Soak the Rich, Lose the Rich (Texas has it right)

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Do you deny that the Federal Government has no role to play (nor should it) in how many babies people have and how long people live?

I hope not, but under universal health care, we could give them that kind of power.

Bingo!

[Peikko 1,575]

Oh, of course which is why, in the UK and France and Germany and every other country that has successfully implemented a Universal health care program the populations are strictly controlled by government.

Do you realize how rabid you sound?

Edited May 21, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Oh, of course which is why, in the UK and France and Germany and every other country that has successfully implemented a Universal health care program the populations are strictly controlled by government.

Do you realize how rabid you sound?

The population is not regulated, but the native population in Europe is declining, none the less. Healthcare is less available, in the sense that many proceedures are rationed, or restricted to certain age groups.

[Peikko 1,575]

Oh, of course which is why, in the UK and France and Germany and every other country that has successfully implemented a Universal health care program the populations are strictly controlled by government.

Do you realize how rabid you sound?

The population is not regulated, but the native population in Europe is declining, none the less. Healthcare is less available, in the sense that many proceedures are rationed, or restricted to certain age groups.

Populations are not decline because of poor health. Birth rates are low, but survival rates for babies and mothers are significantly higher in Europe (I am sure there are other countries with equally good health care systems, Canada, Australia etc I am just not so familiar with them.) than the US. Procedures are not rationed or restricted. What poppycock, I guess someone has given you some baloney scare story. Even if it were the case, that expensive procedures were 'rationed', it would still be better than simply not even having the possibility of that procedure full stop. The rich always have better health care, that's a fact, regardless of what system is in place. It's the middle class that suffers the most in the US footing the exorbitant insurance bills on top of funding state schemes etc. I have lived under various systems and this one is by far the worst. Not the Dr's, or even the health care workers but the insane insurance. It's overly complicated and there is no effective choice. Baloney is what it is. I am surpised at you for buying into this Bill - if you in fact do.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Populations are not decline because of poor health. Birth rates are low, but survival rates for babies and mothers are significantly higher in Europe (I am sure there are other countries with equally good health care systems, Canada, Australia etc I am just not so familiar with them.) than the US. Procedures are not rationed or restricted. What poppycock, I guess someone has given you some baloney scare story. Even if it were the case, that expensive procedures were 'rationed', it would still be better than simply not even having the possibility of that procedure full stop. The rich always have better health care, that's a fact, regardless of what system is in place. It's the middle class that suffers the most in the US footing the exorbitant insurance bills on top of funding state schemes etc. I have lived under various systems and this one is by far the worst. Not the Dr's, or even the health care workers but the insane insurance. It's overly complicated and there is no effective choice. Baloney is what it is. I am surpised at you for buying into this Bill - if you in fact do.

The rationing prospect seems to be in the mix right now. Americans have bought the arguement that even if they cannot afford a proceedure, it is comforting to know it is available if they could afford it. You will hear story after story of proceedures denied in Canada as not necessary, deemed life saving, one the patient crosses into the US. There are stories that above a certain age in Britain, life extending and quality of life proceedures, commonly paid for by medicare, are not even available to the elderly.

Those are the stories. I would be interested in that discussion, and cites either way. I will post this one, that has stirred considerable discussion in healthcare circles.

How Washington Rations

Try to follow this logic: Last week the Medicare trustees reported that the program has an "unfunded liability" of nearly $38 trillion -- which is the amount of benefits promised but not covered by taxes over the next 75 years. So Democrats have decided that the way to close this gap is to create a new "universal" health insurance entitlement for the middle class.

Such thinking may be a non sequitur, but it will have drastic effects on the health care of all Americans -- and as it happens, this future is playing out in miniature in Medicare right now. Desperate to prevent medical costs from engulfing the federal budget, the program's central planners decided last week to deny payment for a new version of one of life's most unpleasant routine procedures, the colonoscopy. This is a preview of how health care will be rationed when Democrats get their way.

At issue are "virtual colonoscopies," or CT scans of the abdomen. Colon cancer is the second leading cause of U.S. cancer death but one of the most preventable. Found early, the cure rate is 93%, but only 8% at later stages. Virtual colonoscopies are likely to boost screenings because they are quicker, more comfortable and significantly cheaper than the standard "optical" procedure, which involves anesthesia and threading an endoscope through the lower intestine.

