|
|
Post by Yoda on Oct 30, 2012 9:41:03 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Oct 30, 2012 12:53:30 GMT -8
I have always thought that Obamacare should be called the the "Health Insurance Company Full Employment Act"
I was hoping for a public option myself.
|
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Oct 30, 2012 13:04:37 GMT -8
I have always thought that Obamacare should be called the the "Health Insurance Company Full Employment Act" I was hoping for a public option myself. as were 95% of people who elected him |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Oct 30, 2012 13:33:03 GMT -8
I have always thought that Obamacare should be called the the "Health Insurance Company Full Employment Act" I was hoping for a public option myself. as were 95% of people who elected him Me three. |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Oct 30, 2012 14:12:05 GMT -8
Oh Canada.......  |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Oct 30, 2012 15:31:28 GMT -8
Just more confusion over a very poorly crafted law with all of us as victims.
|
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Oct 30, 2012 15:51:09 GMT -8
Just more confusion over a very poorly crafted law with all of us as victims. You are allowed to blame The Heritage Foundation and Massachusetts for it being poorly written. Blame the GOP for blocking real reform. |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Oct 30, 2012 16:00:28 GMT -8
I can't speak to Canada, but one of my assistants is British. Her father died a couple of years ago and she just raved about how much better the British health care system is than the US system. She said that we would have liked to bring him over to live with her but she couldn't as the difference in health care (not cost, but service) made it impossible. So she flew home every few months to visit instead.
I'm not saying whether she is right or wrong about that -- but I have a great deal of respect for the woman. I wouldn't write it off as a local bias or patriotism or whatever.
Yoda out...
.
|
|
|
|
Post by sdsustoner on Oct 30, 2012 16:13:33 GMT -8
Quality: US is still top-notch
Access: US is one of the worst on the planet
This is why the WHO rates us below several third world nations. Not because of the quality of care. But, because its access is very, very, very limited.
|
|
|
|
Post by sdsustoner on Oct 30, 2012 16:15:37 GMT -8
Just more confusion over a very poorly crafted law with all of us as victims. Why does Faux News make victims out of all of you? |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Oct 30, 2012 16:42:48 GMT -8
I can't speak to Canada, but one of my assistants is British. Her father died a couple of years ago and she just raved about how much better the British health care system is than the US system. She said that we would have liked to bring him over to live with her but she couldn't as the difference in health care (not cost, but service) made it impossible. So she flew home every few months to visit instead. I'm not saying whether she is right or wrong about that -- but I have a great deal of respect for the woman. I wouldn't write it off as a local bias or patriotism or whatever. Yoda out... . Anecdotal references are just that. My wife has relatives in the UK and with the delays between the initial complaint and initial doctor visit and then off to the specialist, her Aunt's cancer may have transitioned from curable to terminal. Who knows? She died not long after seeking treatment. She was old (high 70s to early 80s), so there is no telling, given the inherent rationing assocaited with socialized medicine if "heroic measures" would have been tried to save had they found it earlier. I keep on recalling Obama's comment “Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking painkillers."  |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Oct 30, 2012 17:08:28 GMT -8
A good friend was diagnosed with lung cancer last Feb. After both chemo and radiation treatments she died in Sept. In August she told me that she wished she would have skipped the treatments as they made her worse, and just had pain killers.
RIP, Liz.
|
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Oct 30, 2012 19:06:31 GMT -8
A good friend was diagnosed with lung cancer last Feb. After both chemo and radiation treatments she died in Sept. In August she told me that she wished she would have skipped the treatments as they made her worse, and just had pain killers. RIP, Liz. Yes, my mom passed shortly after attempting Chemo for her cancer but then the choice to try it was hers, not some bureaucrat who would be rewarded for reducing costs. Being told "no dice, you are too old or too sick" would be, in fact, a form of a death sentence that Government employees should not have the power to hand out. In Canada, I hear elective medical care outside of their health care system is strictly not allowed. The patient must travel to the US in such situations. And if we went to single payer healthcare, we would inevitably go to rationing or "pathways" just as the UK and Canada does now. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecsrule72001 on Oct 30, 2012 19:34:56 GMT -8
Just more confusion over a very poorly crafted law with all of us as victims. You are allowed to blame The Heritage Foundation and Massachusetts for it being poorly written. Blame the GOP for blocking real reform. Didn't the Dems have super majorities? |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Oct 30, 2012 22:38:32 GMT -8
