ObamaCare...coming soon

Member logins have been temporarily disabled. Please try again later.
User Forum Topic
Submitted by meadandale on July 16, 2009 - 11:48am

Seems like modeling our system after the Canadians should be a great idea...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2jijuj1ysw

Submitted by afx114 on September 7, 2009 - 11:34am.

Medicare insures the un-insurable, so of course it is going to cost a lot and lose money. The idea is that if you expand that and have everyone throwing into the pool, the people who don't always need the service are subsidizing the people who are actually using it. This is the very definition of insurance, is it not?

Have you ever shopped at Costco? When you buy in bulk, costs go down. If you have 300 million people throwing into the insurance pool rather than 40 million, costs will go down for everybody.

And how is a public option going to stifle innovation? This isn't a bill about funding research -- it is a bill about paying for medical care. The majority of research happens in universities, many of which are public. When's the last time you heard of a corporation coming up with a breakthrough in something other than a drug to make your weiner hard? Most of the breakthroughs in cancer, stem cells, HIV, Alzheimer, etc, are happening in universities, not corporations. This bill has nothing to do with funding for universities or even corporations doing research. Yet another straw man scare tactic.

Furthermore, does our socialist military force stifle innovation in the military-industrial complex? If anything it's made that industry even stronger.

Submitted by sdgrrl on September 7, 2009 - 11:45am.

afx114 wrote:
The majority of research happens in universities, many of which are public. When's the last time you heard of a corporation coming up with a breakthrough in something other than a drug to make your weiner hard?

I just blew hot coffee out of my nose when i read that!

Submitted by afx114 on September 7, 2009 - 11:56am.

Also, if France, Canada, England, Japan, etc ration healthcare so bad, how do you explain the fact that they have by far a higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality than the US? The higher life-expectancy is even better for those over age 60 in those countries. Must be all that rationing I guess?

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on September 7, 2009 - 12:44pm.

afx114 wrote:
Furthermore, does our socialist military force stifle innovation in the military-industrial complex? If anything it's made that industry even stronger.

Afx: Here, I think you have a very valid point, but one that also works the other way, too. The corporations that are part of that military-industrial complex are for-profit corporations (think Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, L3, etc) and the innovations you speak of are part of a very competitive system, designed to push innovation and creativity, but to do so for a profit.

While I agree that the US healthcare system needs work and needs change, I don't agree that the solutions being offered under Obamacare are necessarily the right ones. I also believe that the ham-handed way this is being handled (Obama foisting responsibility for the bill onto Congress, which results in multiple versions of significant size and complexity) has resulted in a lot of blowback and Obama needs to get out there and "sell" this thing. In so doing, he needs to harness that considerable intelligence and oratorical skill and really explain what his plan is and how it will work.

Lastly, I would ask, relative to those life expectancy numbers from Europe: How big is the difference for American life expectancy versus European? If I remember correctly, we're talking fairly minute differences, aren't we?

Submitted by sdgrrl on September 7, 2009 - 1:09pm.

Hi Allan,

I always look forward to your post even if sometimes we disagree. I can be a hot headed jerk, but I do appreciate the finesse you have in making your points.

In regards to the first article- I think if we get a public option we will see a profit loss from insurance companies as they lower their premiums. Also, as people-like the folks in Mass can shop for the best/cheapest coverage of course profits will decrease. Please tell me and I know you will if I am wrong;)

I would never put price caps on insurance- I do believe though that with a public option it can regulate its self.

In regards to the Cato Institute article its hard for me to read it without my own bias stacked against it. The CI is a libertarian think tank so of course the notion of socialized care would horrify them!

Here is a paragraph from the article:

"In the three years since Massachusetts enacted its individual mandate, providers successfully lobbied to require 16 specific types of coverage under the mandate: prescription drugs, preventive care, diabetes self-management, drug-abuse treatment, early intervention for autism, hospice care, hormone replacement therapy, non-in-vitro fertility services, orthotics, prosthetics, telemedicine, testicular cancer, lay midwives, nurses, nurse practitioners and pediatric specialists.

