Tayo-D:

@Ibime,
It will be nice if you understand the position of the person you are defending. Obama's goal is to eliminate the private option leading to a single payer system. Maybe you should watch this 2 minute video chronicling Obama's stand on the matter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk&feature=player_embedded

Come on mate, who you trying to scare?

I cant watch the video now, maybe later, but I guess its more propaganda.

@Ibime,

Come on mate, who you trying to scare?

Scare? No mate, just giving you some information.

I cant watch the video now, maybe later, but I guess its more propaganda.

Don't you think its prudent to withohold comment till you have watched the video? By the way, its less than 2 minutes long!

JeSoul:

  Load of crap indeed. That's why the rest of the world runs to America for surgeries and other critical healthcare abi? 

If i didnt look well at the ID i would have thought this was Glenn Beck here in disguise.  Who are these "rest of the world" that come here for surgeries? the VERY RICH! How many poor people do you see rushing here for healthcare? How many of america's own citizens can afford these surgeries that others come to get here? You think its free?

Besides where do you think the technology for all the surgeries come from? Oh yeah GOVERNMENT SPONSORED UNIVERSITY RESEARCH! Socialism at its worst . . . do you know how much the NIH spends in research every yr in my school alone?

JeSoul:

I will take private with their obscene costs anyday over public where we'll all be scrambling for reduced, rationed service.

Pure republican talking points.

- you have private care now because you have a job, no pre-existing conditions and do not need it now. You wait until you're out of job, no employer-based healthcare, have a pre-existing condition and your health care premiums are higher than your monthly mortgage. Dont also forget to include your out of pocket costs though.

- Ah wait . . . what is all this drivel about rationed care? Where did that come from? who rations care in Canada and France?
Rationed care is when your insurance company refuses to cover a particular bill because its too expensive or they dont deem it serious enough. Rationed care is when you are refused care because you have an increased risk for developing cancer, rationed care is going on right now.

to think americans are crying about rationed care . . . what of medicare? Is it rationed care too? I wonder why the elderly are not clamouring for private health insurance . . .

JeSoul:

You cannot dump 50million extra people into the system and expect it to still work the same way without increasing the number of doctors and other service providers.

Same arguments when it was medicare 44 yrs ago . . . its turned out better. Sure you cant dump 50mm extra people on the system but go ahead paying higher taxes so that those 50m can continue recieving free care.

JeSoul:

and btw are Britian's lawmakers also enrolled in the healthcare system? I am not aware. Can you give me a logical reason why Congress is too special to partake in the public healthcare reform they are trying to shove down our throats?

Congress is already on healthcare bankrolled by you.

Tayo-D:

@Ibime,
It will be nice if you understand the position of the person you are defending. Obama's goal is to eliminate the private option leading to a single payer system.  Maybe you should watch this 2 minute video chronicling Obama's stand on the matter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk&feature=player_embedded

Err no perhaps you shld pay more attention to facts than propaganda. No where in that clip is it indicated that he will eliminate private insurance. That is a YOUTUBE clip artfully cropped to prove a lie.

no wonder many big companies are rushing abroad . . . what with retiree benefits, employer health insurance benefits . . . it sure is damn expensive to run a profitable business in this country.

davidylan:

Besides where do you think the technology for all the surgeries come from? Oh yeah GOVERNMENT SPONSORED UNIVERSITY RESEARCH! Socialism at its worst . . . do you know how much the NIH spends in research every yr in my school alone?

Pure republican talking points.

- you have private care now because you have a job, no pre-existing conditions and do not need it now. You wait until you're out of job, no employer-based healthcare, have a pre-existing condition and your health care premiums are higher than your monthly mortgage. Dont also forget to include your out of pocket costs though.

- Ah wait . . . what is all this drivel about rationed care? Where did that come from? who rations care in Canada and France?
Rationed care is when your insurance company refuses to cover a particular bill because its too expensive or they dont deem it serious enough. Rationed care is when you are refused care because you have an increased risk for developing cancer, rationed care is going on right now.

to think americans are crying about rationed care . . . what of medicare? Is it rationed care too? I wonder why the elderly are not clamouring for private health insurance . . .

Same arguments when it was medicare 44 yrs ago . . . its turned out better. Sure you cant dump 50mm extra people on the system but go ahead paying higher taxes so that those 50m can continue recieving free care.

