Rethuglican Congresswoman: "There are no Americans who don't have healthcare"

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) disputes President Obama’s claim that 47 million Americans lack healthcare. “There are no Americans who don’t have healthcare. Everybody in this country has access to healthcare,” she says.

http://talkradionews.com/2009/07/obama-exa...ays-goper-foxx/

[one...two...tree 2,762]

[alienlovechild 75]

If there are millions without health care, where will all the additional medical personnel come from to treat those individuals?

[Ban Hammer 13,677]

If there are millions without health care, where will all the additional medical personnel come from to treat those individuals?

swift approval of pi girls as so many are nurses. no ap for mena guys as most of them seem to be doctors.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Dammit! I'm tired of stepping over bodies of the uninsured that litter our streets!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It does need spelling out for the Rethuglicans: Access to an ER does not equate to access to health care.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

It does need spelling out for the Rethuglicans: Access to an ER does not equate to access to health care.

They know but they don't care about the poor.

[alienlovechild 75]

It does need spelling out for the Rethuglicans: Access to an ER does not equate to access to health care

Not having enough medically qualified staff is apparently something liberals don't care to think about which isn't surprising.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It does need spelling out for the Rethuglicans: Access to an ER does not equate to access to health care.

They know but they don't care about the poor.

You clearly give them too much credit.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It does need spelling out for the Rethuglicans: Access to an ER does not equate to access to health care

Not having enough medically qualified staff is apparently something liberals don't care to think about which isn't surprising.

We're no better or worse than other developed nations in terms of available physicians and other medical staff per population. If they manage to care for all with similar ratios, then why would that not be possible here? Are our doctors and nurses somehow less efficient than those in other developed countries? You shouldn't talk bad like that about the medical profession here in the US.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Hippies don't need healthcare. They have health food, and medicinal marijuana

[alienlovechild 75]

We're no better or worse than other developed nations in terms of available physicians and other medical staff per population. If they manage to care for all with similar ratios, then why would that not be possible here? Are our doctors and nurses somehow less efficient than those in other developed countries?

If the money doctors made under the old private system goes and there's no lessening in requirements, how exactly will we get more doctors? A lot of these countries medical technology are years behind us so I'm not surprised by these doctors are cranked out but what exactly can they do with limited resources?

