Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 134
Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare optionPage 11 of 11    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)
Its been a very long time since our country has such a magnitude of dissention arose from not only citizens but state governments from all over.

Yes, you're right... It HAS been a long time... The last time "dissention" of this sort rose to such magnitudes... violence, shrill screeches of "unconstitutional" and "states' rights", threats/pipe-dreams of secession/overthrow and claims of the "end of America as we know it"... As I recall, it had something to do with a bunch of extreme conservatives being upset about and opposed to giving "uppity n*ggers" equal rights and access to "the American Dream"...

Thank God it's been a long time... And hopefully it will be an even longer time before we hear this kind of crap again... but I'm not holding my breath, I suspect it will be repeated EVERY TIME the Obama administration tries to do something significant to improve the future prospects of the nation...
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 135
view profile
History
Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option
Posted: 4/2/2010 4:17:19 PM

It seems the tides of public opinion are indeed changing towards supporting this legislation.

Don’t pay attention to the polls. Obama himself says to ignore them.

"Every day since I signed reform into law, there's another poll or headline that says, 'Nation still divided on health reform, no great surge in public support,' " Obama said. "It's been a week, folks. So before we find out if people like health care reform, we should wait to see what happens when we actually put it into place. Just a thought."

I agree... just wait and see.

Any chance for a public health care option died when the House decided to approve the Senate bill. What are the chances of another health care bill coming up anytime soon? None. And to think that Obama had a whole year with a super-majority but still didn’t get the job done. What a squandered opportunity.

I think a lawsuit filed by a quarter of the States against the federal government is anything but silly and doubt it will treated as such by the courts. Being a constitutional question, State Supreme courts won’t be deciding it. It will go straight to the SCOTUS and my guess is it will be expedited (think Bush v. Palm Beach Canvassing Board and Bush v. Gore).

My guess is right around election time.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 136
Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option
Posted: 4/2/2010 5:38:23 PM
Healthcare companies are the largest donors to half a dozen Governors around the country. They donated over $130 million to federal election campaigns and over $160 million to state campaigns in 2008.

It's a shame people losing their homes and facing catastrophic illnesses didn't donate millions. Then you might have seen universal coverage.
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 137
view profile
History
Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option
Posted: 4/2/2010 6:18:36 PM

Reid will have a vote on a Public option. A Reconciliation vote 50+1 to pass. Currently there are two bills. One Medicare for all, the other a public option. 40 plus Senators have signed on.
There will be a Vote. This will be Health Care reform.


Haven't been keeping up on things ... so that sounds like great news.

I think once people start seeing the benefits kick in it will not only boost support but it will also be impossible then for the Tea Baggers to convince people they should give up something they've needed for so long and are finally getting.

If the Neo-GOP's campaign on getting rid of something good ... they will not win.
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 138
view profile
History
Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option
Posted: 4/2/2010 7:13:45 PM
LOL... support is not broad in some quarters in Florida.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36152956?GT1=43001

MOUNT DORA, Fla. - A central Florida urologist has posted a sign on his office door warning supporters of President Barack Obama to find a different doctor.
Cassell says most patients have been extremely supportive, though three had complained.
"They know it's not good for them," Cassell said.

 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 139
view profile
History
Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option
Posted: 4/3/2010 11:38:39 AM

Reid will have a vote on a Public option. A Reconciliation vote 50+1 to pass. Currently there are two bills. One Medicare for all, the other a public option.

Huh? If you have Medicare for all why would you need a public option?

Reid can’t have a vote on a public option until the House does and if they could have done it with a simple majority budget reconciliation vote they would have included it in HR4872. It would never have passed the Byrd rule test because it would bust the budget. Any public option legislation is going to have to go to the full floor.
 BikerBiker53
Joined: 6/11/2005
Msg: 140
view profile
History
Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option
Posted: 5/12/2010 3:01:46 PM
I keep saying it, to anyone that listens,....


When states battle the federal government, it's "We, the People" who get to pick up the tab, no matter who wins in the end.


It always ends up that "We The People" are the ones that have to come up with the money to foot any bill, or legislature that gets passed.

Anytime any elected offical comes forward with a "New, and Improved, Sure Fire Way,... to make life better,..Improve Our School System, Health Care System,..Lower the cost of Utilities, Gasoline,...Produce,...and build the best roads that $Money $ can buy,....you can bet your azz that their talking about YOUR $MONEY$,...not theirs !

Who pays for any of these so called Improvements ?

The working class Taxpayer.