The Massachusetts Legislature is considering more than 70 additional requirements.

Those requirements can increase premiums by 14 percent or more."

I don't like the word "can" in the last sentence only because it is a speculation. Its an educated guess, but its not fact.

Another paragraph

"One way insurers can avoid the $50,000 patients is to drop benefits those customers find attractive. Shelby Rogers is a 12-year-old girl with spinal muscular atrophy, whose parents chose an Aetna plan through the price-controlled health insurance exchange for federal workers. Last year, Aetna announced it would drop coverage for Shelby's 12-hour-a-day nurse, who, among other things, helps Shelby avoid bedsores by turning her over at night. An Aetna spokesman explained the reason was to avoid offering a benefit that causes the sickest patients to flock to the plan."

Shelby's parents can shop for another plan. Also, this is already happening in other states without any public option whatsoever. Honestly Allan, 12 hour a day nursing care. My plan is Blue Cross HMO after i spend a million dollars that's it no more and many insurers are the same. This girl is 12...when she's my age she would have exhausted her health benefits and no one else would want to insure her. She would/will eventually be on Medicaid regardless, because her parents cannot work forever.

Also, Aetna must have hated the bad press because they reinstated her current care for 2009 though won't promise for 2010.

I'm not suprised that was said by Aetna, because they are still in it for profit.

The article is a good one, but it cuts off the rest of Merrit Hawkins findings about long waits that have increased "Phil Miller, vice president of public relations for Merritt Hawkins and Associates, sees one clear solution to long wait times:

"We need to be training more physicians, particularly primary care physicians," he says. "We have been training the same number of doctors for the past 25 years, but a lot has changed in the last quarter-century".

I am also wary of statements like these "Though initially popular, enthusiasm for the Massachusetts reforms may be on the wane. A recent poll found that more Massachusetts voters say the law has made health insurance less affordable (27 percent) than believe it has made coverage more affordable (21 percent). Voters who believe the reforms have been a failure outnumber those who believe the reforms have been a success by 37 percent to 26 percent".

"May be on the wane". Is it or isn't it? Who did this poll? When was it taken? How many people participated?

Here's an article by the Harvard School of Health with a poll saying the complete opposite its a year old, but taken two years after the laws implementation:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-r...

One thing I noticed in the third article right away is that it states Mass already had the longest waits before 2006. Now they are longer, but they use Merrit Hawkins in the previous article and their findings show (which didn't make it into the article) that all cities have seen an increase in wait times. So it seems natural that Mass still has the highest with or with out the health laws.

Allan, I get that it's not without flaws I do. Its ill funded in 2009, but it wasn't so bad in 2006. The recession has got to play a part in that.

Thank you for the articles I will read them again. I'm not trying to discredit the Cato Institute and they have been bipartisan in a number of issues and openly opposed Bush Jr. so they are immediately in my favor! They are Libertarian though and I can see and empathize how Obama and any notion of socialized care could rattle them to their bones.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on September 7, 2009 - 1:27pm.

Sdgrrl: Thank you for the compliment. It underscores the importance of debate, though, doesn't it? We can disagree and perhaps vehemently so, but we're not referring to each other as "Nazis" or "un-American", and therein lies my biggest problem with this entire healthcare debate: It ISN'T a debate at all.

On one hand, we do have genuine fear mongering and obstructionism from the GOP and, on the other, we have high handed arrogance, demagoguery and this self righteous mendacity that is astonishing to me.

I'm not sure that I'm right. Actually, I'm pretty sure, on some of my points, that I'm not. However, I haven't seen anything that either refutes or rebuts it effectively from the opposition, hence my suggestion that Obama go on the stump for this bill and, through education and explanation, make his case to the American people.