Congress is already on healthcare bankrolled by you.

I think you have buried De La Soul with these points. Rationed care ke? Methinks insurance-based system is rationed by cream-skimming companies.

She would make points about lower standards of care in public health, but of course no one is forcing her to give up her insurance. Public health would reduce the price of health Insurance perhaps to European levels where we get gold-standard cover for as little as £30.00 a month. Public health is desperately needed in Yankee to keep private health honest. Right now, its just a rip-off.

20 years from now, when social health is up and running successfully alongside Private, we would look back at these Republican naysayers as dinosaurs from another era, the same way the Brits look at those pre-1950 who never had any social healthcare.

@Davidylan,

Err no perhaps you shld pay more attention to facts than propaganda. No where in that clip is it indicated that he will eliminate private insurance. That is a YOUTUBE clipped artfully cropped to prove a lie.

Are you serious?
did you watch the clips at all? Obama clearly said his plan will get rid of the private insurer in about 5 to 20 years! Were you asleep when he declared he is a proponent of a single payer system that would eventually eliminate the private insurers?

no wonder many big companies are rushing abroad . . . what with retiree benefits, employer health insurance benefits . . . it sure is damn expensive to run a profitable business in this country.

This is a valid point. The cost of doing business is indeed rising in America and the healthcare system is part of the problem. Saying a govt run system is however the solution is a denial of lessons learnt from history.

Ibime:

I think you have buried De La Soul with these points. Rationed care ke? Methinks insurance-based system is rationed by cream-skimming companies.

She would make points about lower standards of care in public health, but of course no one is forcing her to give up her insurance. Public health would reduce the price of health Insurance perhaps to European levels where we get gold-standard cover for as little as £30.00 a month. Public health is desperately needed in Yankee to keep private health honest. Right now, its just a rip-off.

20 years from now, when social health is up and running successfully alongside Private, we would look back at these Republican naysayers as dinosaurs from another era, the same way the Brits look at those pre-1950 who never had any social healthcare.

lol it was easy to refute her points . . . if i had a dollar for every article i've seen those same points regurgitated over and over and over again i'd be a millionaire by now. They cant seem to come up with original arguments. Frank Luntz did a good job for the GOP.  

Private healthcare in this country is a scam. You pay way more to keep the company profits and overhead costs than the actual care you get. I have payed into my insurance for the last 5 yrs and yet i dont have dental insurance, have to pay for my own medications and will pay out of pocket costs just to visit the doc for a headache. I just treat myself.   God forbid i dont get any serious medical problems, many have had their insurance cancelled for that reason alone.

For all the noise about private healthcare, i dont hear the Canadians rushing to emulate our own system.

Nobody shld just use that point about others coming to America for healthcare again.   Infact it is an insult to American citizens that they have to declare bankruptcy to treat a child with cancer while the Sheik of Saudi Arabia is getting a tummy tuck for thousands of dollars in the best hospitals in America.

@Ibime,

20 years from now, when social health is up and running successfully alongside Private, we would look back at these Republican naysayers as dinosaurs from another era, the same way the Brits look at those pre-1950 who never had any social healthcare.

What's your definition of success? Medicare and Medicaid are about bankrupt. There is no funds to sustain the system. The govt cannot even sustain the program for a section of the populace and you are asking that they do that for all citizens? That's fool-hardy!

Tayo-D:

@Davidylan,
Are you serious?  
did you watch the clips at all?  Obama clearly said his plan will get rid of the private insurer in about 5 to 20 years! Were you asleep when he declared he is a proponent of a single payer system that would eventually eliminate the private insurers?

those clips are dishonest. What you have are carefully cropped portions of speeches to convey a false point . . . if the public option eventually eliminates private insurance it will be because they dont offer any better healthcare service for the dollar than the public option.

Why keep the private option anyway if it solely exists to make Ed Hanway retire with a $73m parachute while i have to pay $200 for a doctors visit even with insurance?

Tayo-D:

This is a valid point.  The cost of doing business is indeed rising in America and the healthcare system is part of the problem.  Saying a govt run system is however the solution is a denial of lessons learnt from history.

err like medicare?

Tayo-D:

@Ibime,
What's your definition of success? Medicare and Medicaid are about bankrupt. There is no funds to sustain the system. The govt cannot even sustain the program for a section of the populace and you are asking that they do that for all citizens? That's fool-hardy!

that's not true. Medicare is 44 yrs old today . . . the VA runs its own government healthcare system for the military . . . is it also going bankrupt?

