US Health Fare

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Which is something I'm trying to do. As I said, I've already lost over 100lbs, and I'm continuing to lose weight.

That said, my doctor is concered that I have a problem with my thyroid which is causing a lot of my issues. My mother had thyroid cancer and was going through treatments while pregnant with me. He wants me to get my thyoid tested, but I can't afford to have the tests done. See what I mean?

Find a doctor willing to help you better then who also will let you make payments (what you can).

There are options out there if you're willing to look for them.

Granted, every state in the union is different on what you can find out there, but usually if you look there's options.

One thing that we have here is for those who cannot qualify for medicaid and fall in the 'middle' on of the health groups specifically helps those people out. Any co-pays are minimal and you're basically 'covered' without having to worry about extra costs. Check your city, ask local hospitals especially public ones if they have any 'extra care' options for those in the middle income bracket.

[ScooterMac 2]

Find a doctor willing to help you better then who also will let you make payments (what you can).

There are options out there if you're willing to look for them.

Granted, every state in the union is different on what you can find out there, but usually if you look there's options.

One thing that we have here is for those who cannot qualify for medicaid and fall in the 'middle' on of the health groups specifically helps those people out. Any co-pays are minimal and you're basically 'covered' without having to worry about extra costs. Check your city, ask local hospitals especially public ones if they have any 'extra care' options for those in the middle income bracket.

I've looked for something like that and haven't been able to find anything. There was one option, but I make about $2000 a year too much to qualify for that help. The doctors (under my health care plan, anyway) who allow patients to pay after the visit still require that payment in ONE payment, and right after the visit.

My personal situation wasn't even the point, more the ridiculous cost of an individual healthcare plan. My rates, deductible, etc. would be the same no matter what I weighed. For a healthy person to pay nearly $4000 a year just to get coverage, plus have a $3000 deductible on top of it, is ridiculous.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Then please explain why health care should not be included in "general welfare". You say that it shouldn't be interpreted that way, but you don't say why. And that's fine if you don't want to come up with a rebuttal to my other point.

General Welfare has nothing to do with the people of the nation and has everything to do with the welfare of the nation in the world. It's why it's directly associated with 'defense' of the nation.... Intent is everything.

Very well, what about FEMA? What about immigration? What about the FBI? All federal, and I could come up with a much larger list if I spent more than thirty seconds thinking about it.

FEMA is not a necessity for one and has its own controversies. Immigration - depends on which departmenet (a lot of it is paid for by fees/costs in forms). FBI serves as an inter-state agency and is supposed to be one that covers Federal laws... it's a bit different than your average police force and is fair game.

Again, quite odd, since there's a large group called Physicians for a National Health Care Program who support the single-payer bill that I mentioned previously. But I guess you can make a baseless claim like that if you want.

And people like Obama tout the AMA as the majority in there supporting change, when they only make up 18% or less of current doctors.

If there's a true issue with how much the government pays doctors, it should be examined, but that's not a good reason to avoid single-payer health care, since that can be fixed easily by adjusting rates. (Besides which, I'm more apt to worry about the person who can't afford the care at all under the existing system than doctors that (according to you) would theoretically lose out in a single-payer system.)

So current government screw ups are to just be examined and it's not a reason to doubt the government can do better? Are you kidding me???

You can if you replace the existing system with a new one, as H.R. 676 would do. The bill also details how it would be funded (in this case, by raising rates on the top 5% of earners and through a payroll and stock transaction tax), so it's not like this hasn't been considered.

Just because you make more money doesn't mean you should have to pay more. Sorry. NO and NO again. Taxes should be even across the board for individuals. You don't punish people for being sucessful and it's DAMNED IGNORANT for a stock transaction tax. Government loses money on any type of transaction/capital gains tax and gains money by lowering it. That is a proven fact that even got Charlie Gibson to grill Obama on. Of course that idiot said taxes should be raised out of "fairness," eventhough government would lose money....