I don't need some dunderheaded dolt like Nancy Pelosi telling me that I'm un-American simply because I have the temerity to ask questions. She can go fuck herself, along with Waters and Waxman and Feinstein. How dare she?!? I fought for this goddamn country and she has the unbelievable gall to question my patriotism and love of country? I was raised to believe that dissent is the highest form of patriotism and I also fervently believe that this issue demands attention and diligence and explanation.

Sorry about that "fuck herself" declamation, but that bitch really chaps my ass and personifies everything that has gone wrong with this country. And, yes, I include Bush and Cheney and their ilk in that mix as well.

Submitted by afx114 on September 7, 2009 - 1:41pm.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
the innovations you speak of are part of a very competitive system, designed to push innovation and creativity, but to do so for a profit.

Of course. I have no problem with this -- it's how it should be. The healthcare bill in question has nothing to do with stifling innovation. If you invent a drug that cures AIDS you will be a billionaire with or without this bill. To claim that this bill will somehow prevent someone (whether public or private) from finding cures for diseases is unfounded.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
Lastly, I would ask, relative to those life expectancy numbers from Europe: How big is the difference for American life expectancy versus European? If I remember correctly, we're talking fairly minute differences, aren't we?

Here is a nice chart of overall life-expectancy:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

France is ranked #9 at 80.98 years.
US is ranked #50 at 78.11 years behind such powerhouses as Bermuda, Liechtenstein, and Bosnia.

Sure, for us 2-3 years may be a "minute difference" but if you ask someone who is 78, I have a feeling the difference won't feel as minute to them.

But those life expectancy numbers are from birth -- the real difference makes itself known when you compare life expectancy at 60. The US is even worse at that data point. I'm trying to find some data on these numbers but my Google Fu is failing me at the moment.

Oh, and France is probably cheating with all of their wine drinking and vacation taking.

Submitted by sdgrrl on September 7, 2009 - 1:57pm.

Allan, it is completely your right to hate Pelosi to her core and wish that she and the horse she rode on would just plunder in to the sunset.

I feel the need to point out though that she did not say that people who oppose health care reform are unAmerican. Her comments were in regards specifically to the town hall protesters who were shouting down and not allowing anyone else to speak. These people were not speaking their mind they simply wanted distraction and confusion. Freedom of speech is an American right and in my opinion these fringe folks were not being respectful of anyone else's right to free speech.

I appreciate you mentioning Bush/Cheney and that's why I understand how her statements could piss you off. I remember hearing I was unAmerican for not supporting Bush or the war and at that time I also said that dissent is the highest form of patriotism and liberty. Take that away and what do you have? I don't know, but I'm sure a North Korean refugee could explain it very well.

I also completely agree with an earlier post you wrote that Obama needs to stop letting Congress take control of the issue. He also does need to "go on the stump" and explain this to the American people. We will see Wed night when he addresses Congress and I'm sure this thread will be blowing up!

Submitted by ucodegen on September 7, 2009 - 2:06pm.

On board member mentioned many posts ago, to the effect that, why was health care less expensive 10 years ago..

It is quite simple. Insurance. Same has happened to auto repair costs. I would even add that 30 years ago, the costs of health care considerably less than now. 30 years ago, most people paid directly and insured only for catastrophic injuries. The exception was in the government sector (gov employees including teachers)

Any time you separate the beneficiary of a program from the payer of a program.. costs will spiral out of control. The beneficiary will want the best available irregardless of cost - because they don't have to pay.. and the payer will have to pay up. If you add in an intermediary like insurance company or government and you have disaster. The intermediary will see it as a way to make a profit (skim) off of the huge amounts of money crossing hands.. or in the case of a government, a way to hide the costs of pork, 'special' compensation.

