I see what you're saying... hypocrisy is on both sides of the isle.
Did anyone watch it? He couldn't answer the simplest question there! It's like he's still running for president.
Interviewer: Mr. President, what do you plan on doing about the private health care companies that are doing a good job? *gives several examples*
Obama: Well, Charlie, that's the problem. As you can see, none of the private businesses have stepped up.
Me laughing at TV: He just gave you several examples you dolt!
He couldn't answer the simplest questions regarding his healthcare program. His parting words were basically: We shouldn't think too hard about this. We just have to have faith in me and go for it.
Typical Democrat: Let emotion rule your opinions, ignore what's logical, and have complete faith in your leaders!
Interviewer: Mr. President, what do you plan on doing about the private health care companies that are doing a good job? *gives several examples*
Obama: Well, Charlie, that's the problem. As you can see, none of the private businesses have stepped up.
Me laughing at TV: He just gave you several examples you dolt!
He couldn't answer the simplest questions regarding his healthcare program. His parting words were basically: We shouldn't think too hard about this. We just have to have faith in me and go for it.
Typical Democrat: Let emotion rule your opinions, ignore what's logical, and have complete faith in your leaders!
Last edited by Deadmonkiefart (2009-06-28 09:55:04)
He dodge the questions...like that one doctor asking if his kids/wife was ill and the government's plan don't cover whatever it is that will save their life what would he do?
Basically he's talking about rationing that happening in Canada/UK where a government board determines what procedures are allowed.
And Obama's answer about the 100 year old mother who lived an extra 5 years with a pacemaker that doctors wouldn't install...his answer was to take a pill for the old lady to relieve the pain - basically take a pill to ease the pain and then let her die because the procedure is too expensive.
Look whatever government plan that's coming down the pipe, those in Congress and the President will not be on it.
Basically he's talking about rationing that happening in Canada/UK where a government board determines what procedures are allowed.
And Obama's answer about the 100 year old mother who lived an extra 5 years with a pacemaker that doctors wouldn't install...his answer was to take a pill for the old lady to relieve the pain - basically take a pill to ease the pain and then let her die because the procedure is too expensive.
Look whatever government plan that's coming down the pipe, those in Congress and the President will not be on it.
fixedDeadmonkiefart wrote:
Typical Democrat human: Let emotion rule your opinions, ignore what's logical, and have complete faith in your leaders!
So what does a Canadian hospital do when their own healthcare system can't provide for the health of a premature baby? Well send the baby to the United States for care, that's what.
Source: http://the-reaction.blogspot.com/2009/0 … adian.html
Now the parents can't get to their baby because they don't have passports. Oh, and you're welcome Canada, the American taxpayer is paying for all this.
Source: http://the-reaction.blogspot.com/2009/0 … adian.html
Now the parents can't get to their baby because they don't have passports. Oh, and you're welcome Canada, the American taxpayer is paying for all this.
Do you think that would happen with our system under socialization, when you consider we have a more extensive healthcare infrastructure than any other country?Harmor wrote:
So what does a Canadian hospital do when their own healthcare system can't provide for the health of a premature baby? Well send the baby to the United States for care, that's what.
Source: http://the-reaction.blogspot.com/2009/0 … adian.html
Now the parents can't get to their baby because they don't have passports. Oh, and you're welcome Canada, the American taxpayer is paying for all this.
Hopefully with our socialized heathcare system we could still help keep a premature baby alive.
lol... (bad wording on my part) That's not what I meant... Do you think that we'd have to resort to sending a premature baby to another country if we socialized our system?Harmor wrote:
Hopefully with our socialized heathcare system we could still help keep a premature baby alive.
