So why does the americans reject obama's health plan?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180197

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#151 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180197 Posts

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Free_Marxet"] fact: theres problems with our system.

Free_Marxet

Fact. Every program has problems.

Exactly, and guess what France has a better system. We should try to emulate it on a larger scale

Actually France is having some problems with their current system due to cost.....

Avatar image for stupiddk
stupiddk

2377

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#152 stupiddk
Member since 2003 • 2377 Posts

The purpose of countries is not to help each other. That is where everyone gets this wrong. Countries are supposed to be protectionist. I hate all the wars, i hate all the health care. We should be protectionist, its our money were talking about here. No one, but our own. You progressives think that America should be open for everyone, I believe American citizenship is a privilege. We should have two year conscription at the age of 18, which then in turn earns citizenship, which then in turn earns people the right to vote. We should be deporting illegals, closing the borders, going green, getting away from middle eastern problems, and focusing on paying off our debt.

Avatar image for tman93
tman93

7769

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#153 tman93
Member since 2006 • 7769 Posts

[QUOTE="Free_Marxet"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Fact. Every program has problems.LJS9502_basic

Exactly, and guess what France has a better system. We should try to emulate it on a larger scale

Actually France is having some problems with their current system due to cost.....

Forgive my ignorance but... aren't we too, probably worse at that?
Avatar image for EmpCom
EmpCom

3451

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#154 EmpCom
Member since 2005 • 3451 Posts

[QUOTE="Free_Marxet"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Fact. Every program has problems.LJS9502_basic

Exactly, and guess what France has a better system. We should try to emulate it on a larger scale

Actually France is having some problems with their current system due to cost.....

Just not as much as the us -Of the $2.1 trillion the U.S. spent on health care in 2006, nearly $650 billion was above what we would expect to spend based on the level of U.S. wealth versus other nations. These additional costs are attributable to $436 billion outpatient care and another $186 billion of spending related to high administrative costs.
Avatar image for Unassigned
Unassigned

1970

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#155 Unassigned
Member since 2004 • 1970 Posts

[QUOTE="megahaloman64"]

Our economy is in bad shape, and where is all the money for this expensive health care plan coming from? Maybe we dont want illegal imigrants to have health care. With the amount of tax money each induvidual must pay, they could probably buy their own health insurence.

gameguy6700

1. I find it funny that conservatives never complained about all the money spent on Bush's personal wars, but god forbid we try to do healthcare reform!

2. Illegal immigrants wouldn't have health care. You would think people would be aware that that's a myth after the whole "YOU LIE!" debacle

3. Even assuming the money you pay in taxes for health insurance is equal to the money you would pay on private insurance, there are three massive benefits to having government care over private care:

  • Unlike private insurers, the government won't deny coverage due to pre-existing conditions
  • Unlike private insurers, the government won't try to weasle its way out of every major claim you try to make
  • Unlike with the current system, everyone would be covered with government insurance

So basically with the current system you pay a lot of money, you may not even see any return from it because the insurer may decide to cancel your plan/deny treatment if they think that organ transplant or new, lifesaving treatment is too expensive, and1/4th of the country doesn't even get insurance. With the government system you still pay lot of money, but now you will always get treatment when you need it and everyone gets coverage. It doesn't take a genius to figure out which is the better option.

In regards to your point 1, a majority of Republicans aka. "Conservatives" complained quite loudly in the house/senate and on the streets about Bush's "personal" war, although I do find your immature view on that point quite commical.
Avatar image for Free_Marxet
Free_Marxet

1549

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#156 Free_Marxet
Member since 2009 • 1549 Posts

[QUOTE="Free_Marxet"][QUOTE="oneMoreComment"]

Do you think there won't be any problems with a government run heath care system? Neither aren't without their problems as with everything else.