@davidylan,

those clips are dishonest. What you have are carefully cropped portions of speeches to convey a false point . . . if the public option eventually eliminates private insurance it will be because they either dont offer any better healthcare service for the dollar than the public option.

There is nothing dishonest about the clips.  They are Obama's words. He took time to explain is position after nmapping out a stand. He wants a single payer system and he envisions the system driving out private party from the healthcare industry.

Why keep the private option anyway if it solely exists to make Ed Hanway retire with a $73m parachute?

If his shareholders approve of his pay, what is your own?

err like medicare?

Yep! Such will go bankrupt.

Omo, I dey go church. Hopefully, I'll have time to be back here to discuss this after.

Tayo-D:

@davidylan,
There is nothing dishonest about the clips.  They are Obama's words. He took time to explain is position after nmapping out a stand. He wants a single payer system and he envisions the system driving out private party from the healthcare industry.

and how is that a bad thing? The goal is competition . . . if the private insurers cant compete then maybe they should find something else to insure. Why pay into insurance for donkey yrs only to get denied basic care when you need it most? Like i always say - many of you against the public option are only saying so because no serious health condition has hit you yet. When you have to spend your life savings keeping your cancer-stricken child alive then you will understand.

Tayo-D:

If his shareholders approve of his pay, what is your own?

Even you shld see the irony in your own words. Should healthcare be a profit-driven venture? So is CIGNA's goal to provide me adequate care or to generate millions for shareholders? How do you think they generate those millions? By providing first class care or looking for ways to deny people needed care?

It is no wonder that the average turnover for people insured by each healthcare company is as high as 25%.

Tayo-D:

Yep! Such will go bankrupt.

44 yrs and still going strong.  

Tayo-D:

Omo, I dey go church. Hopefully, I'll have time to be back here to discuss this after.

abeg pray for public option.

davidylan:

Why pay into insurance for donkey yrs only to get denied basic care when you need it most? Like i always say - many of you against the public option are only saying so because no serious health condition has hit you yet. When you have to spend your life savings keeping your cancer-stricken child alive then you will understand.

GBAM!!!!!!!!!!!!! GBAM!!!!!!!!!!!!! GBAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ah ah I was gone only a few hours and you people have populated the board with so much - yes regurgitated democratic talking points 

  David and Ibime, if you both are not selectively taking points from my posts you would have seen where I said "I favor the govt 'regulating/overseeing/monitoring and hereby changing the current system of insurance companies ripping us off". But of course you're both not willing to see that are you?  Infact the very reason I was uninsured for a number of yrs was becos I felt like I was giving my money away only to be subject to useless "co-pays" the 1 or 2 times I needed a checkup or something.

  Infact we can all sit here and debate from now will the rapture, there are 'experts' on both sides of the debate including yes the AMA who came out against the bill - shey they too are taking their talking points from talk radio abi? Obama used his own 32 to say he wants single payer and you're talking about the clip is manipulated?  well whatever floats your boat.

Simple question: If this reform is so good why will Congress and their families not be enrolled in it? Somebody please tell me WHY? If Obama came out tomorrow and announced his very own daughters will be using the program I will give him my 100% support, that will be an action that will speak louder than anything else.

Tayo posted the quote of the honorable senator who insinuated it was ludicrous for us to expect him to actually read the bill . . . they don't even know what's in the bill they're trying to pass into law. I would rather see doctors of repute debate the bill on national tv instead of the losers in congress and forum self-annointed 'experts' like yourself _{and me.}

Wasn't this a topic for CLunkers??

JeSoul, again you really havent said anything, sorry.

JeSoul:

ah ah I was gone only a few hours and you people have populated the board with so much - yes regurgitated democratic talking points 

But they are facts you couldnt refute no be so?  Perhaps democrat talking points actually make sense as compared to republican talking points that are geared more to destroying the president than setting policy for Americans.

JeSoul:

  David and Ibime, if you both are not selectively taking points from my posts you would have seen where I said "I favor the govt 'regulating/overseeing/monitoring and hereby changing the current system of insurance companies ripping us off".