Why? You make the claim that there will always be a profit motive without backing it up. Do you simply believe that all humans are so greedy that as soon as they are put into an administrative position they will start to corrupt it? If so, one would think you would support anarchism rather than any government at all. As to whether or not it will be more efficient, well, you can't get much worse than it is currently. The United States government paid $6,102 per capita on health care, vs. Canadian health care spending of $3,165 per capita in 2004 (source: U.S. Health Care Spending: Comparison with Other OECD Countries:Congressional Research Service), and for that they have far fewer people covered. There's a direct comparison of government spending between the existing US system and a single-payer system. Are you really going to argue that the status quo is better, even given that the US spends almost double, while people are still routinely being denied care due to either failing to have insurance or having their insurance company deny their claim? Or perhaps you'd like to eliminate all spending on health care by the federal government period, putting thousands of people relying on Medicare and Medicaid into financial jeopardy over their very lives?

Status quo? Starting to sound like the jack #### in office you are. Please. -- Cost of course is going to be a lot higher in a larger population situation. There's a damn good reason why India and China don't have government run healthcare. It's just not feasible. We are the 3rd most populous nation in the world. You add an extra 10-20 million to the UK and Canada and yes costs will go up, especially if the amount of doctors, nurses, equipment, etc.. doesn't go at the same rate. Government WILL ALWAYS pay more for something because they don't know a damn thing about economics and don't understand a damn thing about supply vs. demand vs. the market. You've got a bunch of idiot lawyers who barely understand the law itself running the country.

Hell, health care would more than likely be more affordable if it werent' for Medicare and medicaid.... Government always causes costs to go up for the private sector when they grow something in the public sector.

Doctors still are quite rich in Canada, the United Kingdom, and elsewhere. They live quite comfortable lives. My own doctor wondered why the hell I would move to the United States given the Canadian health care system, and many others have said the same thing. Frankly, those doctors who value their own profit above their patients' lives should not be doctors.

Not saying they can't make a decent living, but the cost of education is much higher here as well and the strenuous requirments to get to a point where you can make money here make it very difficult if you're not allowed to practice freely. -- Also more and more doctors in Canada are trying to accept private insurance more than public because they can make more money....

Maybe you're willing to risk thousands of lives in your 'experiment'. I'm not.

You're joking right? Experiment? So economics is an experiment. You're hilarious.

Sorry, but Government IS and ALWAYS has been the problem. There is not one thing that they truly run more efficiently than the private sector.

[Spoom 8]

Your posts are starting to become flamebait, so I'm going to stop responding now. There wasn't much hard evidence to respond to anyway.

[Wyatt's Torch 45]

Your posts are starting to become flamebait, so I'm going to stop responding now. There wasn't much hard evidence to respond to anyway.

But nooooo! Texas > The World!!!1!!1!

[ScooterMac 2]

But nooooo! Texas > The World!!!1!!1!

[Spoom 8]

But nooooo! Texas > The World!!!1!!1!

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Your posts are starting to become flamebait, so I'm going to stop responding now. There wasn't much hard evidence to respond to anyway.

Not trying to be flamebait, just honest

Look, while the idea of not having to worry about 'cost' in health care may sound great, it's just not something that is a reality for many different reasons.

The USA has one primary difference than the rest of the world and that belives on enhancing the individual versus enhancing the populous together in a team effort. To some this mentality might be wrong, but for us it's who we are and how we became who we are.

Our biggest problems have always come when our government feels they think they can do better than the people themselves. The people have always done better though on their own. This is true in every business aspect. Mostly because those in government have never run a business and wouldn't understand what it really takes.

It's a big misconception in the world that we don't take care of our people either. We've always been compassionate despite our individualist mentality. We are human after all. You cannot force people to be that though, they have to want to on their own. We are starting to become more of an 'entitement' mentality based society though and when that crosses with the idea of individualism, of course there's going to be a clash. The more people you put on the 'system' or have them become a part of it, the harder it is to get away from that system. Government should be there to help possibly when you're down, but it should not be there to support you.

Maybe I sound like a hardened #### by saying if some lazy #### couch potato doesn't have health care then I don't care, but that's how it is. Our resources are being sucked dry by people who SHOULD NOT be allowed to take part in our current 'public' system. (especially the illegal immigrants).

