"The government can't run cash for clunkers properly and you want them to run your health care?"
Last edited by Red Forman (2009-08-03 07:11:08)
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Would Senator Ted Kennedy be alive today with Obamacare in place?
See what happens when someone who doesn't have the money a senator does gets prostate cancer.Harmor wrote:
And Senator Dodd who just got Prostate cancer. Its it great that he can get diagnosed a week ago and then get scheduled for surgery in under a month?
Could that happen in Canada or the U.K.???
Think they'll get surgery that fast?
Yes we do see what happens. The US has a higher cancer survival rate than the UK or Canada. Explain that please.AussieReaper wrote:
See what happens when someone who doesn't have the money a senator does gets prostate cancer.
Think they'll get surgery that fast?
Cancer survival rate =/= superior health care. There are so many other factors to take into account like early detection, types of cancer, etc that survival rate isn't much of an indicator.Red Forman wrote:
Yes we do see what happens. The US has a higher cancer survival rate than the UK or Canada. Explain that please.AussieReaper wrote:
See what happens when someone who doesn't have the money a senator does gets prostate cancer.
Think they'll get surgery that fast?
Oh sure. Nice try. Wow. You think cutting off someones funding for cancer drugs is not an indicator? Can't take you seriously.
You or someone pays for it probably though higher taxes or fees somewhere else. Nothing in life is free.Nic wrote:
Why... it took 17 years of doing it for that to happen, and not on little shit either. Eventually you have to pay the price for it. And with health care in Canada, the price was $0.
What post are you reading? Did I make any mention of cutting funding for cancer drugs?Red Forman wrote:
Oh sure. Nice try. Wow. You think cutting off someones funding for cancer drugs is not an indicator? Can't take you seriously.
and I suppose access to your doctor, would not be a requirement in early detection of cancer.AussieReaper wrote:
Cancer survival rate =/= superior health care. There are so many other factors to take into account like early detection, types of cancer, etc that survival rate isn't much of an indicator.Red Forman wrote:
Yes we do see what happens. The US has a higher cancer survival rate than the UK or Canada. Explain that please.AussieReaper wrote:
See what happens when someone who doesn't have the money a senator does gets prostate cancer.
Think they'll get surgery that fast?
I havent seen any raise in taxes, just because I've had a few trips to the OR. Simple fact is, it takes a hell of a lot more to raise taxes than that. The main reason I brought it up, is you Americans seem to have some misconception that it takes ages to see a doctor up here. The only time I have ever had to wait for surgery is when I wanted to put it off until a more appropriate time, and OMG! see the surgeon I wanted. Another thing you guys seem to think dosent happen.Harmor wrote:
You or someone pays for it probably though higher taxes or fees somewhere else. Nothing in life is free.Nic wrote:
Why... it took 17 years of doing it for that to happen, and not on little shit either. Eventually you have to pay the price for it. And with health care in Canada, the price was $0.
As far as I have experienced health care in Canada is far easier and stress free than health care in the US.
Then I'm sure all the Canadians who come to the United States for their heathcare would agree with you then?
Fair argument. If it's any consolation, it doesn't look like this bill is going to pass anyway.FEOS wrote:
I have said repeatedly that I don't have a problem with there being a public option for insurance...there already is. Advancing that option to others who are not government employees is something that should be looked at...but isn't.
A single-payer system would be far too detrimental to our economy and would remove 1/6th of our free market system from the free market.
Providing the option would stimulate competition (it's already there), but you would still have the problem of certain providers choosing not to accept that option due to insufficient payment. Where the federal government could really make a much larger difference in cost control is in reforming the laws surrounding medical care: tort reform, common laws between states to ensure portability, etc.
All? you mean the few in the adds, that are rich and can afford that shit... nobody that I know personally has ever gone to the states for health care. Fuck we must just be flooding down...Harmor wrote:
Then I'm sure all the Canadians who come to the United States for their heathcare would agree with you then?
A version of it will get passed. Remember all they have to make happy are the Blue-dog Democrats in their own party. They have 60 votes in the senate so they can vote for closure and then vote a majority on the bill. Heck, only 50 senators need to vote yes and the Vice President could break the tie.Turquoise wrote:
Fair argument. If it's any consolation, it doesn't look like this bill is going to pass anyway.
By the time it gets through, it will probably be too watered down to even make a difference.Harmor wrote:
A version of it will get passed. Remember all they have to make happy are the Blue-dog Democrats in their own party. They have 60 votes in the senate so they can vote for closure and then vote a majority on the bill. Heck, only 50 senators need to vote yes and the Vice President could break the tie.Turquoise wrote:
Fair argument. If it's any consolation, it doesn't look like this bill is going to pass anyway.
Probably because he is rich and would probably have private insurance, like myself (except for the 'rich' part).
85% of the people in the US are happy with their medical insurance. That means that more than 85% have insurance. Far less than 85% are considered "rich" by any measure.CameronPoe wrote:
Probably because he is rich and would probably have private insurance, like myself (except for the 'rich' part).
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
But I bet 100% of them would be happier paying half as much.85% of the people in the US are happy with their medical insurance. That means that more than 85% have insurance. Far less than 85% are considered "rich" by any measure.
Fuck Israel
Of course they would. And they would be happier paying half as much for food and everything else.Dilbert_X wrote:
But I bet 100% of them would be happier paying half as much.85% of the people in the US are happy with their medical insurance. That means that more than 85% have insurance. Far less than 85% are considered "rich" by any measure.
And if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.
What's your point?
Last edited by FEOS (2009-08-05 04:14:37)
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
The point is we pay a lot more for care than anyone else, and the quality of care doesn't seem to make up for it.FEOS wrote:
Of course they would. And they would be happier paying half as much for food and everything else.Dilbert_X wrote:
But I bet 100% of them would be happier paying half as much.85% of the people in the US are happy with their medical insurance. That means that more than 85% have insurance. Far less than 85% are considered "rich" by any measure.
And if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.
What's your point?
I'd say that's a crock of shit, based on disease survival rates in this country.Turquoise wrote:
The point is we pay a lot more for care than anyone else, and the quality of care doesn't seem to make up for it.FEOS wrote:
Of course they would. And they would be happier paying half as much for food and everything else.Dilbert_X wrote:
But I bet 100% of them would be happier paying half as much.
And if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.
What's your point?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Pay your mechanic half and see how confident you'll drive on the road.
Looks, Doctors need to get paid and good doctors need to get paid well. If we just open up heathcare to the open market (while still keeping tabs on bad doctors), tort reform, make heathcare insurance personal instead of through your employer so it goes with you instead of changing each job we could improve healthcare today without making it socialistic.
The 47 million people that don't have insurance...umm...20 million of them are illegal, a bunch are young and don't feel like buying insurance. A small number, estimated at 9 million, actually can't afford insurance. We can help them without blowing the entire system.
Looks, Doctors need to get paid and good doctors need to get paid well. If we just open up heathcare to the open market (while still keeping tabs on bad doctors), tort reform, make heathcare insurance personal instead of through your employer so it goes with you instead of changing each job we could improve healthcare today without making it socialistic.
The 47 million people that don't have insurance...umm...20 million of them are illegal, a bunch are young and don't feel like buying insurance. A small number, estimated at 9 million, actually can't afford insurance. We can help them without blowing the entire system.
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Would Senator Ted Kennedy be alive today with Obamacare in place?