I hope not...but you never know with 'rationed' care that would happen under a government healthcare system.
a repeat of CSI got higher ratings than the Healtchcare infomercial... Not sure if that is funny or sad?
http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/ … wn-family/
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer … mportant-e
"Obama Socialized Health Care Infomercial on ABC-TV Bombs; POTUS Drones On and On, Admits He May Not Want It for His Own Family"
http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/ … wn-family/
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer … mportant-e
"Obama Socialized Health Care Infomercial on ABC-TV Bombs; POTUS Drones On and On, Admits He May Not Want It for His Own Family"
Last edited by [TUF]Catbox (2009-06-28 20:41:13)
Love is the answer
Yeah Obama is 'open' to the idea of taxing health benefits:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31595921/ns … ite_house/
Ok so your private health insurance will be using post-tax money. Then the government will compete with private insurance, right? So am I now going to be paying 35% more for the same healthcare?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31595921/ns … ite_house/
Ok so your private health insurance will be using post-tax money. Then the government will compete with private insurance, right? So am I now going to be paying 35% more for the same healthcare?
Looks like Congress figured out how to reduce the $1.6 trillion price tag on ObamaCare:
Source: Obama, Party Tout Lower Figure for Health ReformWashington Post wrote:
Under the new proposal, any business with more than 25 workers would be required to offer coverage or pay a $750 penalty per employee.
Is that on top of the existing $2.26+ trillion the government currently forks out for the healthcare system?Harmor wrote:
Looks like Congress figured out how to reduce the $1.6 trillion price tag on ObamaCare:Source: Obama, Party Tout Lower Figure for Health ReformWashington Post wrote:
Under the new proposal, any business with more than 25 workers would be required to offer coverage or pay a $750 penalty per employee.
Where does it all go? The current system is clearly poor value for money.
The NHS only costs £94 billion a year. Population adjusted that's £470 billion (60 million in England, 300 million in the US) - which equivalent to (a lot) less than half US governmental healthcare spending and you guys have to pay for health insurance on top of that. Someone, somewhere is wasting an awful lot of your taxes....
Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-07-04 02:55:27)
hmmm...then why are certain cancer death rates higher in canada for example then here in the US? waste you say?
and no, you DO NOT HAVE TO PAY FOR YOUR HEALTHCARE....god why cant you get that thru your skull?
and BTW, englands cancer survival rate sucks also. nice NHS you have there.
and no, you DO NOT HAVE TO PAY FOR YOUR HEALTHCARE....god why cant you get that thru your skull?
and BTW, englands cancer survival rate sucks also. nice NHS you have there.
Last edited by usmarine (2009-07-04 02:59:55)
Yes, waste.usmarine wrote:
hmmm...then why are certain cancer death rates higher in canada for example then here in the US? waste you say?
and no, you DO NOT HAVE TO PAY FOR YOUR HEALTHCARE....god why cant you get that thru your skull?
and BTW, englands cancer survival rate sucks also. nice NHS you have there.
Cancer survival rates are not the be all and end all and looking at comparative spending, countries that spend a fraction of what the US does, get a lot more for their money. France are ahead on many types of cancer survival rates and a good number of European countries are within 1% of overall cancer survival rates in the US on budgets comparative to that of the NHS (which is typically ok, but does really badly on a few cancer types - if you get those, you're fucked (but you can ask to be treated in France if you want)).
Also, the reason that cancer survival rates are high is due to high research spending. Spending that is not included in the figure I just gave. The US spends an immense amount on research (which does not come out of that healthcare budget, as some people on here have claimed in the past). I'm not suggesting stopping the research spending - in fact I'm not suggesting anything, just pointing out the obvious fact, that the US system is terrible value for money. You pay about triple what most western countries pay for healthcare in taxes and then pay a massive amount to the private sector as well.
if you say so. i dont agree. so we will leave it at that.
Obama's Healcare plan would bring in $36 Billion in fines against non-partisipating citizens
To read details on this bill - bizarrely complicated primarily because of its obeiscence to the medical insurance industry - check out the Congressional Budget Office's letter to Ted Kennedy.Obama and his center right coalition in Congress are planning a healthcare bill that would assess fines of around $1,000 a year for anyone who doesn't help subsidize the healthcare industry by purchasing insurance.
Agreed. We need to have the government negotiate with pharmaceutical companies on pricing (like practically every other industrialized country), we need to implement tort reform, and we need to bitchslap insurance companies into submission or just socialize health insurance.Bertster7 wrote:
Yes, waste.usmarine wrote:
hmmm...then why are certain cancer death rates higher in canada for example then here in the US? waste you say?
and no, you DO NOT HAVE TO PAY FOR YOUR HEALTHCARE....god why cant you get that thru your skull?
and BTW, englands cancer survival rate sucks also. nice NHS you have there.