As I have mentioned before, I am one of the laid-off, looking for a job people. I am also one of the 'uninsured'. Interesting part is, I was also one of the 'uninsured' when I was working. It is by choice. Instead of paying the money to an insurance company, I invested it. Now that I am laid off, I still am effectively covered because of all of that money I saved up over the years. I don't have to pay COBRA to be able to pay for doctor or hospital visits. Shortly before I was laid off, I became extremely ill and jaundiced. The cost wasn't that bad. It turns out that I can get close to 30% discount for being a cash payer. My MRI cost less by about 36% than if it had been covered by insurance. Total cost to me for all the doctor visits and tests etc came to about $2100. Compare this to even a years worth of insurance and this one time that I was sicker than I have ever been, comes out relatively cheap compared to paying for insurance for one year. In the process, one of the doctors I was going to was 'steering' me to surgery, ignoring the sepsis/bacterial infection possibility and family history. It was easy for me to walk away from this doctor and pick another. I have been fine for over 1 year now.. which seems to confirm the first doctor as being wrong.

One thing I did learn from this was the surprising number of doctors that prefer dealing with insurance. It came out that with self-pays, the doctors had to justify the tests to the patient and the patient had the final say. With the insured, the doctors could rack up the tests (which in some cases have 'paybacks' for business) without any final say in many cases. I am not putting down all GPs here, just saying that the decisions made by some are questionable. There seems to be too much 'overtesting' and the surgery option comes up too quickly.

Interesting exercises:
1) Take the sum of all the health care payments with or without company co-pay over your life.. and look at the total cost vs est outlay. If you are feeling like needing a challenge, include estimated growth based upon S&P historical growth.
2) Do the same for Social Security..

In all, I found that paying directly and insuring for only catastrophic is actually the best way, even now. General insurance makes people feel 'safe'.. but at a considerable cost. Those outstretched hands of the 'Good Hands People' are not there to help you, they are asking for more money...

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on September 7, 2009 - 2:59pm.

Ucodegen: Back in the day, I used to be a CFO for an insurance brokerage. During one of my many bouts of attempting to contain costs, I did a study for the five major California offices (SD, OC, LA, SF and Sacto) on warranty programs for office automation equipment (printers, faxes, copiers, etc).

We were spending over a hundred thousand per year on warranty programs for the various machines and I wanted to see what would happen if, rather than paying the warranty amount, I opted only to pay on a per call service basis.

The difference was shocking. In the offices I was directly responsible for (San Diego and Orange County), we went from spending over $20,000 per year on warranties to spending less than a $1,000 per year on a per call service basis.

Even when I added in the cost of servicing aging machines, it was still far cheaper and by an order of magnitude. The warranty programs were obviously a form of insurance, but, up until that point, I had never sat down and considered the true "cost" of maintaining that insurance. I would wager that health insurance, philosophically speaking, is exactly the same.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on September 7, 2009 - 3:14pm.

sdgrrl wrote:
Allan, it is completely your right to hate Pelosi to her core and wish that she and the horse she rode on would just plunder in to the sunset.

I feel the need to point out though that she did not say that people who oppose health care reform are unAmerican. Her comments were in regards specifically to the town hall protesters who were shouting down and not allowing anyone else to speak. These people were not speaking their mind they simply wanted distraction and confusion. Freedom of speech is an American right and in my opinion these fringe folks were not being respectful of anyone else's right to free speech.

Sdgrrl: I don't disagree at all about respect and Afx and I had this same discussion, wherein he made the same point you did and I agreed with him as well.

No, my issue with Pelosi goes far deeper than just the "un-American" comment. This woman is completely tone deaf and is showing a disconnect with the American people that would do Marie Antoinette proud.

Referring to the protests as "Astroturf" and "manufactured", the comments about "swastikas" and the general self-aggrandizing arrogance is what truly offends me. Hillary Clinton used to drive me bugshit with that same Mommy State Socialism mantra "It takes a village to raise a child". No, Hillary, it doesn't. It takes two committed parents (and, yes, that might include two moms or two dads, whatever floats your boat) or one committed parent and a morally centered (and, no, religion or spirituality doesn't necessarily have to come into play here; this is America and thus that's your choice) upbringing that stresses decency, common sense and respect regardless of race, color or creed.