OK,..you say that The Federal Reserve promises to Print up new, fresh money, to pay for what ever it is,.......it just puts the working class taxpayer, deeper in DEBT !

I dont care if they sell bonds,..or promise to only add 1 Cent Tax to help build a new Super Dome,...it still comes out of the Working Taxpayers Pockets, and devalues the dollar even more, and continues to add debt to every American.

At last,....Finally,....the bean counters have done the "Long Math", checked, and double checked, and have came to the truth of the matter concerning the Health Care Reform Bill will NOT,.......SAVE $ MONEY $,...instead, it is going to end up costing us each and everyone, and putting the burden on generations yet to come.

And we still have people that "Support" a Health Care Bill,..with or without Public Option, thats going to burden our nation possiably to its collapse.

Do we, as a nation, have to hit the bottom of the barrel, before people will open their eyes and say,...."We should of been more worried about restoring our Economy, instead of Health Care Reform."

What good is a Health Care Bill, with, or with out Public Option, if the public cant afford to buy into it.

How is the "Proposed" $750 Dollar Fine for not having Health Care Coverage going to matter, to people who cant afford it in the first place.

Our Economy should of been addressed first, and then if and when Americans could afford a fair, decent Health Care Package, there could of been plenty of time to address the issue, and iron out all the problems we've encountered in this crazy mess.
 FrankNStein902
Joined: 12/26/2009
Msg: 141
Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option
Posted: 5/12/2010 4:29:48 PM

Who pays for any of these so called Improvements ?

The working class Taxpayer.

So who should be paying for them?
 BikerBiker53
Joined: 6/11/2005
Msg: 142
view profile
History
Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option
Posted: 5/28/2010 8:47:42 AM
Hey ^^^

Instead of asking,...

"Who should be paying for them?"

Lets ask

"Why, should the working class taxpayer be paying the way for benifits of illegals and or non working people on Social programs that continue to abuse the system, and further the decline and erosion of the fabric of our society ?"

First,...look at all the illegals that pay nothing into our society, only take, take, take,

and Im not pointing the finger at "Hispanics",..thats just part of the problem associated with the illigals crossing the borders,....finally the truth has came out that illegals from other countries that means the USA, great harm are sneeking into our country via mexico.

Look at all the illeagls from Asia,..and I've even read about the vast amount of illegal Irish, that abound in the NYC area,....

WHY, should the working class taxpayers not only be paying for their own, and their familys health and welfare,.....but even the people who contribute nothing to society,
except creating more debt and burden ?

With the new healthcare reform, hopefully we might see a change,...but with so much unemployment, and illegals,..I believe the working class taxpayer will still continue to pay the way for those non employed, and illegals.

I've got my Health Care, like millions of others, and feel the working class shouldnt have to pay the way for others that are unemployed, either through no fault of their own, or just too lazy to work, and abusing the already over burdened system.

If the government had been run, the way it should of been run, Social Security would still be there, secure, for those on it,..instead of being robbed by Peter to Pay Paul,...

If the government had invested, and metted out the money it raises through taxes, we would have a surplus, insted of a deficet thats spiriled out of control to the point of our country becoming bankrupt,.....

Our government sets a poor example for others to follow,...all at the expense of the working class taxpayer,....and this new "Heathcare Bill",..lost a lot of momentum and support, before it was passed,...and guess who will end up footing the bill for the governments mis-management,....the working class citizens,......like always.
 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 143
view profile
History
Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option
Posted: 6/6/2010 4:48:01 PM
Amazingly, the right in the USA is adapting the same position as the Godless Chinese Commie government has ?


By the mid-1990s, the government provided only 10 percent of the funding for public health facilities in China. Put another way, modern Chinese hospitals have to secure 90 percent of their budget on their own, through so-called “revenue-generating activities.”

Most of the government’s meager support comes in the form of reimbursement based on staff size and number of hospital beds—a set-up that encourages excessively large staffs and construction. In this way public assistance actually hurts more than it helps—a pattern evident across Chinese health care today.

Most hospitals are government-owned, and the doctors who work there are on salary—and paid very poorly. Today, a junior doctor can make less than $120 a month.  A doctor’s biggest payday comes with his yearly bonus, which is tied to the revenue he brings in for his hospital or facility. Thus not only do hospitals have an incentive to have a lot of beds, but doctors also have an incentive to fill them—all to turn a profit.

To help doctors and hospitals generate revenue, the Chinese government has set prices for two services—high-tech diagnostic services and prescription drugs—above the cost of delivery, meaning providers can charge more for scans or medications than it actually costs to provide them. The government’s price setting scheme also allows for a 15 percent profit margin on drugs.

