves part of the problem.
A family friend of ours is a doc and his insurance premiums were something like 60% of his overhead. Yep, what the would he know about malpractice insurance relative to your copy and paste bull from some liberal web site?
all? What the is that? Speak english you twit.
"tort reform alone might lower health care costs by 10%."
Several states, including TX, have capped rewards. How much have health care costs dropped in TX? My guess is they have continued to rise 5%/year, with capping having NO discernible reduction for consumers, only increased profits for docs and insurance companies.
"who is going to pay for everybody to have state-of-the-art health care?'
Everybody pays into one pool and everybody gets coverage spreading the cost+risk over the entire population, rather than subdividing the risk among a large number of high-overhead insurance companies. Increased coverage = improved health, as has been shown by poor uninsured, seniors who reach 65 and start getting Medicare coverage. Their health goes up and their health costs go down.
We/tax money already pay for people "covered" dubya's "just-go-to-the-ER" patients , and pay a lot more because ER people are a lot sicker than covered people. Is why Austin is providing free medical to non-insured, "ounce of prevention".
'also effectively make pharmaceutical innovation cease"
total bull . Big Pharma spends $60B on advertising vs only $30B on research. As a result of $30B, we get a lot of new drugs that are not better than earlier drugs, ie, no innovation overall, are minuscule-ly modified versions of old drugs to stretch out patents, and drugs that are "tested" by Big Pharma with a nudge&wink from FDA that kill, sicken, and maim 100s of 1000s of people every year. eg, cancer chemo is a $500B/year scam which adds about 2 months to survival, and simply doesn't work for th 600K caner deaths/year.
My guess is that poor, uninsured blacks have lower education and which correlates with bad diet ( tiest high-calory foods for the $) and lifestyle, causing more and more serious CVD, which goes undetected longer due to no $heart checkups, rather than the bogus public vs private care angle. Bad diet/lifestyle causes TII diabetes which causes CVD which is what causes nearly all deaths in TII victims.
ie, poverty + low education = bad health, NOT black vs white. Poor whites and Hispanics have exactly the health problems as poor blacks.
The lack of universal health coverage is one of the main reasons the USA is dead last, 18th, in the rate of preventable deaths among industrial countries.
Great Britain was two spots ahead of the U.S. Damn, can't wait to have their model of socialist health care!The lack of universal health coverage is one of the main reasons the USA is dead last, 18th, in the rate of preventable deaths among industrial countries.
Look, we need to improve the system we have, there's not doubt about it. But the answer isn't to tax every American to where we are paying over 50% of our income for either social security or universal health care.
Maybe you'll care about like taxes when you graduate high school, croutons.
"60% of his overhead."
and now they are what? and how much has he reduced his bills to his "consumers".
More big brother. The British government is now going to
donate your organs for transplant. Now doesn't that just
make you feel better about government run health programs.
More Big Brother At Work
, they already have talking surveillance cameras in the UK.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/6524495.stm
"Talking" CCTV cameras that tell off people dropping litter or committing anti-social behaviour are to be extended to 20 areas across England.
Pick up your trash - and wipe that angry look off your face!
What measures?
You know, it's only "Big Brotherish" if they conduct these activities in areas where you could reasonably expect privacy. I don't think anyone has a reasonable expectation of privacy on a public sidewalk, roadway, or building.
So there would be no problem with random searches of individuals who are doing nothing more than walking on sidewalks, driving on roadways, or occupying buildings?
Sure there'd be a problem. There's a difference between watching you and searching you.
As for the "occupying building," it would depend on the building, the owner, and whether or not the person entered the building voluntarily knowing a search might be a condition of entry.
It happens all the time. There's expectation and then there's reasonable expectation.
If it's your contention that I have no reasonable expectation of privacy when walking a city street, then there's no reason for me to think that a search of my person or effects would be unreasonable, since the entire basis for protecting individuals from such searches is the effectuation of a reasonable expectation of privacy.
I certainly understand that people can be watched, but that's a far cry from saying that they have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