What both parties have lost in their race to the bottom (and, make no mistake, the Dems are charging lower right along with the Repubs) is decency, common sense and a respect for those who do not think as you do.

That's what offends me about Pelosi. And Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh and James Carville and Keith Olbermann and Ann Coulter and... You get my drift.

Submitted by jonnycsd on September 7, 2009 - 3:52pm.

afx114 wrote:
Also, if France, Canada, England, Japan, etc ration healthcare so bad, how do you explain the fact that they have by far a higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality than the US? The higher life-expectancy is even better for those over age 60 in those countries. Must be all that rationing I guess?

Anyone got any data on how much quality of medical care contributes to national averages for longevity? Non medical care factors that may influence this number include diet, physical fitness, genetics, lifestyle, wealth, obesity, etc. Given that one of the leading causes of death in America is car accidents it may be that the very high miles driven per year is pulling our numbers down a little. AFX411s argument does not take any of this into consideration.

Bottom line: AFX114 needs to present some data supporting the implied connection between longevity and quality of medical care. My hypothesis is that in an apples to apples comparison of medical care the USA would trump any other nation.

Submitted by surveyor on September 7, 2009 - 4:19pm.

afx114 wrote:
Also, if France, Canada, England, Japan, etc ration healthcare so bad, how do you explain the fact that they have by far a higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality than the US? The higher life-expectancy is even better for those over age 60 in those countries. Must be all that rationing I guess?

It's interesting that you say that afx because I mentioned to sdgrrl that when you take into account that many Americans die from traffic accidents and homicides, the U.S. life expectancy jumps to the top.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archive...

http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcont...

Much like the median housing price must be examined and not extrapolated to mean that the housing bubble is over, you should really examine the numbers a bit.

I find it interesting that many people on this board would never take a realtor's information at face value but would take the word of policitians and spout it like gold.

edit: not speaking to you specifically, afx, just in general.

Submitted by jonnycsd on September 7, 2009 - 4:06pm.

The OT founda great video. I recently saw this one and think it does an even better job of laying out the pitfalls of a nationalized health system . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdx_2cuPgQQ

Submitted by patb on September 7, 2009 - 5:27pm.

afx114 wrote:

And how is a public option going to stifle innovation? This isn't a bill about funding research -- it is a bill about paying for medical care. The majority of research happens in universities, many of which are public. When's the last time you heard of a corporation coming up with a breakthrough in something other than a drug to make your weiner hard?

Rogaine.

Submitted by patb on September 7, 2009 - 5:29pm.

jonnycsd wrote:
The OT founda great video. I recently saw this one and think it does an even better job of laying out the pitfalls of a nationalized health system . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdx_2cuPgQQ

Stossel has been on the GOP payroll for years.

30% of all insurance premiums go to overhead, medicare spends 2%.

Submitted by ucodegen on September 7, 2009 - 6:53pm.

Even when I added in the cost of servicing aging machines, it was still far cheaper and by an order of magnitude. The warranty programs were obviously a form of insurance, but, up until that point, I had never sat down and considered the true "cost" of maintaining that insurance. I would wager that health insurance, philosophically speaking, is exactly the same.

It is. The financing for a 'warranty' program is done by the company taking out an insurance policy. It is much like those lifetime warranty auto parts (lifetime guarantee). These days, it doesn't mean the part is better.. just that there is an insurance policy against it. When you get an auto part, next time get them to pull the part with the lifetime warranty as well as the mid priced part without the warranty.. and set them side by side on the stores counter and inspect them. They tend to be identical. The biggest cost to me, if I do any auto repairs, is the time and effort to do the repair (dismantling a good portion of the engine to get at the part and remove it). These days, I look for the parts that have the best 'structure' and am willing to pay a bit more. 'structure' is hard to define. My background is in engineering, so I look for one that is engineered well, with good materials, good quality machining etc.

