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 August 13, 2009 - 3:57pm.

Zeit, there is already a thread dedicated to the camps. If you want to discuss them, post there. Here, I'll even post a link for you in case you're too lazy to find it yourself: http://piggington.com/don039t_worry_these_will_only_be_used_in_an_emergency

This is a thread about healthcare -- no need to try and change the subject just because you don't have anything constructive to bring to the table. When you do that you make yourself a perfect example of why the opposition is doing nothing but poisoning the discourse with irrelevant blabbering.

Submitted by SK in CV on August 13, 2009 - 3:59pm.

No, I'm not particularly troubled by it.

I haven't seen any compelling evidence that WWII like internment camps are in anyone's plans. No funding, no facilities, no apparent motivation. Yes, i've seen the videos of the so called facilities. And the debunking of those same claims. I have no idea if those that are concerned about these camps believe that I will be the first resident or you will be. Will we both be in there because both our views are outside the mainstream? (roomie! I hope you don't snore.)

The want ads that i've seen are more logically for military prisons and/or foreign facilities. I have problems with both of those, but no current fear that US citizens are going to be rounded up for no particular reason.

To be sure, I'm not dismissing your concern about the idea of internment camps. I will be at the front of the crowd screaming and protesting their existence if they come to be, regardless of their intended occupants. But it confuses me. Who is behind it? Who are their targets? What is their motivation? What is their wherewithall to implement? (the only character on the political scene with both the tiny balls needed and the position of power to actually move things along is no longer the vice president.) Those are questions that, at least for me, have not been adequately answered.

Submitted by Zeitgeist on August 13, 2009 - 4:47pm.

Thanks SK for the info and support. Crazy times. I will see you at the protest. I will be the one with the cane. As for my other fan, I am not changing the topic. I think it is all about the same problem, too much government or is it one world government? Is this a health related topic? With or without Obama care, are you planning to get vaccinated? Just curious. The haste to create a vaccine has changed some of the procedures. This is one being considered: Caterpillar cells and genetically engineered bacilovirus might provide a better means to make influenza vaccines.

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002...

Submitted by Arraya on August 13, 2009 - 6:04pm.

Orrin Hatch and a few others already made deals with big pharma at the end of July.
These guys get 12 years of exclusive use on their drugs instead of the normal 7 years.
This has flown UNDER THE RADAR of MSM.

http://www.policymed.com/2009/07/health-...

Submitted by afx114 on August 13, 2009 - 9:42pm.

Not only that, but the GOP voted for death panels in 2003.

Submitted by Aecetia on August 13, 2009 - 9:52pm.

Maybe they did not read it.... not. They are just as bad as their Dem. colleagues. In fact, it is impossible to tell them apart.

Submitted by Aecetia on August 13, 2009 - 10:01pm.

More Stupid Laws under the Bush Presidency:
Readying Americans for Dangerous, Mandatory Vaccinations

Stephen Lendman
Date: June 11, 2009
Subject: Secret Government Projects

Readying Americans for Dangerous, Mandatory Vaccinations – by Stephen Lendman

At least three US federal laws should concern all Americans and suggest what may be coming – mandatory vaccinations for hyped, non-existant threats, like H1N1 (Swine Flu). Vaccines and drugs like Tamiflu endanger human health but are hugely profitable to drug company manufacturers.

The Project BioShield Act of 2004 (S. 15) became law on July 21, 2004 “to provide protections and countermeasures against chemical, radiological, or nuclear agents that may be used in a terrorist attack against the United States by giving the National Institutes of Health contracting flexibility, infrastructure improvements, and expediting the scientific peer review process, and streamlining the Food and Drug Administration approval process of countermeasures.”

In other words, the FDA may now recklessly approve inadequately tested, potentially dangerous vaccines and other drugs if ever the Secretaries of Health and Human Services (HHS) or Defense (DOD) declare a national emergency, whether or not one exists and regardless of whether treatments available are safe and effective. Around $6 billion or more will be spent to develop, produce, and stockpile vaccines and other drugs to counteract claimed bioterror agents.

http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2009/06/...