Cancer survival rates are not the be all and end all and looking at comparative spending, countries that spend a fraction of what the US does, get a lot more for their money. France are ahead on many types of cancer survival rates and a good number of European countries are within 1% of overall cancer survival rates in the US on budgets comparative to that of the NHS (which is typically ok, but does really badly on a few cancer types - if you get those, you're fucked (but you can ask to be treated in France if you want)).
Also, the reason that cancer survival rates are high is due to high research spending. Spending that is not included in the figure I just gave. The US spends an immense amount on research (which does not come out of that healthcare budget, as some people on here have claimed in the past). I'm not suggesting stopping the research spending - in fact I'm not suggesting anything, just pointing out the obvious fact, that the US system is terrible value for money. You pay about triple what most western countries pay for healthcare in taxes and then pay a massive amount to the private sector as well.
Why doesn't that happen at the moment?Turquoise wrote:
Agreed. We need to have the government negotiate with pharmaceutical companies on pricing (like practically every other industrialized country), we need to implement tort reform, and we need to bitchslap insurance companies into submission or just socialize health insurance.Bertster7 wrote:
Yes, waste.usmarine wrote:
hmmm...then why are certain cancer death rates higher in canada for example then here in the US? waste you say?
and no, you DO NOT HAVE TO PAY FOR YOUR HEALTHCARE....god why cant you get that thru your skull?
and BTW, englands cancer survival rate sucks also. nice NHS you have there.
Cancer survival rates are not the be all and end all and looking at comparative spending, countries that spend a fraction of what the US does, get a lot more for their money. France are ahead on many types of cancer survival rates and a good number of European countries are within 1% of overall cancer survival rates in the US on budgets comparative to that of the NHS (which is typically ok, but does really badly on a few cancer types - if you get those, you're fucked (but you can ask to be treated in France if you want)).
Also, the reason that cancer survival rates are high is due to high research spending. Spending that is not included in the figure I just gave. The US spends an immense amount on research (which does not come out of that healthcare budget, as some people on here have claimed in the past). I'm not suggesting stopping the research spending - in fact I'm not suggesting anything, just pointing out the obvious fact, that the US system is terrible value for money. You pay about triple what most western countries pay for healthcare in taxes and then pay a massive amount to the private sector as well.
Could it be that the pharmacetical lobbyists have a lot of influence in Washington? Hundreds of millions of dollars a year get spent by the drug lobby.
Malpractice stuff is also an issue.
Agreed. Corporate lobbies are public enemy #1 -- they just haven't figured it out yet.Bertster7 wrote:
Why doesn't that happen at the moment?Turquoise wrote:
Agreed. We need to have the government negotiate with pharmaceutical companies on pricing (like practically every other industrialized country), we need to implement tort reform, and we need to bitchslap insurance companies into submission or just socialize health insurance.Bertster7 wrote:
Yes, waste.
Cancer survival rates are not the be all and end all and looking at comparative spending, countries that spend a fraction of what the US does, get a lot more for their money. France are ahead on many types of cancer survival rates and a good number of European countries are within 1% of overall cancer survival rates in the US on budgets comparative to that of the NHS (which is typically ok, but does really badly on a few cancer types - if you get those, you're fucked (but you can ask to be treated in France if you want)).
Also, the reason that cancer survival rates are high is due to high research spending. Spending that is not included in the figure I just gave. The US spends an immense amount on research (which does not come out of that healthcare budget, as some people on here have claimed in the past). I'm not suggesting stopping the research spending - in fact I'm not suggesting anything, just pointing out the obvious fact, that the US system is terrible value for money. You pay about triple what most western countries pay for healthcare in taxes and then pay a massive amount to the private sector as well.
Could it be that the pharmacetical lobbyists have a lot of influence in Washington? Hundreds of millions of dollars a year get spent by the drug lobby.
Malpractice stuff is also an issue.