Physicians > per 1,000 people (most recent) by country

# 1 San Marino: 47.35 per 1,000 people 1990

# 2 Cuba: 5.91 per 1,000 people 2002

# 3 Monaco: 5.81 per 1,000 people 1995

# 4 Saint Lucia: 5.17 per 1,000 people 1999

# 5 Belarus: 4.55 per 1,000 people 2003

# 6 Greece: 4.4 per 1,000 people 2001

# 7 Russia: 4.25 per 1,000 people 2003

# 8 Italy: 4.2 per 1,000 people 2004

# 9 Turkmenistan: 4.18 per 1,000 people 2002

# 10 Georgia: 4.09 per 1,000 people 2003

# 11 Lithuania: 3.97 per 1,000 people 2003

# 12 Belgium: 3.9 per 1,000 people 2002

# 13 Israel: 3.82 per 1,000 people 2003

# 14 Andorra: 3.7 per 1,000 people 2003

# 15 Uruguay: 3.65 per 1,000 people 2002

# 16 Iceland: 3.62 per 1,000 people 2004

# 17 Switzerland: 3.6 per 1,000 people 2002

# 18 Armenia: 3.59 per 1,000 people 2003

# 19 Bulgaria: 3.56 per 1,000 people 2003

# 20 Azerbaijan: 3.55 per 1,000 people 2003

# 21 Kazakhstan: 3.54 per 1,000 people 2003

# 22 Czech Republic: 3.5 per 1,000 people 2003

= 23 Austria: 3.4 per 1,000 people 2003

= 23 Germany: 3.4 per 1,000 people 2003

# 25 France: 3.37 per 1,000 people 2004

= 26 Portugal: 3.3 per 1,000 people 2003

= 26 Sweden: 3.3 per 1,000 people 2002

# 28 Korea, North: 3.29 per 1,000 people 2003

# 29 Lebanon: 3.25 per 1,000 people 2001

= 30 Hungary: 3.2 per 1,000 people 2003

= 30 Spain: 3.2 per 1,000 people 2003

# 32 Malta: 3.18 per 1,000 people 2003

# 33 Estonia: 3.16 per 1,000 people 2001

= 34 Norway: 3.1 per 1,000 people 2003

= 34 Netherlands: 3.1 per 1,000 people 2003

= 34 Slovakia: 3.1 per 1,000 people 2003

= 37 Latvia: 3.01 per 1,000 people 2003

= 37 Argentina: 3.01 per 1,000 people 1998

# 39 Ukraine: 2.95 per 1,000 people 2003

# 40 Denmark: 2.9 per 1,000 people 2002

# 41 Ireland: 2.79 per 1,000 people 2004

# 42 Uzbekistan: 2.74 per 1,000 people 2003

# 43 Luxembourg: 2.7 per 1,000 people 2003

# 44 Moldova: 2.64 per 1,000 people 2003

# 45 Mongolia: 2.63 per 1,000 people 2002

# 46 Finland: 2.6 per 1,000 people 2003

= 47 Kyrgyzstan: 2.5 per 1,000 people 2004

= 47 Australia: 2.5 per 1,000 people 2002

= 47 Poland: 2.5 per 1,000 people 2003

# 50 Croatia: 2.4 per 1,000 people 2004

# 51 Cyprus: 2.34 per 1,000 people 2002

# 52 United States: 2.3 per 1,000 people 2002

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_phy_...er-1-000-people

Edited July 25, 2009 by alienlovechild

[trillium13 84]

There's a big difference between having access to healthcare and being able to afford it.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

We're no better or worse than other developed nations in terms of available physicians and other medical staff per population. If they manage to care for all with similar ratios, then why would that not be possible here? Are our doctors and nurses somehow less efficient than those in other developed countries?

If the money doctors made under the old private system goes and there's no lessening in requirements, how exactly will we get more doctors? A lot of these countries medical technology are years behind us so I'm not surprised by these doctors are cranked out but what exactly can they do with limited resources?

I am not talking about taking money away from doctors. I am talking about cutting the useless dead weight that the insurance company is and creates - all $350bn-$500bn per year less whatever it really takes to run an insurance and pay the doctors and hospitals. Governments do this at 1%-5% of total expenditure while the private industry here takes 20%-30% to do the same. If they can do it at 5%, let them have at it. If not, they ought to be put out of business for the benefit of the overall economy and hence, for the benefit of each and ever American. If there are 20% to be saved (of a current total of roughly $2tn) - that's a full $400bn year after year. Not sure why anyone would want to keep wasting this kind of cash but it does explain why the nation is in such poor fiscal condition.

Here's a relevant selection of physician per 1000 - all of these are industrialized nations and all but one of them have universal health care. We're no better or worse in this ratio than others and if Australia, the UK and Canada can provide universal health care with 2.1 - 2.6 physicians /1000 then surely we can do it with 2.3/1000.

46 Finland: 2.6 per 1,000 people

47 Australia: 2.5 per 1,000 people

52 United States: 2.3 per 1,000 people

55 New Zealand: 2.2 per 1,000 people

55 United Kingdom: 2.2 per 1,000 people

58 Canada: 2.1 per 1,000 people

[dalegg 143]

It does need spelling out for the Rethuglicans: Access to an ER does not equate to access to health care.

Well, wait a minute. By definition, yes it does. All Americans also have access to many basic vitamins, and over the counter drugs to combat basic illnesses too.

Pregnant women have access to prenatal care regardless of whether or not they can afford it. The basics are covered. Maybe we don't all have access to high quality healthcare or preventative medicine, but the basic statement "we all have access to healthcare" is true.