LJS9502_basic

I never said you couldnt avoid problems. He stated earlier their are problems with gov run healthcare, and if theres problems with this why not just have a more moral system with less problems

That's not quite correct. I asked for YOUR facts. That is what you stated as your fact.:|

Yes it is correct, go back and look. You stated government run healthcare has problems. Then I stated that this system has problems. Thats what were arguing about dont try to weasel out of this, dont be a damn liar.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180197

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#157 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180197 Posts

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Free_Marxet"] I never said you couldnt avoid problems. He stated earlier their are problems with gov run healthcare, and if theres problems with this why not just have a more moral system with less problemsFree_Marxet

That's not quite correct. I asked for YOUR facts. That is what you stated as your fact.:|

Yes it is correct, go back and look. You stated government run healthcare has problems. Then I stated that this system has problems. Thats what were arguing about dont try to weasel out of this, dont be a damn liar.

No you told me you presented facts against the current health care...you have not.
Avatar image for gameguy6700
gameguy6700

12197

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#158 gameguy6700
Member since 2004 • 12197 Posts

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

[QUOTE="megahaloman64"]

Our economy is in bad shape, and where is all the money for this expensive health care plan coming from? Maybe we dont want illegal imigrants to have health care. With the amount of tax money each induvidual must pay, they could probably buy their own health insurence.

Unassigned

1. I find it funny that conservatives never complained about all the money spent on Bush's personal wars, but god forbid we try to do healthcare reform!

2. Illegal immigrants wouldn't have health care. You would think people would be aware that that's a myth after the whole "YOU LIE!" debacle

3. Even assuming the money you pay in taxes for health insurance is equal to the money you would pay on private insurance, there are three massive benefits to having government care over private care:

  • Unlike private insurers, the government won't deny coverage due to pre-existing conditions
  • Unlike private insurers, the government won't try to weasle its way out of every major claim you try to make
  • Unlike with the current system, everyone would be covered with government insurance

So basically with the current system you pay a lot of money, you may not even see any return from it because the insurer may decide to cancel your plan/deny treatment if they think that organ transplant or new, lifesaving treatment is too expensive, and1/4th of the country doesn't even get insurance. With the government system you still pay lot of money, but now you will always get treatment when you need it and everyone gets coverage. It doesn't take a genius to figure out which is the better option.

In regards to your point 1, a majority of Republicans aka. "Conservatives" complained quite loudly in the house/senate and on the streets about Bush's "personal" war, although I do find your immature view on that point quite commical.

Really? The republicans complained? Gee, I must have missed that when I was distracted by the 215 to 6 vote the Republicans cast in the house on the Iraq War resolution, or the 48 to 1 vote they passed in the senate.

Avatar image for Chargeagles1
Chargeagles1

1711

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#159 Chargeagles1
Member since 2006 • 1711 Posts

[QUOTE="Free_Marxet"][QUOTE="oneMoreComment"]

Do you think there won't be any problems with a government run heath care system? Neither aren't without their problems as with everything else.

LJS9502_basic

I never said you couldnt avoid problems. He stated earlier their are problems with gov run healthcare, and if theres problems with this why not just have a more moral system with less problems

That's not quite correct. I asked for YOUR facts. That is what you stated as your fact.:|

Our Healthcare System

1. 46 million people insured (15% of our population)

2. Average cost per person-$7,300 (One of the highest costs in the world)

3. We pay an average of about 2.5 times the amount of developed European nations

4. Only 22% of Americans like our current healthcare system http://www.usnews.com/money/blogs/flowchart/2009/09/15/4-countries-with-better-healthcare-than-ours-.html

3.Routinely labels your condition as pre-existing, in order to make an extra dollar or two. A healthcare system that incessantly will avoid covering routine checkups in order to satiate their avarice selves.

People with healthcare are not necessarily safe either, as health insurance companies are extremely avarice, and will resort to using just about anything as an pretext for not being able to cover medical costs. While Republicans incessantly use the term "death panels", and scare tactics to rebuff and reject health care reform, they are being oblivious to the real "death panels"- health insurance companies. In a health insurance company's world domestic violence, pregnancy, and diabetes fits the criteria of a pre-existing condition. The main incentive as to why the health insurance companies are doing such absurdities is irrefutably due to monetary reasons. For a few extra dollars in an executive's pocket, the lives and integrity of a nation has been sacrificed.

Avatar image for StephenKing_1
StephenKing_1

701

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#160 StephenKing_1
Member since 2003 • 701 Posts

[QUOTE="StephenKing_1"]

[QUOTE="RJay123"]

I don't have health insurance.