Perhaps i can give 2 reasons why we ignored this:

1. It was sandwiched among several other preposterous Frank Luntz talking points and

2. How is this going to work? When government tried to "regulate/oversee/monitor" wall street werent you all up in arms against "socialism"? Werent you the ones crying about government "takeover" of the auto industry for daring to "gasp" . . . regulate them and prevent them from total collapse? What happened when government tried to regulate bonuses paid to AIG and renumerations paid to CEOs of banks that took government bailouts? Ah yeah right you wouldnt let us rest from cries of "socialism".

How do you expect government to regulate a private enterprise geared towards making a profit for shareholders? Pls dont just bring up moot points, give us realistic ways they can work . . . will government go cap premiums?

JeSoul:

But of course you're both not willing to see that are you?    Infact the very reason I was uninsured for a number of yrs was becos I felt like I was giving my money away only to be subject to useless "co-pays" the 1 or 2 times I needed a checkup or something.

You're one of the lucky few . . . others who developed serious health problems during that period like cancer would have had to file bankruptcy. I doubt they'll be here supporting private insurers.

JeSoul:

  Infact we can all sit here and debate from now will the rapture, there are 'experts' on both sides of the debate including yes the AMA who came out against the bill - shey they too are taking their talking points from talk radio abi?

Before rushing to say "oh but the AMA is against the bill too" try and understand why they are against it. If i were a doctor i'd be firmly against this bill too because it will end the fee-for-service form of renumeration that doctors get. They'd be forced under a single-payer system to go back to getting salaries. It is way more lucrative to bill a patient, NOT for service rendered but for the number of unnecessary tests i can order which of course benefits the drug companies and insurance guys.

JeSoul:

Obama used his own 32 to say he wants single payer and you're talking about the clip is manipulated?  well whatever floats your boat.

Again i repeat - HE DID NOT.

JeSoul:

Simple question: If this reform is so good why will Congress and their families not be enrolled in it? Somebody please tell me WHY?

Because they are already on government healthcare!

JeSoul:

If Obama came out tomorrow and announced his very own daughters will be using the program I will give him my 100% support, that will be an action that will speak louder than anything else.

He and his daughters are already on government healthcare!

JeSoul:

Tayo posted the quote of the honorable senator who insinuated it was ludicrous for us to expect him to actually read the bill . . . they don't even know what's in the bill they're trying to pass into law.
I would rather see doctors of repute debate the bill on national tv instead of the losers in congress and forum self-annointed 'experts' like yourself _{and me.}

lol this must be a joke. Doctors shld debate the bill? Of course i'm sure all the doctors have is the best interest of the patient and not their own financial gain. Are doctors the ones who have to move their industries to China because employer health benefits is destroying whatever profits they can make? Are doctors the ones who have to go bankrupt because a child has leukemia?

Ah did someone say we dont yet have rationed care? 

I just heard of a baby that cant get health insurance because he was born with a heart murmur. Poor kid . . . i wish he were born to a republican.

Perhaps the repubs too can read up on what "utilization review" is. Rationing healthcare at its best.  I cant believe we still have blind people in this generation.

Also just a "comforting" note - God forbid but you're all one cancer attack away from understanding how utterly horrible private health insurance is . . . and just in case you didnt know . . . as a cancer-survivor there is no insurance anywhere for you.

Just some real life examples to spice up your day . . .

I just read your comment and feel I need to respond. My Granddaughter who has brain cancer that is in-operable and must be monitored every other month. The MRI's are $5,000.00 per time. Her insurance company will only pay for three per year. Do the math. Onthis expense alone she has to pay $15,000.00 out-of-pocket. The medications her Doctor said she must take that insurance will not pay for, are $800.00 per month. She must also pay her deductables. Unless you or someone you know has faced a serious health problem, you can't imagine the cost !

You know, i really cant wait for this private health insurance . . . your sure one-way ticket to financial security!

davidylan:

But they are facts you couldnt refute no be so?   Perhaps democrat talking points actually make sense as compared to republican talking points that are geared more to destroying the president than setting policy for Americans.

  The same democrats who scorned at the idea of people suggesting they actually read the bill they're proposing. Have you read the bill David? beyond just knowing about the public option being added have you read the other aspects of the 1000 page bill?