Now that I went OT on auto parts, it is also the same for health insurance. With insurance, you put a business between you and your doctor. The business wants a profit. The bill to the doctor has to be paid either way...

All that insurance is really set up to do, is reduce risk. This would be the risk that one BIG health issue would wipe you out. This is because insurance works by distributing the risk over many people.

Submitted by jonnycsd on September 7, 2009 - 7:25pm.

patb wrote:

30% of all insurance premiums go to overhead, medicare spends 2%.

If the incumbent insurance companies are needlessly spending money on overhead, then you should raise a venture capital fund and go buy one of them, cut out the fat, then resell it and retire wealthy beyond any dream. Hmmm, considering that there are $$billions and $$billions of private equity money sitting on the sidelines then why havent any of them done this? (HINT: Because the 30% figure is either a fiction or reflects a necesary cost of doing business.)

In other words, it is naive to think that there is 30% fat in the premiums charged. If there were, then the first company to cut back thier fat could (and would!) do that, lower thier premiums and grow, or enjoy increased margins (or some combination of both)!

How was the 30% figure calculated? Is there a cite for that data point or is it just parroted from something seen on TV? Likewise on the 2% of premiums paid to Medicare - whats in this number? Most medicare spending is funded by payroll tax not by premiums so that immediately becomes a suspect figure.

Submitted by Zeitgeist on September 7, 2009 - 8:50pm.

Hey Allan,

You forgot Harry Reid and Barney Frank. I second the sentiment and excellent information from all, especially you and surveyor. Truly informative.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on September 7, 2009 - 9:03pm.

Zeitgeist wrote:
Hey Allan,

You forgot Harry Reid and Barney Frank. I second the sentiment and excellent information from all, especially you and surveyor. Truly informative.

Hey, Zeit. Whoops, my bad on Reid and Feckless Frank. Well, if what we're hearing in the news is correct, it looks like Harry might be out of a job in Nevada come election day. I've also been enjoying watching Pelosi twist herself into a rhetorical pretzel trying to explain her loyalty to, and support of, Charlie Rangel. Watching these veteran pols pontificate about "good behavior", whether it's some sleazy douche like Sanford lecturing Clinton on morality or Pelosi doing a soft shoe routine on Rangel's financial "oversights", is pathetic. Dems or Repubs, they're all dirty.

I'm just glad Surveyor's back on deck. Watching him swing the Logic Hammer and demolish the unprepared is fun. I did three years of Speech & Debate in my past life and I have tremendous respect for the crafting and deployment of a well constructed argument.

Submitted by surveyor on September 8, 2009 - 7:16am.

afx114 wrote:

Have you ever shopped at Costco? When you buy in bulk, costs go down. If you have 300 million people throwing into the insurance pool rather than 40 million, costs will go down for everybody.

If it is true that insuring more people will create less costs, why is it that the CBO disagrees with you and says that the bills in Congress right now will actually INCREASE costs?

It must be those rascally right-wingers!

afx114 wrote:

And how is a public option going to stifle innovation? This isn't a bill about funding research -- it is a bill about paying for medical care.

The reason why we are talking about innovation is because the John Stossel video shows you how a socialized healthcare system stifles innovation. The public option and the democrat's bills in Congress right now don't have a lot to do with that, but with any movement towards socialized healthcare (which the bills does try to accomplish) it is good to show what will eventually happen.

afx114 wrote:

The majority of research happens in universities, many of which are public. When's the last time you heard of a corporation coming up with a breakthrough in something other than a drug to make your weiner hard? Most of the breakthroughs in cancer, stem cells, HIV, Alzheimer, etc, are happening in universities, not corporations. This bill has nothing to do with funding for universities or even corporations doing research. Yet another straw man scare tactic.