I went to the emergency room a few weeks ago because I started scratching myself all over and turning red. I did not know what this was, and the scratching would not stop no matter what I did. Red bumps were forming all over me, even on my head.

It turns out it was only the hives. I didn't realize what the hives was. Now I know. They put 3 shots of something into me, one of them being Benadryl. I had only stayed in the emergency room barely 2 hours or so and was shot with something I could have bought for $10 at the local drug store probably.

My bill was $1,300.

gameguy6700

So who should pay your bill if not you?

Yeah! And while we're at it, who the hell should pay the cops for coming out to your house to save you from the two guys stealing all your stuff? And who else but you should pay for the investigators to find out who killed your wife? And we should definitely return to the old days back when the fire department was a private service that you had to sign up and pay for. And why the hell should people without kids have to pay for education costs, or people without cars have to pay for highway and road costs?

Absolutely. And while we are at it, they're are people whohave to go without food because they dont make a lot of moneyso we should have the government take over grocery stores and food distribution.And we can have the homelessget "free homes" provided by people with homes. If you can't afford college education, no problem, somebody else will pay your way. If you can't find a job, we'll just have the government force people to hire you even if you arent skilled and they cannot afford to pay you. After that, we can work on getting everyone free electricity. Free water.Free computers. Hurray for freedom, baby! Only problem is, How long into the people providing all the free stuffbecome the minority? But we'll let other generations deal with that detail. For now it's all about me me me.

Avatar image for Free_Marxet
Free_Marxet

1549

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#161 Free_Marxet
Member since 2009 • 1549 Posts
[QUOTE="Free_Marxet"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]That's not quite correct. I asked for YOUR facts. That is what you stated as your fact.:|LJS9502_basic

Yes it is correct, go back and look. You stated government run healthcare has problems. Then I stated that this system has problems. Thats what were arguing about dont try to weasel out of this, dont be a damn liar.

No you told me you presented facts against the current health care...you have not.

Youre completely misunderstanding EVERYTHING im saying. Probably intentionally, because you cant justify your weak view point. the fact is, our current system has problems. Gov healthcare has problems. But gov healthcare is better, and it ranks higher.
Avatar image for Ceneb
Ceneb

754

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#162 Ceneb
Member since 2009 • 754 Posts
We're in debt by a lot.
Avatar image for EmpCom
EmpCom

3451

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#163 EmpCom
Member since 2005 • 3451 Posts
[QUOTE="StephenKing_1"]

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

[QUOTE="StephenKing_1"]

So who should pay your bill if not you?

Yeah! And while we're at it, who the hell should pay the cops for coming out to your house to save you from the two guys stealing all your stuff? And who else but you should pay for the investigators to find out who killed your wife? And we should definitely return to the old days back when the fire department was a private service that you had to sign up and pay for. And why the hell should people without kids have to pay for education costs, or people without cars have to pay for highway and road costs?

Absolutely. And while we are at it, they're are people whohave to go without food because they dont make a lot of moneyso we should have the government take over grocery stores and food distribution.And we can have the homelessget "free homes" provided by people with homes. If you can't afford college education, no problem, somebody else will pay your way. If you can't find a job, we'll just have the government force people to hire you even if you arent skilled and they cannot afford to pay you. After that, we can work on getting everyone free electricity. Free water.Free computers. Hurray for freedom, baby! Only problem is, How long into the people providing all the free stuffbecome the minority? But we'll let other generations deal with that detail. For now it's all about me me me.

His point stated the exact opposite of what your saying
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180197

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#164 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180197 Posts

Our Healthcare System

1. 46 million people insured (15% of our population)

2. Average cost per person-$7,300 (One of the highest costs in the world)

3. We pay an average of about 2.5 times the amount of developed European nations

4. Only 22% of Americans like our current healthcare system

3.Routinely labels your condition as pre-existing, in order to make an extra dollar or two. A healthcare system that incessantly will avoid covering routine checkups in order to satiate their avarice selves.