Perhaps i can give 2 reasons why we ignored this:
1. It was sandwiched among several other preposterous Frank Luntz talking points and

2. How is this going to work? When government tried to "regulate/oversee/monitor" wall street werent you all up in arms against "socialism"? Werent you the ones crying about government "takeover" of the auto industry for daring to "gasp" . . . regulate them and prevent them from total collapse? What happened when government tried to regulate bonuses paid to AIG and renumerations paid to CEOs of banks that took government bailouts? Ah yeah right you wouldnt let us rest from cries of "socialism".

 Frank who? why do you think anyone with an opponsing view got it from talk radio, Glenn beck or any other republican figure? You yourself haven't said anything here.
 So because somewhere in your mind you erroneously fabricated some story about what I did or did not say about another entire issue you chose not to see where I said I support changing the current system? this does not make any sense. I would kindly like you to show me where I discussed any of those issues on NL, thank you.

How do you expect government to regulate a private enterprise geared towards making a profit for shareholders? Pls dont just bring up moot points, give us realistic ways they can work . . . will government go cap premiums?

 Exactly, now you're asking the right question. I am not a healthcare genuis so I cannot give you specifics but I know it can be worked out. Govt works hand in hand with the private sector all the time in regulation and other aspects. This is not a new idea. Outrageous premiums can be checked and addressed so the insurance giants stop screwing the population over.

You're one of the lucky few . . . others who developed serious health problems during that period like cancer would have had to file bankruptcy. I doubt they'll be here supporting private insurers.

  You're right and another plausible suggestion I heard from a democrat was to say what if we required/mandated health insurance for only critical situations like an accident or cancer or any other critical disease. I happen to think that's not a bad idea.

 Massachusetts is right now drowning under the weight of the mandatory healthcare they passed into law few years ago. It was supposed to provide healthcare for all - what they forgot to mention was that it would bankrupt us and lead to countless of state employees losing their jobs.

Before rushing to say "oh but the AMA is against the bill too" try and understand why they are against it. If i were a doctor i'd be firmly against this bill too because it will end the fee-for-service form of renumeration that doctors get. They'd be forced under a single-payer system to go back to getting salaries. It is way more lucrative to bill a patient, NOT for service rendered but for the number of unnecessary tests i can order which of course benefits the drug companies and insurance guys.

 . . . so doctors are against it because they will get less money? And they are taking out childrens tonsils too for extra profit? right. If we cannot trust our doctors then who are we to trust? Congress?

Again i repeat - HE DID NOT.

Yes he did. The video and tapes of him advocating a single payer system from years ago are available for all to see & hear. If its a matter of he has 'changed his mind' it is not a crime, let them at least be honest about it.

Because they are already on government healthcare!He and his daughters are already on government healthcare!

 Stop spinning jor.
Whether it is govt or private, why will they not cancel their own system too and join the rest of the population in this reform? why? Is there anything better and more convincing than leading by example?

lol this must be a joke. Doctors shld debate the bill? Of course i'm sure all the doctors have is the best interest of the patient and not their own financial gain. Are doctors the ones who have to move their industries to China because employer health benefits is destroying whatever profits they can make? Are doctors the ones who have to go bankrupt because a child has leukemia?

 So who in the world has our best interest at heart? Barney Frank? John Conyers?? again if we don't trust our doctors opinions then we should not trust them to treat us at all. Call me naive if you want, but I will take their opinion over the losers on capitol hill who have failed at practically everything they try to fix.

davidylan:

Just some real life examples to spice up your day . . .

I just read your comment and feel I need to respond. My Granddaughter who has brain cancer that is in-operable and must be monitored every other month. The MRI's are $5,000.00 per time. Her insurance company will only pay for three per year. Do the math. Onthis expense alone she has to pay $15,000.00 out-of-pocket. The medications her Doctor said she must take that insurance will not pay for, are $800.00 per month. She must also pay her deductables. Unless you or someone you know has faced a serious health problem, you can't imagine the cost !

You know, i really cant wait for this private health insurance . . . your sure one-way ticket to financial security!

See this one . Again, Tayo and I have already stressed several times the current system needs fixing . . . I guess you haven't seen that abi?

JeSoul:

See this one  . Again, Tayo and I have already stressed several times the current system needs fixing . . . I guess you haven't seen that abi?

and how do you propose to "fix" it? Please provide us concrete ways of "fixing" it. why did none of you raise the issue of "fixing" it until the fight for single-payer started?

Why is the single payer healthcare system wonderfully successful in France, Canada, Australia but a bad thing for the US?