The United States Federal Government is supposed to be non-intrusive and its only real functions are to make sure that our borders are protected (which they are failing miserably at ) and to make sure that disputes/issues between states are handled and the constitution is upheld. Beyond that, the Federal Government is supposed to have NO ROLL in the rest of people's lives. The USA isn't supposed to be "one" nation. We are suppose to be 50 seperate nations who live under a common central law and then can make their own laws beyond that. It's truly that simple, yet many people forget this or feel that they need someone else to take care of them in their lives.

The beautiful part about our design though, is originally intended if you were unhappy in Texas, you could find another state that suits your needs much better and live there. Now days, it's becoming harder and harder to do that as the FED gets more involved.

[Spoom 8]

The USA isn't supposed to be "one" nation. We are suppose to be 50 seperate nations who live under a common central law and then can make their own laws beyond that. It's truly that simple, yet many people forget this or feel that they need someone else to take care of them in their lives.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

(emphasis added)

[Wyatt's Torch 45]

The USA has one primary difference than the rest of the world and that belives on enhancing the individual versus enhancing the populous together in a team effort.

Oh come on. Seriously? Are you seriously going to go there? Are you going to posit that the only nation that values individuality is America?

America is wonderful. The Constitution is one of the most beautiful documents ever written. But it's comments like those above that makes a lot of the world dislike America -- it's true that the U.S. might be the best country in the world in many respects, but the reality of that is truly diminished when its citizens feel the need to boast, brag, strut and flaunt its greatness. I don't think most Americans do this...but those who do provoke the widely-held perception of America as brash and arrogant.

There are rampant individualists in most countries. I'm one of them, as my user name here should indicate. But there's a difference between individualism and "every man for himself". That's the difference between shallow individualism, and the individual as a magnanimous human being. An individual who truly cares for himself will, by default, desire the welfare of his fellow men. And it IS a selfish desire, desiring the welfare of one's fellow men...but it's a GOOD selfishness.

I'm not going to bother going on in this vein, because most discussions about politics (and religion) end up in nothing more than "I'm right, you're wrong" versus "No you're not! You're wrong, I'm right!" I'd rather save my effort.

[Udella&Wiz 325]

Wow - I was missing all of the excitement.

All - you will never all agree on health care and whether or not it should be implemented in the US,.....I think this thread serves really as a barameter......the opinions of one are not the opinions of all, but everyone has a right to their own. We as Cdns have experience with socialized healthcare, when we move here it's a whole new ballgame and it's shocking how much healthcare costs.

We should declare a moritorium (sp?) on this subject in the Cdn forum....each time one side or the other starts a thread - the opposite side jumps in to ram their opinions down the other's throats.

Paul and Vanessa - I see you are very enthusiatic in your opinions, but others are equally so.....don't forget there are 2 sides

Edited February 24, 2010 by Udella&Wiz

[Obama 2012 1,714]

(emphasis added)

The pledge is something that is decided on individual states whether to use it or not.

Also the "under god" part was added in 1954 because of communism fears/athiest fears by Christians... - Many today are working to have that part removed.

Also the pledge was written by an individual in 1892 if you want to try and break it down. Those who have the "nationalism" mentality pushed it.

[Spoom 8]

We should declare a moritorium (sp?) on this subject in the Cdn forum....each time one side or the other starts a thread - the opposite side jumps in to ram their opinions down the other's throats.

I don't think that's necessary; I've been trying to debate this with a minimum of personal attacks, and it's currently limited to this thread.

[Udella&Wiz 325]

I don't think that's necessary; I've been trying to debate this with a minimum of personal attacks, and it's currently limited to this thread.

Suit yourselves...I personally think it's a 'debate' which doesn't end .

[ScooterMac 2]

The pledge is something that is decided on individual states whether to use it or not.

This is a bit off topic, but...I think there are only about 7 states in the US who don't require schools to have students say the pledge. The other 7 have the option to have students say it or not. Only about 6 states require students to say the pledge.

My school didn't give students an option. We had a kid in our homeroom in high school who wound up getting suspended for not saying the pledge.