Obama Care

[djnemo65]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Not what I'm saying at all. Saden's comment that I bolded in my response was about how Canada is visibly suffering from a shortage of medical practitioners, similar to how here in the USA we have a big shortage of nurses. However that nursing shortage, according to Saden, isn't as pronounced as Canada's practitioner shortage. I agree with that.

My point was our nursing shortage will certainly be much more "pronounced" under Obama care than it currently is today. Nowhere did I say we should keep 50 million people without insurance simply to stave off the pronouncement of said shortage.

EDIT: There are numerous reasons I dislike Obama care. The dilution of quality of care is just one of them.

OK, but this means that you are saying that we should limit access to care for these 50 million people without insurance, at least in part, to protect the quality of care for people with insurance. You can't claim dilution of quality care as a disadvantage of the plan without at least implicitly advocating the status quo.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by saden1

What I am also saying is that sometime in the next decade or two the United States will also have doctor shortage much like the current nursing shortage if not worse. It will be pronounced and painful whether we have mostly a private healthcare system or mostly a public healthcare system. Regardless of what we have it doesn't look good (a must read).

That was a good read, thanks for the link. I think we need to consider ways to make medical school more affordable so graduates aren't running from lesser paid general surgery and family practices (the crux of rural healthcare). Somehow, we've got to find a way to make the medical profession a more desirable field without cheapening it at the same time.

How many people want to spend a minimum of 4+ years in med school working their ass off only to graduate a quarter of a million dollars in debt?? Sure some can afford it, and others simply have the drive, but the combination of the two is still falling way short.

Such a complex issue.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

OK, but this means that you are saying that we should limit access to care for these 50 million people without insurance, at least in part, to protect the quality of care for people with insurance. You can't claim dilution of quality care as a disadvantage of the plan without at least implicitly advocating the status quo.

Yeah, I guess that's kind of what I'm saying. I'm not saying some kind of reform isn't necessary, and I'm not screaming status quo either. Like I said, I'm far, far from an expert on health care. The opposite really. But if I have the means to pay for my own high quality insurance policy, why should my level of care suffer in order to give insurance to someone who can't/won't pay for it? I guess it boils down to the brass tacks of big/small government, which I don't really care to debate.

I work hard to afford my health insurance. I'm willing to give a few inches to help the uninsured, but not much more than that. By the way, putting some limits on the 50 million people receiving goverment healthcare to protect those who actually pay for it is more than fair in my opinion. You're either willing and/or able to put your hard earned dollars towards your healthcare or you're not. But if you are, you should get to go to the front of line for most things (life threatening situations excluded of course). I'm not saying anyone should be denied care, but if the government is picking up your tab, cry me a friggin a river if you have to wait a while.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Yeah, I guess that's kind of what I'm saying. I'm not saying some kind of reform isn't necessary, and I'm not screaming status quo either. Like I said, I'm far, far from an expert on health care. The opposite really. But if I have the means to pay for my own high quality insurance policy, why should my level of care suffer in order to give insurance to someone who can't/won't pay for it? I guess it boils down to the brass tacks of big/small government, which I don't really care to debate.

I work hard to afford my health insurance. I'm willing to give a few inches to help the uninsured, but not much more than that.

The problem is that you do, you just think you don't. it is all psychological you see for things don't pay for themselves.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by saden1

The problem is that you do, you just think you don't. it is all psychological you see for things don't pay for themselves.

I'm not sure I understand this post. If you're saying I can give more than a few inches, then you're right. I just don't want to. I'm not heartless. I want to help, but not to the extent that I'm on even par with the folks who are getting their tab picked up by Obama care.

[firstdown]

[quote=firstdown;565972]Obama's plan is allready working (well not working that good) in Massachusetts but when I posted this in another thread people who argue for un health care seem to ignore post like this. I guess its hard to argue against facts of how its not working in Massachusetts when the numbers show its actually driving up cost and is now more then private ins. Then you just need to take a look at Ca. and their 26 billion in dept from social programs just like this but why let facts get in the way.

The proponents of the Massachusetts reforms
also promised that those reforms would
reduce health care costs. Governor Romney
said that “the cost of health care would be reduced”
and the plan would make health insurance
“affordable” for every Massachusetts citizen.


27

Supporters suggested that the reforms


would reduce the price of individual insurance

policies by 25–40 percent.



28

In reality, insurance premiums rose by 7.4

percent in 2007, 8–12 percent in 2008, and are
expected to rise 9 percent this year.



29 By comparison,


nationwide insurance costs rose by

6.1 percent in 2007, just 4.7 percent in 2008,
and are projected to increase 6.4 percent this
year.



30 On average, health insurance costs


$16,897 for a family of four in Massachusetts,


compared to $12,700 nationally.

31



Boy that sounds just like what the Dems and Obama are saying right now.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp112.pdf

I know this was not the best copy and paste but for the people who feel so strong about goverment run ins. why do you think it will be any different in cost then what happened here. Then just name a large federal programe that is not over budget or running in the negative. I just think we aill have the same results as Massachusetts.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

You know common sense is subjective right?