Submitted by dbapig on August 14, 2009 - 4:35pm.

Found something to read about the health care debate.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/...

"Britons rally to defend their healthcare system, say U.S. attacks aren't cricket
It's one thing for the British to criticize their National Health Service, quite another for Yanks to malign it. A backlash against U.S. criticism has erupted in the blogosphere, on Twitter."

Submitted by Zeitgeist on August 14, 2009 - 6:43pm.

Here's something for you to read:
All the 'Nuance' That's Fit to Print

In the summer of 1933, just as they will do on Thursday, heads of government and their finance ministers met in London to talk about a global economic crisis. They accomplished little and went home to battle the crisis in their own ways.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12387788...

Submitted by Zeitgeist on August 26, 2009 - 10:38am.

One Single Payer System before it disappears:

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQ_tAe87ELo)

Submitted by Aecetia on August 26, 2009 - 10:49am.

Funny stuff!

Submitted by Zeitgeist on August 29, 2009 - 8:07pm.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss from the SDUT today America's Finest Blog, Chris Reed:
"In the Bush 43 years, this contempt for reality seemed to build off several things- the president's incuriosity, the delusion that neoconservatives knew how to remake the world and the Karl Rove view of truth as a manipulatable construct. With Obama, this contempt seems to build off an ends-justify-the-means absolutism that sees health "reform" and global warming as such all important priorities that any tactic that advances the causes is acceptable." That is a brilliant explanation of what is fundamentally wrong with both points of view. I also have to mention that Hitler also believed that the end justified the means as did Stalin. Wake up people! It is way more important than politics. It is about your privacy and ability to make decisions about your own health, etc.

Submitted by patb on August 29, 2009 - 8:35pm.

if we create a national integrated system, we will save a fortune
from efficiency.

Having MD's arguing with insurance company clerks is a huge waste of money

Submitted by afx114 on August 29, 2009 - 11:32pm.

Zeitgeist wrote:
It is about your privacy and ability to make decisions about your own health

Unless your name is Terri Schiavo or your Dr's name is Kevorkian.

Submitted by Zeitgeist on August 30, 2009 - 4:34pm.

Or the new Dr. Death: Ezekiel J.

Submitted by Zeitgeist on September 7, 2009 - 1:03am.

Stossel destroys Obamacare on You Tube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9GMKK_fWKg

How's that hope and change thing working for you Kool-Aid drinkers now?

Submitted by sdgrrl on September 7, 2009 - 3:58am.

I'm just happy you are using Stossel and not Michelle Malkin to back up your claims this time.

I find it ironic that Stossel's first interview is with Sally Pipes from the Pacific Research Institute which is a Conservative Think Tank founded in 1979 in San Fran. Hmmm...thanks Zeit I guess they wouldn't have their own agenda right.

Steven F. Hayward is their Senior Fellow of Environmental Studies and it seems among many connections he has is the National Review, The Weekly Standard(lovingly thought of as the neocon bible) and The Heritage Foundation, where he was a Bradly Fellow and which is a relatively new Conservative Think Tank and ran by "...Edwin Feulner, previously the staff director of the House Republican Study Committee and a former staff assistant to U.S. Congressman Phil Crane, R-Illinois:

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

They have also enjoyed many donations from Phillip Morris. How is that for an oxymoron. "Yes we are going to tell you Obamacare is bad, but smoking...not so bad".

So then lets go on to David Gratzer. Looks like a respectable guy-I'm sure he is. Let's see who he works for. Okay, he is the Senior Fellow for Manhattan Institute for Policy Research which is a right wing think Tank founded in 1978 by William J. Casey who...what is this? Who later became President Ronald Reagan's CIA director:

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

I like how Stossel omits Gratzer's connection to the Think Tank...

It looks like Phillip Morris has also given donations to them. Gotta love a doctor who will tell you to be healthy and then take a handout from the number one killer in America:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?tit...