Virtual colonoscopies are endorsed by the American Cancer Society and covered by a growing number of private insurers including Cigna and UnitedHealthcare. The problem for Medicare is that if cancerous lesions are found using a scan, then patients must follow up with a traditional colonoscopy anyway. Costs would be lower if everyone simply took the invasive route, where doctors can remove polyps on the spot. As Medicare noted in its ruling, "If there is a relatively high referral rate [for traditional colonoscopy], the utility of an intermediate test such as CT colonography is limited." In other words, duplication would be too pricey.

This is precisely the sort of complexity that the Democrats would prefer to ignore as they try to restructure health care. Led by budget chief Peter Orszag, the White House believes that comparative effectiveness research, which examines clinical evidence to determine what "works best," will let them cut wasteful or ineffective treatments and thus contain health spending.

The problem is that what "works best" isn't the same for everyone. While not painless or risk free, virtual colonoscopy might be better for some patients -- especially among seniors who are infirm or because the presence of other diseases puts them at risk for complications. Ideally doctors would decide with their patients. But Medicare instead made the hard-and-fast choice that it was cheaper to cut it off for all beneficiaries. If some patients are worse off, well, too bad.

Medicare is already the country's largest purchaser of health care. Private carriers generally adopt its rates and policies, and the virtual colonoscopy decision may run this technology out of the marketplace. Now multiply that by the new "public option" that Democrats favor, which would transfer millions of patients to a new insurance program managed by the federal government. Washington's utilitarian judgments about costs would reshape the practice of medicine.

Initially, the open-ended style of American care will barely be touched, if only for political self-preservation. Health planners will adjust at the margins, as with virtual colonoscopy. But scarcity forces choices. As the Medicare trustees note in their report, the tax increases necessary to fund merely the current benefit schedule for the elderly would cripple the economy. The far more expensive public option will not turn into a pumpkin when cost savings do not materialize. At that point, government will clamp down with price controls in the form of lines and rock-bottom reimbursement rates.

Mr. Orszag says that a federal health board will make these Solomonic decisions, which is only true until the lobbies get to Congress and the White House. With virtual colonoscopy, radiologists and gastroenterologists are feuding over which group should get paid for colon cancer screening. Companies like General Electric and Seimens that make CT technology are pressuring Medicare administrators too. More than 50 Congressmen are demanding that the decision be overturned.

All this is merely a preview of the life-and-death decisions that will be determined by politics once government finances substantially more health care than the 46% it already does. Anyone who buys Democratic claims about "choice" and "affordability" will be in for a very rude awakening.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124268737705832167.html

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Oh, of course which is why, in the UK and France and Germany and every other country that has successfully implemented a Universal health care program the populations are strictly controlled by government.

Do you realize how rabid you sound?

The population is not regulated, but the native population in Europe is declining, none the less. Healthcare is less available, in the sense that many proceedures are rationed, or restricted to certain age groups.

Populations are not decline because of poor health. Birth rates are low, but survival rates for babies and mothers are significantly higher in Europe (I am sure there are other countries with equally good health care systems, Canada, Australia etc I am just not so familiar with them.) than the US. Procedures are not rationed or restricted. What poppycock, I guess someone has given you some baloney scare story. Even if it were the case, that expensive procedures were 'rationed', it would still be better than simply not even having the possibility of that procedure full stop. The rich always have better health care, that's a fact, regardless of what system is in place. It's the middle class that suffers the most in the US footing the exorbitant insurance bills on top of funding state schemes etc. I have lived under various systems and this one is by far the worst. Not the Dr's, or even the health care workers but the insane insurance. It's overly complicated and there is no effective choice. Baloney is what it is. I am surpised at you for buying into this Bill - if you in fact do.

Who pays for malpractice suits in France,Germany and the UK?

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Oh, of course which is why, in the UK and France and Germany and every other country that has successfully implemented a Universal health care program the populations are strictly controlled by government.

Do you realize how rabid you sound?

The population is not regulated, but the native population in Europe is declining, none the less. Healthcare is less available, in the sense that many proceedures are rationed, or restricted to certain age groups.

Populations are not decline because of poor health. Birth rates are low, but survival rates for babies and mothers are significantly higher in Europe (I am sure there are other countries with equally good health care systems, Canada, Australia etc I am just not so familiar with them.) than the US. Procedures are not rationed or restricted. What poppycock, I guess someone has given you some baloney scare story. Even if it were the case, that expensive procedures were 'rationed', it would still be better than simply not even having the possibility of that procedure full stop. The rich always have better health care, that's a fact, regardless of what system is in place. It's the middle class that suffers the most in the US footing the exorbitant insurance bills on top of funding state schemes etc. I have lived under various systems and this one is by far the worst. Not the Dr's, or even the health care workers but the insane insurance. It's overly complicated and there is no effective choice. Baloney is what it is. I am surpised at you for buying into this Bill - if you in fact do.