1. Public defense done right is every bit as good as private defense. You knew this, right?
2. My cousin is a nurse at a veteran hospital in Phoenix AZ. She tells me they provide service comparable to that of the private sector and that they are behind none when it comes to bionics research. The most recent Survey of Veterans can be found here, my cousin might be full of shit and I'm you'll wade through it and tell me if you find something interesting, right?
3. McDonald's is really a bad example of a private company that sells quality products. They are in the business of cutting corners to maximize profits and their food is not fit to serve a dog. This is common sense and I am sure you understand where I am coming from, right?

For a brief moment I thought I knew what you were getting at but then I realized you and I don't think alike.

Your link "is every bit as good" is not talking about public defense vs private its talking about state vs federal public defense.

Your other links just talks about a survey with no actual numbers. The only number I saw was how long the survey would take.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by GMScud

I'm not sure I understand this post. If you're saying I can give more than a few inches, then you're right. I just don't want to. I'm not heartless. I want to help, but not to the extent that I'm on even par with the folks who are getting their tab picked up by Obama care.

I'm saying that you don't want to give a few more inches but you are when you pay your taxes and health insurance premium. Your choice is merely a perceived choice. You also think you're at the front of the line when you are not. People who show-up to the emergency room have to wait whether they have insurance or not and your wait time depends on the severity of your ailment. You will also note that most of the cost in uninsured care is in the emergency room care. If it is not an emergency but life threatening if not dealt with (i.e. a diabetic needing insulin) you still pay for it too.

You are just another number who happens to think he is special and fails to realize he is merely pushing the problem back to the emergency room.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Your link "is every bit as good" is not talking about public defense vs private its talking about state vs federal public defense.

Your other links just talks about a survey with no actual numbers. The only number I saw was how long the survey would take.

Try harder.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by saden1

I'm saying that you don't want to give a few more inches but you are when you pay your taxes and health insurance premium. Your choice is merely a perceived choice. You also think you're at the front of the line when you are not. People who show-up to the emergency room have to wait whether they have insurance or not and your wait time depends on the severity of your ailment. You will also note that most of the cost in uninsured care is in the emergency room care. If it is not an emergency but life threatening if not dealt with (i.e. a diabetic needing insulin) you still pay for it too.

You are just another number who happens to think he is special and fails to realize he is merely pushing the problem back to the emergency room.

When I said, "cry me a river if you have to wait," I wasn't referring to the line at the ER. I was referring to things like surgeries/procedures/doctor appointments. If I'm insured and I break my arm, I certainly don't expect to get seen in the ER faster than some uninsured guy who just got shot or in a bad car accident.

As far as your comment about me thinking I'm special... Well, I've already broken my own Warpath rules enough by posting on this thread. So I'm not even going to go there with you.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

Try harder.

All you have to do is read your link. The only place it talks about private vs public (that I found) was in the criticism section and that is filled with "citation needed" because there is nothing to back up what is said in that section. Like facts. Now please explain to us how Obama's plan will not end up like the one in Massachusetts and actually drive up cost?

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Firstdown: If we gave up at everything anyone had ever failed at, you would have never lived as long as you have already. Previous failures are not proof of future failures.

Please stop using Canada and Mass. as an example of how Universal Healthcare is impossible. And don't ask for proof of how Federal Healthcare will be different. Why don't you prove how it will be the same?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

Firstdown: If we gave up at everything anyone had ever failed at, you would have never lived as long as you have already. Previous failures are not proof of future failures.

Please stop using Canada and Mass. as an example of how Universal Healthcare is impossible. And don't ask for proof of how Federal Healthcare will be different. Why don't you prove how it will be the same?

OK, just look at any large federal program and then you have your answer. SS running out of money, Medicare/Medicade in trouble, how about the bail out of car companies that still went out of business. We could also look at what has happened to the public school system ever sense the federal goverment got involved. How about the bad bill Bush passed on percription drugs which I believe has doubled in cost v/s what they said it would cost. I don't look at this as a rep v/s dem issue I look it as another thing the goverment is going to screw up. You say don't point to Canada but the Dems point to them when talking about cost and care. You say don't look at Mass. system but it has been said their system is close to Obama's plan and it makes perfect sense to see what's happening with their plan. What else do we have to look at when talking about national heath care? Maybe we should all just turn a blind eye and let them do what ever they want. I don't think Universal Health care will fail I just believe it will drive up cost (see the example in Mass) and the quality of care will go down.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

Firstdown: If we gave up at everything anyone had ever failed at, you would have never lived as long as you have already. Previous failures are not proof of future failures.

Please stop using Canada and Mass. as an example of how Universal Healthcare is impossible. And don't ask for proof of how Federal Healthcare will be different. Why don't you prove how it will be the same?

So don't
a) cite the current models as examples,
b) ask how they will prevent it from falling into the same traps that the models that are the basis for it fall into,

and do prove that it will be the same as what they are modeling it after.

Somehow your logic in this post baffles me.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

So don't
a) cite the current models as examples,
b) ask how they will prevent it from falling into the same traps that the models that are the basis for it fall into,

and do prove that it will be the same as what they are modeling it after.

Somehow your logic in this post baffles me.

The point I was trying to make:

To say something is impossible, and basically shoot down every point of reason, and pretend we shouldn't even attempt something because of the possibility of failure is a lazy attitude, and one that is not conducive to progress.

For the record, I have no position on this matter, and I generally favor smaller government. I'm just sick of the defeatist attitude.