Wow and then his last interview is with a woman from the Galen Institute. Even Conservatives know that the Institute has a conservative bias:

http://www.philanthropy.iupui.edu/Millen...

No agenda with any of these? right

Take a sip of this nice Kool Aid Zeitgeist its been a hot one. Next!

Here is my favorite Stossel clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-k2uJ3AmVE

Submitted by surveyor on September 7, 2009 - 4:07am.

ad hominem

From wikipedia: An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person" or "argument against the person") is an argument which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of a person advocating the premise.[citation needed]

sdgrrl: If a person says the sky is blue, it does not matter if that person is a conservative, republican, liberal, democrat, or an alien lifeform, it does not change the fact that the sky is blue.

Now please remember that when you argue because your post was not a challenge of the facts or even a challenge of how the opinions are wrong. You went ahead and attacked the persons making the argument. This is in debating terms called "TOTAL FAILURE".

Yes, all people have agendas. So what. Argue the facts, argue the issues. Try to evolve some.

Submitted by sdgrrl on September 7, 2009 - 4:20am.

Thanks surveyor. Not at all worth noting all those affiliations? Not one Left Leaning Think tank on the show? No bias?

You don't think it would be worth noting that if someone was supporting socialized medicine on a news broadcast and it was found out all the information came from a liberal agenda it would not taint the perception of the discourse at all?

For every "fact" from these guys there are other "facts" from others.

Submitted by sdgrrl on September 7, 2009 - 4:39am.

bias:

to cause partiality or favoritism in (a person); influence, esp. unfairly.

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

A debate I would lose? A total failure? In a court of law all of these folks would be impeachable witnesses based on their affiliations and any evidence they brought would be thrown out. Thanks anyway.

You too surveyor. i hope you evolve some and do some research next time you try and come at me.

Submitted by surveyor on September 7, 2009 - 4:59am.

sdgrrl wrote:
Thanks surveyor. Not at all worth noting all those affiliations? Not one Left Leaning Think tank on the show? No bias?

You don't think it would be worth noting that if someone was supporting socialized medicine on a news broadcast and it was found out all the information came from a liberal agenda it would not taint the perception of the discourse at all?

For every "fact" from these guys there are other "facts" from others.

Unfortunately sdgrl you don't argue the facts laid out. You just lay out "affiliations" and "biases". That's not an effective argument. Your post puts forward the idea that these "affiliations" and "biases" are effective counter-arguments. They are not. Ad hominem attacks are logical fallacies. You think that just because you can show that a person has biases or agendas that it somehow makes their facts irrelevant. This is absolutely wrong. You would be absolutely wrong in thinking that this "evidence" or "facts" would be thrown out complete just on the basis of a person's impeachability.

So yes your "argument" as it were would be TOTAL failure because you're trying to make it about the person instead of about the issue. That is intellectually dishonest at worst and logically incorrect at best.

Again, let me re-emphasize: the fact that a person has a bias, agenda, political leaning, shade, skin color, religion or any other aspect about the person makes no difference upon the argument being made, whether he is for obamacare or against it. These are not factors that make him more correct or more wrong.

Argue the facts. I do not need more research to see that you have not argued the facts. I'm sorry if you are unable to comprehend that this is how a debate works and that these are the rules of logic.

Submitted by sdgrrl on September 7, 2009 - 5:26am.

For every fact in that segment a fact can be found against it. Just one part of it regarded their "fact" that with socialized care medical technology would come to a stand still. France has socialized medicine, the Swiss have socialized medicine and they have discovered nothing since that all went in to effect?

http://www.expatica.com/ch/news/local_ne...

www.ivanhoe.com/channels/p_channelstory....

Just because there s socialized medicine doesn't mean we won't have privately funded research.

Just because one guy says medical breakthroughs would stop because of socialized medicine doesn't make it a fact. It is an opinion/fact based on biased researh and when those are presented as facts thats not an argument its ridiculous and fear monegering. That pieces intent was not an opinion argument it was presented as facts.

Submitted by surveyor on September 7, 2009 - 5:51am.

inno

Well at least you're arguing the facts now.