The idea is to give hospitals and doctors a duo of cash cows from which to generate funds. But there’s an obvious downside: providers have a huge incentive to scan and prescribe, especially because doctors make so little and want to increase their income.

But procuring the newest gadgets and/or imported drug is expensive, which means that providers have to spend a lot in order to turn a profit. An article in the newest Health Affairs by Winnie Yip and William Hsiao, both professors at the Harvard School of Public Health, points out that a Chinese health care provider “has to dispense seven dollars’ worth of drugs to earn one dollar of profit.”

Yip and Hsiao note a striking example of this incentive to overdose. In China, 75 percent of patients suffering from a common cold are prescribed antibiotics, as are 79 percent of hospital patients—more than twice the international average of 30 percent. The piling on of prescriptions helps hospitals take advantage of high profit margins: a 2005 Washington Post story pointed out that pharmacies can provide up to 90 percent of hospital revenue. The result of these incentives has been a skewed system where primary care is all but non-existent, but which spends exorbitantly on designer drugs. Today the share of health care spending devoted to pharmaceuticals in China is more than three times that of most of the developed world.

Skewing incentives even further is the fact that, in order to make basic health care affordable to citizens, the Chinese government set the price of basic care lower than its service cost. That means that providers actually lose money when they do anything besides irradiating or medicating a patient. So not only is there an incentive to rely on high-tech services and prescription drugs, there’s actually a strong disincentive to do anything else.

With fewer Chinese insured and providers itching to undertake expensive care, it’s little wonder that out-of-pocket spending is so high in China: it accounts for a whopping 60 percent of the nation’s total health care bill.  It also should come as no surprise that waste has helped China’s health care spending grow at an annual rate of 16 percent over the past twenty years, a good 7 percent faster than the growth of China’s GDP over the same period. Yes, that means that China’s world-wowing economic boom is actually happening at a slower rate than the growth of its health care system.

As the authors note, this fact is “somewhat surprising,” because in theory, patients pay premiums to keep out-of-pocket costs down, and better access to care should keep people healthier—and thus reduce costs for everyone. But the problem is NCMS does little to address the “supply side” problems in China—the incentives to provide wasteful, ineffective care. And so the benefits of expanding coverage and increasing public assistance to providers are muted.

As with every other sector of its economy, China has a lot on its plate when it comes to health care. The collapse of communism ushered in an age where providers were encouraged to make a buck in order to survive—at the expense of cost-effectiveness and health. Now China must find a happy medium between the communism of old and the do-anything-to-profit ethos of today. The search is bound to be interesting.

http://takingnote.tcf.org/2008/04/chinas-health-c.html


See a pattern here ?
 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 144
view profile
History
Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option
Posted: 6/6/2010 10:38:07 PM

In China, 75 percent of patients suffering from a common cold are prescribed antibiotics

Why are they going to hospitals with colds?


Probably due with their experience with this little thing called "SARS" .


Signs and symptoms

Initial symptoms are flu-like and may include: fever, myalgia, lethargy, gastrointestinal symptoms, cough, sore throat and other non-specific symptoms. The only symptom that is common to all patients appears to be a fever above 38 °C (100.4 °F).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome


If average people cannot afford proper healthcare, then they become a Petri dish for diseases that will inevitably spread into the rest of the population. This is a national defense issue, and should be held in the same regard in terms of it's importance.

If 3,000 people die in a terrorist related series of attacks, then the country is ready to spend unlimited funds to ensure it never happens again.

If a pandemic starts among these people that cannot afford proper healthcare, it's potential spread is going to kill more Americans than a terrorist attack will - and will be costly and slow to turn around.

It's impact on the economy will be impressive, and long lasting.

Look at things like tuberculosis and leprosy, and how they have established themselves in the USA in recent years.

We live in an interconnected world now, one where a disease can spread from one country to another in hours if someone takes a plane.

Mother Nature can potentially be a WMD carrying terrorist, in a sense.

Even a real terrorist would find the perfect target for spreading some types of disease in areas of America where far too many people have no access to proper preventative care, and people that are sick already are typically the first touched by pandemics.

The extreme right, often preoccupied by national defense issues, fails to see healthcare as a vital part of it.

More Americans have been, and will continue to be, killed by treatable disease than probably ever will be by foreign terrorists.


Excluding the September 11 attacks, approximately 700 Americans have been killed and 1,600 wounded in terrorist attacks since 1970.