People with healthcare are not necessarily safe either, as health insurance companies are extremely avarice, and will resort to using just about anything as an pretext for not being able to cover medical costs. While Republicans incessantly use the term "death panels", and scare tactics to rebuff and reject health care reform, they are being oblivious to the real "death panels"- health insurance companies. In a health insurance company's world domestic violence, pregnancy, and diabetes fits the criteria of a pre-existing condition. The main incentive as to why the health insurance companies are doing such absurdities is irrefutably due to monetary reasons. For a few extra dollars in an executive's pocket, the lives and integrity of a nation has been sacrificed.

Chargeagles1

1. And some of those people...by the way 15% is a small percentage...are uninsured by choice. There is a segment that makes as much as 50K a year and some that make 75K...not poverty level...that just don't buy insurance. Singly males are a large segment that don't have insurance not because they can't afford it but because they "aren't sick" and choose other ways to spend money.

2. and 3. We will pay more than other countries under other plans. Notice our high population compared to many of those countries? Increase population means increase cost.

4. And judging by the negative feedback Obama received while his party has the majority in both houses and can push his plans....they scrapped his plan and are starting over. What do you think that means?

Avatar image for Free_Marxet
Free_Marxet

1549

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#165 Free_Marxet
Member since 2009 • 1549 Posts

[QUOTE="Chargeagles1"]

Our Healthcare System

1. 46 million people insured (15% of our population)

2. Average cost per person-$7,300 (One of the highest costs in the world)

3. We pay an average of about 2.5 times the amount of developed European nations

4. Only 22% of Americans like our current healthcare system

3.Routinely labels your condition as pre-existing, in order to make an extra dollar or two. A healthcare system that incessantly will avoid covering routine checkups in order to satiate their avarice selves.

People with healthcare are not necessarily safe either, as health insurance companies are extremely avarice, and will resort to using just about anything as an pretext for not being able to cover medical costs. While Republicans incessantly use the term "death panels", and scare tactics to rebuff and reject health care reform, they are being oblivious to the real "death panels"- health insurance companies. In a health insurance company's world domestic violence, pregnancy, and diabetes fits the criteria of a pre-existing condition. The main incentive as to why the health insurance companies are doing such absurdities is irrefutably due to monetary reasons. For a few extra dollars in an executive's pocket, the lives and integrity of a nation has been sacrificed.

LJS9502_basic

1. And some of those people...by the way 15% is a small percentage...are uninsured by choice. There is a segment that makes as much as 50K a year and some that make 75K...not poverty level...that just don't buy insurance. Singly males are a large segment that don't have insurance not because they can't afford it but because they "aren't sick" and choose other ways to spend money.

2. and 3. We will pay more than other countries under other plans. Notice our high population compared to many of those countries? Increase population means increase cost.

4. And judging by the negative feedback Obama received while his party has the majority in both houses and can push his plans....they scrapped his plan and are starting over. What do you think that means?

looks like i win.
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180197

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#166 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180197 Posts

looks like i win.Free_Marxet
You have to actually post an argument to "win".:lol:

Avatar image for Free_Marxet
Free_Marxet

1549

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#167 Free_Marxet
Member since 2009 • 1549 Posts

[QUOTE="Free_Marxet"]looks like i win.LJS9502_basic

You have to actually post an argument to "win".:lol:

i did, u ignore it. all systems have problems, it just so happens socialized medicine has less of em
Avatar image for Mousetaches
Mousetaches

1293

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#168 Mousetaches
Member since 2009 • 1293 Posts

[QUOTE="Chargeagles1"]

Our Healthcare System

1. 46 million people insured (15% of our population)

2. Average cost per person-$7,300 (One of the highest costs in the world)

3. We pay an average of about 2.5 times the amount of developed European nations

4. Only 22% of Americans like our current healthcare system

3.Routinely labels your condition as pre-existing, in order to make an extra dollar or two. A healthcare system that incessantly will avoid covering routine checkups in order to satiate their avarice selves.