Unfortunately you are still stuck into the "bias" game, where you think it's biased research because they're "conservative". You really need to evolve your argument higher than that. Unless you have some real evidence of that research being skewed, you can't make an assertion like that. Using your example, in court, if you made that assertion, they would ask for your proof or make you withdraw that statement.

As for the statement that the piece makes - that medical innovations would stop - Stossel and others make the statement, but he also shows you the facts and the examples. That is how to present and backup an argument effectively.

It's just too bad you're so caught up in the "conservative bad" or "liberal bad".

Submitted by sdgrrl on September 7, 2009 - 6:21am.

For every fact in that segment a fact can be found against it. Just one part of it regarded their "fact" that with socialized care medical technology would come to a stand still. France has socialized medicine, the Swiss have socialized medicine and they have discovered nothing since that all went in to effect?

Just because there s socialized medicine doesn't mean we won't have privately funded research.

http://www.expatica.com/ch/news/local_ne...

www.ivanhoe.com/channels/p_channelstory....

Also, Canada does not have socialized dental care that is a fact.

Also a fact millions of Canadians and British love their system http://www.healthcare-now.org/new-poll-s...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/weekin...

not just the two or three shown by Stossel that is a fact. Even the British Conservative Party is sick of the attacks.

http://www.usw.org/media_center/news_art...

Gratzer says "People line up for care. Some of them die. That's what happens". This does not happen in the US? With our current system no one forgoes treatment due to cost or unavailability of services? will you really argue that?

There was the woman who came to America for a blocked artery. How about this Canadian who blogged about their entire open heart surgery journey from the diagnosis to the actual surgery. Didn't sound like an enjoyable experience, but it wasn't because they were Canadian.

Based from wikipedia 15 people died while waiting for heart surgery in canada last year. Sounds bad. Well 20,000 die every year in America from lack of insurance. You think maybe 15 of them had heart problems?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/...

Based on this piece Canada is also leading the way in heart valve replacement surgery

news-medical dot net /news/2007/10/22/31476.aspx

Also, due to rising cost more and more Americans are going overseas for care to places like India and heart surgery is one of the biggest ones as people with preexisting conditions have been booted off their insurance and now that have to pay out of pocket. What does that say for our system when people would rather go to a third world country for treatment than our own US system.

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id...

Sadly, Stossel never talked about lowering cost I only heard him say that profit based medicine is a good thing.

Why do we pay more than England for prescriptions? Are they getting a substandard medicine?

Another fact. The US will not be have socialized medicine. Democrats just want a public option. Opponents say that employers will drop their workers causing an evenual socialized society. You think that if this happens at alarming speed that perhaps Insurance companies might drop their premiums a bit?

Submitted by sdgrrl on September 7, 2009 - 6:35am.

Conservatives are not bad. Many of the people who have hijacked it are bad to me based on:

Mixing religion with policy.
Using prejudices against homosexuality as a political platform.
Having an uberhawkish foreign policy.
Turning a blind eye to their own spending

These are facts and when they can get their ideals realigned I would be very happy to rethink my opinions of them.

Liberals are bad on:
Many want an open border with Mexico.
Tax the hell out of Corporations.
Impose to many restrictions and laws.
Are quite aware of their own spending.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on September 7, 2009 - 7:50am.

sdgrrl wrote:
Conservatives are not bad. Many of the people who have hijacked it are bad to me based on:

Mixing religion with policy.
Using prejudices against homosexuality as a political platform.
Having an uberhawkish foreign policy.
Turning a blind eye to their own spending

These are facts and when they can get their ideals realigned I would be very happy to rethink my opinions of them.

Liberals are bad on:
Many want an open border with Mexico.
Tax the hell out of Corporations.
Impose to many restrictions and laws.
Are quite aware of their own spending.

Sdgrrl: I don't think liberals are bad at all. I do, however, think leftists are bad and that's what I argue consistently against.

I don't argue that healthcare in this country has issues and that we need to make changes. This has been on the agenda for decades and both parties have been unsuccessful in advancing it.