JeSoul:

  The same democrats who scorned at the idea of people suggesting they actually read the bill they're proposing. Have you read the bill David? beyond just knowing about the public option being added have you read the other aspects of the 1000 page bill?

have you and every other person criticizing the bill read it yourselves? Then on what basis are you criticizing it?

JeSoul:

 Frank who? why do you think anyone with an opponsing view got it from talk radio, Glenn beck or any other republican figure? You yourself haven't said anything here.

Because from Glenn Beck to John Boehner, you're all repeating the same discredited arguments. Beck on his radio show was the one talking about others coming to America for healthcare that ordinary US citizens cannot afford. What a disgraceful point.

JeSoul:

 Exactly, now you're asking the right question. I am not a healthcare genuis so I cannot give you specifics but I know it can be worked out. Govt works hand in hand with the private sector all the time in regulation and other aspects. This is not a new idea. Outrageous premiums can be checked and addressed so the insurance giants stop screwing the population over.

This makes no sense either. Government tried to cap salaries and bonuses paid to employees of private companies on bailouts and you all cried socialism. Abeg make we hear word.

You're not a healthcare genius, you cant give us specifics on how YOUR OWN alternatives to single-payer healthcare (that is hugely successful in other first world nations) works but yet you oppose a government plan? Very funny.

JeSoul:

  You're right and another plausible suggestion I heard from a democrat was to say what if we required/mandated health insurance for only critical situations like an accident or cancer or any other critical disease. I happen to think that's not a bad idea.

Bad idea . . . what then do you define as a "critical situation"? What of diabetes, heart problems, mental health, emergency surgery, kidney failure? Are they not as "critical" as cancer?

JeSoul:

 Massachusetts is right now drowning under the weight of the mandatory healthcare they passed into law few years ago. It was supposed to provide healthcare for all - what they forgot to mention was that it would bankrupt us and lead to countless of state employees losing their jobs.

While i cannot competently comment on the Mass healthcare reform, i can say without a doubt that it was NOT a sensible plan as all it did was simply force people to purchase expensive private insurance while doing nothing to cap premiums.

About bankruptcy . . . well millions of Americans are going bankrupt under the current system anyway and shld you lose your job, poof goes your insurance too.

JeSoul:

 . . . so doctors are against it because they will get less money? And they are taking out childrens tonsils too for extra profit? right. If we cannot trust our doctors then who are we to trust? Congress?

Doctors right now earn more money with a fee-for-service plan than a salaried position that is why they will fight against this bill.

JeSoul:

Yes he did. The video and tapes of him advocating a single payer system from years ago are available for all to see & hear. If its a matter of he has 'changed his mind' it is not a crime, let them at least be honest about it.

the single payer system is successful in other countries who are not agitating to change to the US system, actually they're busy laughing at you all.

JeSoul:

 Stop spinning jor.
Whether it is govt or private, why will they not cancel their own system too and join the rest of the population in this reform? why? Is there anything better and more convincing than leading by example?

This is absurd . . . what's the diff between one government plan to the other? So we shld cancel medicare too and move the elderly unto the new reform?

JeSoul:

 So who in the world has our best interest at heart? Barney Frank? John Conyers?? again if we don't trust our doctors opinions then we should not trust them to treat us at all. Call me naive if you want, but I will take their opinion over the losers on capitol hill who have failed at practically everything they try to fix.

Err and we shld take the opinions of Eric Cantor and co?

morpheus24:

Wasn't this a topic for CLunkers??

  Yes it was. Apologies to Negro for going off-topic _{though I suspect he doesn't mind much} 

davidylan:

and how do you propose to "fix" it? Please provide us concrete ways of "fixing" it. why did none of you raise the issue of "fixing" it until the fight for single-payer started?

Why is the single payer healthcare system wonderfully successful in France, Canada, Australia but a bad thing for the US?

  I am not an 'expert' so I will not pretend to be one. I cannot give you "concrete ways of fixing it", I have proferred few lose ideas in the last posts, and I can smell a bad idea when I see one and this so-called reform stinks. Perhaps its an issue of ideology, but I just don't fancy the idea of this useless, incompetent govt controlling my healthcare.

  I rebelled against the current system by opting not to have health insurance for a while. I decided instead to keep the money I would've paid for premiums into a seperate account I could use. I figured it was miles better than paying thousands in dental and footing 50% of a $100 bill once a year.