Who pays for malpractice suits in France,Germany and the UK?

Hey bro, how's it hangin'? Did you get suspened too?

[Peikko 1,575]

Cut the ####### Bill. Most people get any and every required procedure in Universal Health care systems, emergency or not. Yes, you might have to wait a while for non urgent care (in most cases weeks/months NOT years) and if you don't want to wait, you can always use a private agency to 'speed things up'. The Middle classes are extremely well served, they get the care at a cost they can afford and they utilize preventive medicine at every opportunity. It may be that some innovatory procedures are not available to everyone on the NHS but they still have the opportunity to try to find the money to pay, same as the middle class in the US who know that the procedure is available, if only they could find the cash.

Most middle class people in the US can't afford to pay for even routine procedures so they simply opt not to have them, resulting in more costly illness and treatment in the long term on many occasions. This is no way to run health care.

This fear mongering is bogus and quite frankly an affront to those who bear the brunt of the mess the US system is in today.

Edited May 21, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Oh, of course which is why, in the UK and France and Germany and every other country that has successfully implemented a Universal health care program the populations are strictly controlled by government.

Do you realize how rabid you sound?

The population is not regulated, but the native population in Europe is declining, none the less. Healthcare is less available, in the sense that many proceedures are rationed, or restricted to certain age groups.

Populations are not decline because of poor health. Birth rates are low, but survival rates for babies and mothers are significantly higher in Europe (I am sure there are other countries with equally good health care systems, Canada, Australia etc I am just not so familiar with them.) than the US. Procedures are not rationed or restricted. What poppycock, I guess someone has given you some baloney scare story. Even if it were the case, that expensive procedures were 'rationed', it would still be better than simply not even having the possibility of that procedure full stop. The rich always have better health care, that's a fact, regardless of what system is in place. It's the middle class that suffers the most in the US footing the exorbitant insurance bills on top of funding state schemes etc. I have lived under various systems and this one is by far the worst. Not the Dr's, or even the health care workers but the insane insurance. It's overly complicated and there is no effective choice. Baloney is what it is. I am surpised at you for buying into this Bill - if you in fact do.

Who pays for malpractice suits in France,Germany and the UK?

Hey bro, how's it hangin'? Did you get suspened too?

Hell yeah! who's the fvckin cry baby?

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Oh, of course which is why, in the UK and France and Germany and every other country that has successfully implemented a Universal health care program the populations are strictly controlled by government.

Do you realize how rabid you sound?

The population is not regulated, but the native population in Europe is declining, none the less. Healthcare is less available, in the sense that many proceedures are rationed, or restricted to certain age groups.

Populations are not decline because of poor health. Birth rates are low, but survival rates for babies and mothers are significantly higher in Europe (I am sure there are other countries with equally good health care systems, Canada, Australia etc I am just not so familiar with them.) than the US. Procedures are not rationed or restricted. What poppycock, I guess someone has given you some baloney scare story. Even if it were the case, that expensive procedures were 'rationed', it would still be better than simply not even having the possibility of that procedure full stop. The rich always have better health care, that's a fact, regardless of what system is in place. It's the middle class that suffers the most in the US footing the exorbitant insurance bills on top of funding state schemes etc. I have lived under various systems and this one is by far the worst. Not the Dr's, or even the health care workers but the insane insurance. It's overly complicated and there is no effective choice. Baloney is what it is. I am surpised at you for buying into this Bill - if you in fact do.

Who pays for malpractice suits in France,Germany and the UK?

Hey bro, how's it hangin'? Did you get suspened too?

Hell yeah! who's the fvckin cry baby?

I'm not sure, but someone or two had posted an objection in a couple of the threads we were bantering in. I don't know if it got reported or if one of the mods found it accidently.

[Peikko 1,575]

Oh and in terms of research, the US is not the only player in the field either.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Cut the ####### Bill. Most people get any and every required procedure in Universal Health care systems, emergency or not. Yes, you might have to wait a while for non urgent care (in most cases weeks/months NOT years) and if you don't want to wait, you can always use a private agency to 'speed things up'. The Middle classes are extremely well served, they get the care at a cost they can afford and they utilize preventive medicine at every opportunity.

Most middle class people in the US can't afford to pay for even routine procedures so they simply opt not to have them, resulting in more costly illness and treatment in the long term on many occasions. This is no way to run health care.