Where Obama and his cadre of loyal Dems are running into trouble is their insistence, over the protests of citizens and the opposition (Dem and Repub) alike, that their plan is the right one and needs to be passed. I think a large amount of people, conservative AND liberal, disagree, but we're being marginalized by folks like Hoyer and Pelosi and not allowed to participate in either the dialogue or the process.

This is where my anti-leftist "bias" kicks in, for this is as leftist as it comes. Don't engage in free and fair discussions, rather, attack and attempt to discredit your opposition (use of knee-jerk and jingoistic terms like "un-American", "angry mobs" carrying "swastikas" (Pelosi). And, yes, I know the counter-argument regarding Republicans using the same tactics, but it doesn't make it right, either.

There is a strong wave of popular anger sweeping this country and it is on the rise. Obamacare is DOA until such time as the President himself steps up and steps in and takes control of this. Rather than multiple bills floating around on the Hill, he needs to draft a bill, present it to the American people and lay out each and every component of it, with explanations for each.

This idea of having a 1,000 page behemoth that few, if any, legislators have fully read or even understand being rammed through Congress at breakneck speed is alarming, and rightfully so. Not rightfully so if you're a conservative or a liberal, but rightfully so if you're a thinking rational person. Healthcare represents 1/6th of our entire economy and deserves the same amount of thoughtful, reasoned dialogue and then action.

Submitted by surveyor on September 7, 2009 - 8:43am.

sdgrrl wrote:
For every fact in that segment a fact can be found against it. Just one part of it regarded their "fact" that with socialized care medical technology would come to a stand still. France has socialized medicine, the Swiss have socialized medicine and they have discovered nothing since that all went in to effect?

Just because there s socialized medicine doesn't mean we won't have privately funded research.

True, I doubt that innovation will stop completely, but I do think that in socialized medicine, there will be less innovation than in a profit driven model. The drug companies are a good example of this. You asked why others pay less for drugs than the U.S.? The main reason why is because we are paying for it. The other countries put a price cap on the drug prices and so the drug companies pass the cost down to us. Hardly sounds fair. Install price controls in the U.S. and you will find a chilling effect on drug companies. When it costs a billion dollars to get a drug to market, and the countries don't want to pay for it, what company will go into debt for that? They will just go out of business or will just find another avenue of potential profit.

So interesting question, while France and other socialized healthcare countries are doing some medical innovation, what country is the leader in medical innovation in the entire world?

The United States of America. Why? Because the pursuit of profit forces companies to innovate and become efficient.

sdgrrl wrote:

Also, Canada does not have socialized dental care that is a fact.

That's nice to know! The dental stories in the Stossel piece referred to the British healthcare system.

sdgrrl wrote:

Also a fact millions of Canadians and British love their system http://www.healthcare-now.org/new-poll-s...

Well of course they do! They certainly don't have to deal with the size of our population, illegal immigration. Why would anyone say free money is bad? When they can basically write a blank check, who's going to say it's a bad system? It's only when the system starts going through stresses (which is becoming apparent now), that people start questioning things.

sdgrrl wrote:

Sadly, Stossel never talked about lowering cost I only heard him say that profit based medicine is a good thing.

When has the government ever lowered costs? I posted this up earlier, but it seems to require another mention here. Here is proof poitive that profit based medicine is better than a government system.

Medicare Chart: Costs of Medicare vs. Private

Stossel has posted many reports before on how businesses and competition has lowered costs so I'm not surprised he didn't mention it. The report itself was not an end all be all about all the healthcare issues, but instead was focused on rationing and innovation.

sdgrrl wrote:

Another fact. The US will not be have socialized medicine. Democrats just want a public option. Opponents say that employers will drop their workers causing an evenual socialized society. You think that if this happens at alarming speed that perhaps Insurance companies might drop their premiums a bit?

I don't know if you've been looking at what's been going on in Massachusetts but they are a perfect example of what the democrats want. Interestingly enough it was instituted by a republican, Mitt Romney. Most employers have dumped their employees into the public insurance pool and the amount of people in that insurance pool has skyrocketed so badly they have started removing people from that pool, and made them ineligible for benefits.