  2 yrs ago I had a bad cut on my eye, was so bad I boarded up my house cos the slightest of light was probably worse than waterboarding. Thankfully it didn't require surgery, and the costs were something I could pay out of pocket - it was definitely cheaper than if I'd been paying premiums the entire yr. Now you are right, if I had cancer I would've been in big trouble, I am not disputing that fact at all. The movie John Q was an excellent portrayal of the incredible shortcomings of the american healthcare system.

davidylan:

have you and every other person criticizing the bill read it yourselves? Then on what basis are you criticizing it?

  Typical nigerian, answering a question with a question  Okay so you haven't read it right? I have read parts of it, it takes real effort to understand the law speak.

Because from Glenn Beck to John Boehner, you're all repeating the same discredited arguments. Beck on his radio show was the one talking about others coming to America for healthcare that ordinary US citizens cannot afford. What a disgraceful point.

And you sound just like Rahm Emmanuel and Nancy Pelosi. Don't you think points will sound similar all across the board? 

This makes no sense either. Government tried to cap salaries and bonuses paid to employees of private companies on bailouts and you all cried socialism. Abeg make we hear word.

Who cried socialism? please show me where I said so on NL. I happened to agree with the capping of outrageous salaries. You shouldn't be so quick to stereotype.

You're not a healthcare genius, you cant give us specifics on how YOUR OWN alternatives to single-payer healthcare (that is hugely successful in other first world nations) works but yet you oppose a government plan? Very funny.

No I am not, and neither are you. The best we can do is analyse the information available to us. Hugely successful - really?

Bad idea . . . what then do you define as a "critical situation"? What of diabetes, heart problems, mental health, emergency surgery, kidney failure? Are they not as "critical" as cancer?

All the above can fall under the critical banner.

Doctors right now earn more money with a fee-for-service plan than a salaried position that is why they will fight against this bill.

  So you believe whenever you go in to see a doctor he's doing whatever he/she can to get as much money as possible out of you? Really? you must've had some nasty doctor experiences.

This is absurd . . . what's the diff between one government plan to the other? So we shld cancel medicare too and move the elderly unto the new reform?

  Really? If its not different then why the resistance to merge it all into 1 big program for the entire country? I think you're being naive if you think the same doctors/healthcare available to Obama's daughters and Kennedy is available to insignificant like us.

In the spirit of the initial topic, C4C is getting mixed reviews from dealers

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/business/2009/08/06/tx.clunker.purchase.recall.kvue

JeSoul:

   I am not an 'expert' so I will not pretend to be one. I cannot give you "concrete ways of fixing it", I have proferred few lose ideas in the last posts, and I can smell a bad idea when I see one and this so-called reform stinks. Perhaps its an issue of ideology, but I just don't fancy the idea of this useless, incompetent govt controlling my healthcare.

this idea of a "useless, incompetent govt" exactly came from where really? Is it the same "incompetent" govt that is responsible for the fire service, postal service, fixing roads, social services like 911 that you rely on, social security, the military, scientific research and medicare? If the government was so bad then why are seniors not rejecting medicare in favour of private insurers? Surely theres something seriously wrong with that.

You havent given us ONE REASON why govt should not be involved in healthcare beyond parroting easily discredited talking points. Where are the "loose ideas" you have proffered?

JeSoul:

  I rebelled against the current system by opting not to have health insurance for a while. I decided instead to keep the money I would've paid for premiums into a seperate account I could use. I figured it was miles better than paying thousands in dental and footing 50% of a $100 bill once a year.

  2 yrs ago I had a bad cut on my eye, was so bad I boarded up my house cos the slightest of light was probably worse than waterboarding. Thankfully it didn't require surgery, and the costs were something I could pay out of pocket - it was definitely cheaper than if I'd been paying premiums the entire yr. Now you are right, if I had cancer I would've been in big trouble, I am not disputing that fact at all. The movie John Q was an excellent portrayal of the incredible shortcomings of the american healthcare system.

And what is the answer to all these? Simply boycotting a government program that is hugely successful everywhere else but in America? What is it about the French, Canadian or Australian governments that simple 28 shot chemotherapy can cost only $2600 with free anti-cancer drugs? The same regimen that would cost no less than $50,000 here in the US?

At least unlike the totally blinkered out there you can see that the present status quo is unsustainable.