This fear mongering is bogus and quite frankly an affront to those who bear the brunt of the mess the US system is in today.

#######, or not, that is what the fear is. I just saw one case last night on the news, where what was a routine heart proceedure in the US, was being treated with drugs in Canada. The patient would have to wait 2-1/2 years for the proceedure there while his condition deteriorated. He came to the US, was examined, and immediately treated.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Oh, of course which is why, in the UK and France and Germany and every other country that has successfully implemented a Universal health care program the populations are strictly controlled by government.

Do you realize how rabid you sound?

The population is not regulated, but the native population in Europe is declining, none the less. Healthcare is less available, in the sense that many proceedures are rationed, or restricted to certain age groups.

Populations are not decline because of poor health. Birth rates are low, but survival rates for babies and mothers are significantly higher in Europe (I am sure there are other countries with equally good health care systems, Canada, Australia etc I am just not so familiar with them.) than the US. Procedures are not rationed or restricted. What poppycock, I guess someone has given you some baloney scare story. Even if it were the case, that expensive procedures were 'rationed', it would still be better than simply not even having the possibility of that procedure full stop. The rich always have better health care, that's a fact, regardless of what system is in place. It's the middle class that suffers the most in the US footing the exorbitant insurance bills on top of funding state schemes etc. I have lived under various systems and this one is by far the worst. Not the Dr's, or even the health care workers but the insane insurance. It's overly complicated and there is no effective choice. Baloney is what it is. I am surpised at you for buying into this Bill - if you in fact do.

Who pays for malpractice suits in France,Germany and the UK?

Hey bro, how's it hangin'? Did you get suspened too?

Hell yeah! who's the fvckin cry baby?

I'm not sure, but someone or two had posted an objection in a couple of the threads we were bantering in. I don't know if it got reported or if one of the mods found it accidently.

It might have been just to make sure you two got a good nights sleep. Dig up the one thread. They deleted about thirty posts, the best I can figure.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Cut the ####### Bill. Most people get any and every required procedure in Universal Health care systems, emergency or not. Yes, you might have to wait a while for non urgent care (in most cases weeks/months NOT years) and if you don't want to wait, you can always use a private agency to 'speed things up'. The Middle classes are extremely well served, they get the care at a cost they can afford and they utilize preventive medicine at every opportunity. It may be that some innovatory procedures are not available to everyone on the NHS but they still have the opportunity to try to find the money to pay, same as the middle class in the US who know that the procedure is available, if only they could find the cash.

Most middle class people in the US can't afford to pay for even routine procedures so they simply opt not to have them, resulting in more costly illness and treatment in the long term on many occasions. This is no way to run health care.

This fear mongering is bogus and quite frankly an affront to those who bear the brunt of the mess the US system is in today.

How the he!! do you know what the middle class wants or doesnt? In cali they just voted down tax hikes. The middle class has spoken!

Oh, of course which is why, in the UK and France and Germany and every other country that has successfully implemented a Universal health care program the populations are strictly controlled by government.

Do you realize how rabid you sound?

The population is not regulated, but the native population in Europe is declining, none the less. Healthcare is less available, in the sense that many proceedures are rationed, or restricted to certain age groups.

Populations are not decline because of poor health. Birth rates are low, but survival rates for babies and mothers are significantly higher in Europe (I am sure there are other countries with equally good health care systems, Canada, Australia etc I am just not so familiar with them.) than the US. Procedures are not rationed or restricted. What poppycock, I guess someone has given you some baloney scare story. Even if it were the case, that expensive procedures were 'rationed', it would still be better than simply not even having the possibility of that procedure full stop. The rich always have better health care, that's a fact, regardless of what system is in place. It's the middle class that suffers the most in the US footing the exorbitant insurance bills on top of funding state schemes etc. I have lived under various systems and this one is by far the worst. Not the Dr's, or even the health care workers but the insane insurance. It's overly complicated and there is no effective choice. Baloney is what it is. I am surpised at you for buying into this Bill - if you in fact do.

Who pays for malpractice suits in France,Germany and the UK?

Hey bro, how's it hangin'? Did you get suspened too?

Hell yeah! who's the fvckin cry baby?

I'm not sure, but someone or two had posted an objection in a couple of the threads we were bantering in. I don't know if it got reported or if one of the mods found it accidently.

It might have been just to make sure you two got a good nights sleep. Dig up the one thread. They deleted about thirty posts, the best I can figure.

I guess we cant have fun anymore?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I guess we cant have fun anymore?

Life is getting too serial.