There are just so many examples of government run systems and how they perform fiscally. Medicare and the VA system are good examples of what to expect in a government system. They are not run particularly well. While there are certainly some successes, they are by any account bankrupt and ration care.

If you think that introducing a public option will not have worse effects than just forcing insurance companies to lower their rates, you are in for a rude awakening. No business can compete with the government. The government does not have to pay taxes, it does not have to be fiscally responsible, and it can spend pretty much however it wants. There's just no way to compete with that. What is more likely is that insurance will choose not to provide those insurance services and that business to lower their costs will force employees to use the public option.

And that's reality.

Still it's nice that you're actually arguing the facts instead of calling people names.

Submitted by sdgrrl on September 7, 2009 - 10:05am.

"Well of course they do! They certainly don't have to deal with the size of our population, illegal immigration. Why would anyone say free money is bad? When they can basically write a blank check, who's going to say it's a bad system? It's only when the system starts going through stresses (which is becoming apparent now), that people start questioning things".

I've said this before in another post. I understand the difficulty in the situation because all the other countries in Europe and Canada do not have a third world country right below it with thousands of people daily willing to die to leave it.

I do know that the VA has negotiated prescription prices and that they are cheaper under that than under Medicare.

http://www.herc.research.va.gov/resource...

You also don't think that part of the reason Medicare cost more than private is the fact that the typical Medicare patient is elderly, with more hospital stays and more disabilities? You really thinks its fair to compare the typical Medicare participator with a typical working person who has private insurance?

Yes, there are VA horror stories, but I ask you to go to the home in Chula Vista and come back and report to me how terrible it is.

Having experienced the VA system I can personally say it was amazing and the care my family received was better than what I've experienced with my own private insurer.

"Massachusetts but they are a perfect example of what the democrats want. Interestingly enough it was instituted by a republican, Mitt Romney. Most employers have dumped their employees into the public insurance pool and the amount of people in that insurance pool has skyrocketed so badly they have started removing people from that pool, and made them ineligible for benefits."

Most employers have dumped their workers insurance? I looked over and over and there is no factual evidence that this is happening. About 3% of employers dropped insurance and took the $249 penalty for each unisured employee. In fact 150,000 more people have become insured by their employers.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washin...

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/con...

Mass has more and more people under their care partly because of the recession and the loss of jobs and dwindling incomes.

I will not argue that Mass has not had a tough time and it is perfect, but your incorrect fear-mongering that thousands were dropped and employers are fleeing is inaccurate until you can provide me scholastic proof otherwise.

You also should clarify who was removed and it was immigrants living in Mass less than five years. It was not life long residents kicked out of the system. Also, those immigrants are now covered under the Commonwealth Care program. The only thing they will not cover them for is dental and hospice care. Sorry you are simply wrong it was reinstated August 10.

"If you think that introducing a public option will not have worse effects than just forcing insurance companies to lower their rates, you are in for a rude awakening. No business can compete with the government. The government does not have to pay taxes, it does not have to be fiscally responsible, and it can spend pretty much however it wants. There's just no way to compete with that. What is more likely is that insurance will choose not to provide those insurance services and that business to lower their costs will force employees to use the public option".

Have you studied the Swiss system, because they have magically been able to have Universal Care and Private Insurance. Sorry you are wrong and its working now. Private insurance companies are still making money even though they are regulated like the dickens.

I don't think I will be done calling people names either.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on September 7, 2009 - 10:53am.

Sdgrrl: Following are links to some articles that tell something of a different story. In terms of disclosure, the first article was found at Boston.com, which is not conservative leaning (no surprise there) and the second and third articles came from the Cato Institute. Regarding Cato, it has shown a consistent non-partisan approach, unlike, say, American Heritage. The third article is particularly good and well worth the read.

http://www.boston.com/business/healthcar...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article...

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on September 7, 2009 - 10:54am.

Dupe.

Comment viewing options

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