JeSoul:

  Typical nigerian, answering a question with a question  Okay so you haven't read it right? I have read parts of it, it takes real effort to understand the law speak.

And the parts of it you read made you feel the government was "incompetent"?

JeSoul:

Who cried socialism? please show me where I said so on NL. I happened to agree with the capping of outrageous salaries. You shouldn't be so quick to stereotype.

you should realise that when i respond its not exactly to you in person but to everyone else who spouts your talking points in general. You advocate the government shld regulate the private insurers . . . the problem is when the govt tried to regulate wall street and the auto industry we had the teabaggers out in force, the RNC in a blind rage and the conservative fringe crying about the destruction of America!

JeSoul:

Hugely successful - really?

YES! Ask the Canadians, ask the French, ask the Australians, ask Americans who have lived there! There is a reason they dont want the American system.

JeSoul:

All the above can fall under the critical banner.

Where then would the "critical banner" end?

JeSoul:

  So you believe whenever you go in to see a doctor he's doing whatever he/she can to get as much money as possible out of you? Really? you must've had some nasty doctor experiences.

Believe it or not, more than 30% of the tests you are forced to undergo in hospitals are unnecessary and are either to ward off potential malpractice lawsuits or earn more money.

JeSoul:

  Really? If its not different then why the resistance to merge it all into 1 big program for the entire country? I think you're being naive if you think the same doctors/healthcare available to Obama's daughters and Kennedy is available to insignificant like us.

Is that healthcare available to you even now? In a single payer system it would be available to you.

the govt cannot merge it into one single program (i.e. single payer) because of paranoid folks like you. Where you not the ones here touting videos showing Obama "supporting" single payer that would destroy the private insurance companies? Gasp! As if that was a bad idea.

Now what they have is that there will be a government option for those who would rather be on that, the rest of you (including) senators can keep their existing health plans. What is the problem with that again?

JeSoul:

In the spirit of the initial topic, C4C is getting mixed reviews from dealers

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/business/2009/08/06/tx.clunker.purchase.recall.kvue

the bottomline is simple . . . the program has helped drive an increase in car sales. Just ask Ford Motor Co.

Just to rehash a bit on the "incompetent" govt nonsense . . . we hear of how bad the government is and yet the same rethuglicans are fighting tooth and nail to be elected to political office?

Washington Post:

Regina Holliday will always remember the day the Senate took up health-care reform seven weeks ago. It was the day her husband died.

At home in the family's apartment on Connecticut Avenue NW, Fred Holliday succumbed to kidney cancer at age 39. He probably had had the disease for years, but with no health insurance, he couldn't afford the tests that might have explained the night sweats, fatigue and bloody urine. By the time he finally got a job that came with health coverage and got the tests he needed, it was too late: The cancer had spread and was inoperable.

Its all the "incompetent" government's fault. why would they suggest something so evil as single-payer health insurance?
Only in America can you not afford healthcare if you dont have a job . . . even the Germans and the Spanish dont believe in such drivel.

well david, 

tayo and co believe germany and spain are socialist countries and america will not subscribe to such evil ideaologies from godless europe

i have lost interest in this healthcare debate. why? the people who really support this thing just sit at home and let the hooligans run around town halls dominating the debate. full of ignorance. someone even shouted to a govt official, ''keep ur govt hands off my medicare'' . . . pls, can u laugh with me http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/get-your-goddamn-governme_b_252326.html

if i were the democrats, i'll end this reform and let things be as it is. if the people they are trying to help just sit at home and allow hooligans to dominate the debate, let it be, afterall the democrats in congress all have good coverage

Pres, i dont think so. the Dems hold a majority, they can put a single-payer plan on now and vote on it. If it gets defeated in the senate then so be it . . . later on people will know those who scuttled their chance at decent health care and hold them accountable.

For the first time i am begining to understand that America isnt all its cracked up to be. For all its brilliant scientists, the base of the country is made up of largely ignorant thugs and racists.

sorry dave, that would not happen. have u heard of the blue dog democrats. 52 of them in the house of reps. they threatened to vote against a reform with a public option. if 52 democrats and all republicans in the house vote against the bill, it wont pass the house.

of course there are enough senators to kill it off. including democrat senators.

it's so pathetic, what reform will it be if no public option is there. this is a moral issue. i thought they said the govt cant run anything and yet they are afraid of competition from govt healthcare option