People with healthcare are not necessarily safe either, as health insurance companies are extremely avarice, and will resort to using just about anything as an pretext for not being able to cover medical costs. While Republicans incessantly use the term "death panels", and scare tactics to rebuff and reject health care reform, they are being oblivious to the real "death panels"- health insurance companies. In a health insurance company's world domestic violence, pregnancy, and diabetes fits the criteria of a pre-existing condition. The main incentive as to why the health insurance companies are doing such absurdities is irrefutably due to monetary reasons. For a few extra dollars in an executive's pocket, the lives and integrity of a nation has been sacrificed.

LJS9502_basic

1. And some of those people...by the way 15% is a small percentage...are uninsured by choice. There is a segment that makes as much as 50K a year and some that make 75K...not poverty level...that just don't buy insurance. Singly males are a large segment that don't have insurance not because they can't afford it but because they "aren't sick" and choose other ways to spend money.

2. and 3. We will pay more than other countries under other plans. Notice our high population compared to many of those countries? Increase population means increase cost.

4. And judging by the negative feedback Obama received while his party has the majority in both houses and can push his plans....they scrapped his plan and are starting over. What do you think that means?

Both these posts need sources.

1.) Only 100,000 unicorns currently hold health insurance (thats less than 1%!).

2.) With the new healthcare, there will be death panels and old people will be euthanized!!!!!!!!

I used exclamation points and didn't cite a source so you know it's true.

Avatar image for EmpCom
EmpCom

3451

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#169 EmpCom
Member since 2005 • 3451 Posts
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Chargeagles1"]

Our Healthcare System

1. 46 million people insured (15% of our population)

2. Average cost per person-$7,300 (One of the highest costs in the world)

3. We pay an average of about 2.5 times the amount of developed European nations

4. Only 22% of Americans like our current healthcare system

3.Routinely labels your condition as pre-existing, in order to make an extra dollar or two. A healthcare system that incessantly will avoid covering routine checkups in order to satiate their avarice selves.

People with healthcare are not necessarily safe either, as health insurance companies are extremely avarice, and will resort to using just about anything as an pretext for not being able to cover medical costs. While Republicans incessantly use the term "death panels", and scare tactics to rebuff and reject health care reform, they are being oblivious to the real "death panels"- health insurance companies. In a health insurance company's world domestic violence, pregnancy, and diabetes fits the criteria of a pre-existing condition. The main incentive as to why the health insurance companies are doing such absurdities is irrefutably due to monetary reasons. For a few extra dollars in an executive's pocket, the lives and integrity of a nation has been sacrificed.

1. And some of those people...by the way 15% is a small percentage...are uninsured by choice. There is a segment that makes as much as 50K a year and some that make 75K...not poverty level...that just don't buy insurance. Singly males are a large segment that don't have insurance not because they can't afford it but because they "aren't sick" and choose other ways to spend money.

2. and 3. We will pay more than other countries under other plans. Notice our high population compared to many of those countries? Increase population means increase cost.

4. And judging by the negative feedback Obama received while his party has the majority in both houses and can push his plans....they scrapped his plan and are starting over. What do you think that means?

Points 2 and 3 sorry but you already are heres an example in 2006 the us spent 18 times more on healthcare than the uk yet population of the us is only 5 times that of the uk
Avatar image for Chargeagles1
Chargeagles1

1711

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#170 Chargeagles1
Member since 2006 • 1711 Posts

[QUOTE="Chargeagles1"]

Our Healthcare System

1. 46 million people insured (15% of our population)

2. Average cost per person-$7,300 (One of the highest costs in the world)

3. We pay an average of about 2.5 times the amount of developed European nations

4. Only 22% of Americans like our current healthcare system

3.Routinely labels your condition as pre-existing, in order to make an extra dollar or two. A healthcare system that incessantly will avoid covering routine checkups in order to satiate their avarice selves.

People with healthcare are not necessarily safe either, as health insurance companies are extremely avarice, and will resort to using just about anything as an pretext for not being able to cover medical costs. While Republicans incessantly use the term "death panels", and scare tactics to rebuff and reject health care reform, they are being oblivious to the real "death panels"- health insurance companies. In a health insurance company's world domestic violence, pregnancy, and diabetes fits the criteria of a pre-existing condition. The main incentive as to why the health insurance companies are doing such absurdities is irrefutably due to monetary reasons. For a few extra dollars in an executive's pocket, the lives and integrity of a nation has been sacrificed.