A good friend was diagnosed with lung cancer last Feb. After both chemo and radiation treatments she died in Sept. In August she told me that she wished she would have skipped the treatments as they made her worse, and just had pain killers. RIP, Liz. Yes, my mom passed shortly after attempting Chemo for her cancer but then the choice to try it was hers, not some bureaucrat who would be rewarded for reducing costs. Being told "no dice, you are too old or too sick" would be, in fact, a form of a death sentence that Government employees should not have the power to hand out. In Canada, I hear elective medical care outside of their health care system is strictly not allowed. The patient must travel to the US in such situations. And if we went to single payer healthcare, we would inevitably go to rationing or "pathways" just as the UK and Canada does now. There are insurance bureaucrats who deny coverage and are rewarded for lowering costs. Never hear about people fighting with their insurance company? |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Oct 31, 2012 8:15:46 GMT -8
Yes, my mom passed shortly after attempting Chemo for her cancer but then the choice to try it was hers, not some bureaucrat who would be rewarded for reducing costs. Being told "no dice, you are too old or too sick" would be, in fact, a form of a death sentence that Government employees should not have the power to hand out. In Canada, I hear elective medical care outside of their health care system is strictly not allowed. The patient must travel to the US in such situations. And if we went to single payer healthcare, we would inevitably go to rationing or "pathways" just as the UK and Canada does now. There are insurance bureaucrats who deny coverage and are rewarded for lowering costs. Never hear about people fighting with their insurance company? Sure. And there is legal recourse when legitimate Insurance benefits are denied. Under single payer, do you think when a Gov Bureaucrat denies you your chance at living longer, will you or your's get to sue the Gov? At a minimum, we are allowed to spend our own money to save our lives if we want. In Canada, if they don't cover it when and how you want it, I think one has to leave the country to get it (lest they deny the other covered Canadians access to care). What a creepy zero sum game. |
|
|
|
Post by MontezumaPhil on Oct 31, 2012 9:47:02 GMT -8
You are allowed to blame The Heritage Foundation and Massachusetts for it being poorly written. Blame the GOP for blocking real reform. Didn't the Dems have super majorities? A common misbelief. The House always had enough Blue Dog Democrats (i.e. Republicans registered in the wrong party for them) to make the "supermajority" an illusion there. And following the months-long GOP challenge to the election of Sen. Franken, plus the long illnesses that kept Sens. Byrd and Kennedy out of their seats for much of 2009 and 2010, the Democrats actually had 60 votes in the Senate for a total of exactly 72 days during Pres. Obama's first two years. And Several of those friendly senators were conservative Democrats like Nelson who wanted no part of a more ambitious, Canadian-style plan, and threatened to kill one if it came to a vote. Further, most of the 72 days with a supermajority in the Senate fell before and after the debate over the Affordable Care Act took place. The watered-down bill we got was finally passed 60-39 during a small window in which Kennedy's temporary Democratic replacement was in office and his permanent Republican replacement, Sen. Brown, hadn't yet been elected. So the PPACA as written was never fillibuster proof. The Republicans, and Republican-leaning Democrats, were always able to weaken or stop it. |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Oct 31, 2012 10:10:51 GMT -8
Didn't the Dems have super majorities? A common misbelief. The House always had enough Blue Dog Democrats (i.e. Republicans registered in the wrong party for them) to make the "supermajority" an illusion there. And following the months-long GOP challenge to the election of Sen. Franken, plus the long illnesses that kept Sens. Byrd and Kennedy out of their seats for much of 2009 and 2010, the Democrats actually had 60 votes in the Senate for a total of exactly 72 days during Pres. Obama's first two years. And Several of those friendly senators were conservative Democrats like Nelson who wanted no part of a more ambitious, Canadian-style plan, and threatened to kill one if it came to a vote. Further, most of the 72 days with a supermajority in the Senate fell before and after the debate over the Affordable Care Act took place. The watered-down bill we got was finally passed 60-39 during a small window in which Kennedy's temporary Democratic replacement was in office and his permanent Republican replacement, Sen. Brown, hadn't yet been elected. So the PPACA as written was never fillibuster proof. The Republicans, and Republican-leaning Democrats, were always able to weaken or stop it. Too funny. The old "but the Republicans ate my homework" argument. Ever heard of "Leadership"? Its like saying, "I'm in charge of the company but my Union labor makes me produce a crappy product". Sure, GOP and their allies have some power, but not the determining amount. Why not structure a better bill that most would support regardless of party rather than a crappy bill that only ideologues like and that only barely? |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Oct 31, 2012 10:46:13 GMT -8
Yes, my mom passed shortly after attempting Chemo for her cancer but then the choice to try it was hers, not some bureaucrat who would be rewarded for reducing costs. Being told "no dice, you are too old or too sick" would be, in fact, a form of a death sentence that Government employees should not have the power to hand out. In Canada, I hear elective medical care outside of their health care system is strictly not allowed. The patient must travel to the US in such situations. And if we went to single payer healthcare, we would inevitably go to rationing or "pathways" just as the UK and Canada does now. There are insurance bureaucrats who deny coverage and are rewarded for lowering costs. Never hear about people fighting with their insurance company? The most frequent denier of service today is Medcare. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Oct 31, 2012 12:10:12 GMT -8
|
|