The toll from the September 11, 2001, attack on the World Trade Center is also uncertain, but current figures place the number of dead above 3,000. The number of dead at the Pentagon and on the hijacked airliners numbered approximately 385.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/usvictims.html


Let's call total American deaths due to terrorism 4,000 to use a round figure, and that's in the last forty years (fo0reign and domestic incidents).

75,000 Americans die EVERY YEAR from infectious disease.
20,000 Americans die EVERY YEAR from sexually transmitted infections.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_preventable_causes_of_death#Leading_causes_in_the_United_States

So if you are killed by a foreign terrorist, there's no limit to how much will be spent to protect those left living.

If you are killed by a disease that could have been prevented with better access to healthcare, it's your tough luck.
 flyonthewall!
Joined: 3/31/2008
Msg: 145
Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option
Posted: 6/7/2010 10:09:54 AM

If average people cannot afford proper healthcare, then they become a Petri dish for diseases that will inevitably spread into the rest of the population. This is a national defense issue, and should be held in the same regard in terms of it's importance.

Communicable diseases like the flu or colds tend to spread before anyone can even get to the doctor. So while an individual may die from an advanced case of the flu because they don't have insurance, on a broad level it doesn't spread because of a lack of health care. If there is a vaccine for a particular flu, there are always free and low cost shots available in the community. It doesn't even matter if you HAVE health insurance, if you show up they will give you the shot anyway. You don't have to show financial need.

So no, disease doesn't spread in the US due to a lack of health insurance.

The best case for universal health care are untreated diseases that get much worse by the time a person goes to the doctor for treatment. Stage 4 cancer is very expensive to treat, and if you show up in an ER as a charity case you will be put on SSI and Medicaid. Studies show that the costs of keeping a person alive is the most costly in the last couple of months of treatment. So if those people got regular health care and got treated when their illnesses were curable they would cost the health care much less per person who becomes ill. Chronic diseases like diabetes, heart disease and hypertension are also expensive to treat, especially when you consider that an individual will be on expensive medication for 20 or more years.

However, adding another 50 million people to the health care rolls cost as much or more than treating additional advanced and chronic diseases because it will require building additional hospitals, training additional doctors and other health care professionals. It is not a cheap thing to do.


Even a real terrorist would find the perfect target for spreading some types of disease in areas of America where far too many people have no access to proper preventative care, and people that are sick already are typically the first touched by pandemics.

Even if you have regular health care, there is little that can be done for most communicable diseases. The available treatments can be bought in any drug store, and even if you had health insurance, it wouldn't pay for over-the-counter drugs. Health care only comes into play if you start to go into respiratory failure, run a very high fever that can't be controlled and therefore need medical support in a hospital.

Fact is that most colds and flu cases are never seen by a doctor, and it has relatively little to do with the patient's access to medical care. It's just that most resolve on their own.

The closest we've come here to terrorists trying to spread disease was in the 2001 anthrax attacks and that only affected 68 people (and the terrorist was an American). It is very hard to spread a pandemic via terrorism. If it could be done, it already would have been done.


So if you are killed by a foreign terrorist, there's no limit to how much will be spent to protect those left living.

That's a matter of national security. We do on a broad basis try to protect Americans from communicable diseases through vaccine programs.

However, the most expensive diseases are the chronic diseases like diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, etc. that are borne out of millions of obese people. If our lifestyle as a nation was different, our health care costs would be less than half of what they are now.

What we need to keep people healthy and contain health care costs is broad based community education. In the 1950s and 1960s we didn't have major medical insurance and we were a lot healthier. Cutting the amount of food by half that most of the population eats would do more to improve human health than all of today's pills, doctors, hospitals and medical advances combined.
 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 146
view profile
History
Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option
Posted: 6/8/2010 2:00:07 AM

In the 1950s and 1960s we didn't have major medical insurance and we were a lot healthier.


People were also exposed to a lot less toxins, as has just been pointed out above. The food industry today is a lot different than it was in those times.

People were far more physically active (at work and after it), as well, in that "pre-computer" time.

Stress levels were lower too, in a far more "primitive" society.

Remote control channel changers were called......your kids.

It was harder to get on a plane , and get off hours later in another country with a communicable disease.

These things, and many more factors, are the reality of today's world.

While I agree with you that educating people is important in such things, it's hard toovercome decades of a commercials telling people that not exerting yourself is a good thing. It's hard to overcome years of neglect of the "cost" of gym classes in schools being too expensive to continue.
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option