And how do those universities get the money to do that research? The U.S. government has been decreasing the amount of money for research. Would it surprise you to know that many corporations give the universities money to do research? Government spending on drug research account for 4% of the total. Could the rest of the 96% be corporations? Maybe?

I'm always amazed at how some people here on this blog are clear on how the housing bubble worked and yet do not apply the same lessons to healthcare.

If you want to make something cheaper, increase supply or competition.

If you want to make something cheaper, decrease government involvement.

If you want to make something cheaper, let people decide how to spend their money themselves instead of allowing other people to spend other people's money.

The bills in Congress address none of these (republican or democrat).

ucoden has got it correct. His exact model is what would work. If we had that system, every other system in the world would follow it.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on September 8, 2009 - 8:02am.

not everything run by the govt is more expensive.

not everything run by the private sector is cheaper.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on September 8, 2009 - 8:36am.

scaredycat wrote:
not everything run by the govt is more expensive.

not everything run by the private sector is cheaper.

Scaredy: Not that I'm disagreeing, but do you have examples?

Submitted by kev374 on September 8, 2009 - 8:58am.

Obamacare could cost you $4000 extra!

http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/20/news/eco...

This whole thing needs to be stopped.

Submitted by Zeitgeist on September 8, 2009 - 11:42am.

Allan,

You got that right about the sleaze factor and the pols. A lot of them should be right there with Cunningham behind bars! Hey, did you hear Obama use the G word in his talk to the school kids? Does that mean forget about the separation of church and state? God is back?

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on September 8, 2009 - 1:21pm.

Zeitgeist wrote:
Allan,

You got that right about the sleaze factor and the pols. A lot of them should be right there with Cunningham behind bars! Hey, did you hear Obama use the G word in his talk to the school kids? Does that mean forget about the separation of church and state? God is back?

Zeit: I think so! Obama and the Big G (as we mackerel snapping Catholics call him) are tight. Or, so I've heard.

It's interesting for a Lefty to be so unabashedly religious. Not spiritual, religious. Kidding aside, his support for someone like Van Jones, who is a former communist, and his left wing credentials, make him an unlikely adherent to religiosity. Of course, knowing Obama, it's just another stage prop. Like grandma. Or Bill Ayers.

Submitted by Zeitgeist on September 8, 2009 - 3:15pm.

Overall, I thought the talk he gave was positive and I hope they listened to what he said.

Submitted by pepsi on September 13, 2009 - 12:07pm.

sd_matt wrote:
I was listening Dennis Prager interview a doctor. To shorten what the doc said; You are more likely to lose your savings here in the USA and more likely to die from a major illness in the more socialized systems.

I asked a nurse practitioner if she agreed with that assessment and she said yes.

Any docs here in the house? Do you agree or disagree?

I would agree to this one:

You are likely to lose your saving (first) in USA , and to die (first) from a major illness in other system.

Submitted by pepsi on September 13, 2009 - 12:14pm.

AN, I think you are lucky that you are not sick enough to drop out of workforce.
Once you are very sick (like having cancer) for over 6 months, would you still have the insurance that you think is "affordable" ?

I don't know why we are comparing US and Canada (2nd worst in the world) ? Why not compare it with Japan or Taiwan ?

Submitted by pepsi on September 13, 2009 - 12:57pm.

Zeitgeist wrote:
No takers on the children limit? Does that mean even the libs understand when there is too much government? Maybe there should be a parenting test? We test drivers, why not parents? It might cut down on the prison population. That would be a good thing.

I will take the children limit. OK, let's say the plan will not pay your bill for 4th & plus children. And you are pregnant.
The bill will be $20K if you go to sharp, or $5K if you use midwife.

If you decided to get an abortion, is that YOU or the government that kill the embryo ?

I bet you could still go bankrupt to give birth to the child.

Don't tell me the government kill the baby. It is YOU who value money more than life.

And in this scenario, I would bet a lot of people will use midwife than the best hospital. And that is changing how we use our system in a good way.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.