LJS9502_basic

1. And some of those people...by the way 15% is a small percentage...are uninsured by choice. There is a segment that makes as much as 50K a year and some that make 75K...not poverty level...that just don't buy insurance. Singly males are a large segment that don't have insurance not because they can't afford it but because they "aren't sick" and choose other ways to spend money.

2. and 3. We will pay more than other countries under other plans. Notice our high population compared to many of those countries? Increase population means increase cost.

4. And judging by the negative feedback Obama received while his party has the majority in both houses and can push his plans....they scrapped his plan and are starting over. What do you think that means?

46,000,000 people is not a miniscule number. How can we possibly call ourself "the greatest country on earth" when 46 million people are afraid to get sick because they cannot pay the full costs of healthcare. Your second point was highly illogical. Do you honestly believe that people who can afford health insurance, don't buy it, because they don't get sick? What happens if they contract a virus, get hit by a car, get bitten by a dog, get an incidental laceration on their arm huh? You're body is not immune to that, and if that happens do you think the 50ks a year can pay the full costs? I didn't think so. For your second point, do you really believe that we pay such costs because we have "a lot of people". For your last point, a lot of congressmen do not support it because of self interests. A lot of congressmen are in league with health insurance companies, so they will obviously not pass a bill detrimental to avarice health insurance companies.They already receive the best healthcare for being government officials, so what makes you think they care a damn to what happens to the rest of the country?

Avatar image for Chargeagles1
Chargeagles1

1711

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#172 Chargeagles1
Member since 2006 • 1711 Posts

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Chargeagles1"]

Our Healthcare System

1. 46 million people insured (15% of our population)

2. Average cost per person-$7,300 (One of the highest costs in the world)

3. We pay an average of about 2.5 times the amount of developed European nations

4. Only 22% of Americans like our current healthcare system

3.Routinely labels your condition as pre-existing, in order to make an extra dollar or two. A healthcare system that incessantly will avoid covering routine checkups in order to satiate their avarice selves.

People with healthcare are not necessarily safe either, as health insurance companies are extremely avarice, and will resort to using just about anything as an pretext for not being able to cover medical costs. While Republicans incessantly use the term "death panels", and scare tactics to rebuff and reject health care reform, they are being oblivious to the real "death panels"- health insurance companies. In a health insurance company's world domestic violence, pregnancy, and diabetes fits the criteria of a pre-existing condition. The main incentive as to why the health insurance companies are doing such absurdities is irrefutably due to monetary reasons. For a few extra dollars in an executive's pocket, the lives and integrity of a nation has been sacrificed.

Mousetaches

1. And some of those people...by the way 15% is a small percentage...are uninsured by choice. There is a segment that makes as much as 50K a year and some that make 75K...not poverty level...that just don't buy insurance. Singly males are a large segment that don't have insurance not because they can't afford it but because they "aren't sick" and choose other ways to spend money.

2. and 3. We will pay more than other countries under other plans. Notice our high population compared to many of those countries? Increase population means increase cost.

4. And judging by the negative feedback Obama received while his party has the majority in both houses and can push his plans....they scrapped his plan and are starting over. What do you think that means?

Both these posts need sources.

1.) Only 100,000 unicorns currently hold health insurance (thats less than 1%!).

2.) With the new healthcare, there will be death panels and old people will be euthanized!!!!!!!!

I used exclamation points and didn't cite a source so you know it's true.

http://www.usnews.com/money/blogs/flowchart/2009/09/15/4-countries-with-better-healthcare-than-ours-.html

Avatar image for gameguy6700
gameguy6700

12197

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#173 gameguy6700
Member since 2004 • 12197 Posts

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

[QUOTE="StephenKing_1"]

So who should pay your bill if not you?

StephenKing_1

Yeah! And while we're at it, who the hell should pay the cops for coming out to your house to save you from the two guys stealing all your stuff? And who else but you should pay for the investigators to find out who killed your wife? And we should definitely return to the old days back when the fire department was a private service that you had to sign up and pay for. And why the hell should people without kids have to pay for education costs, or people without cars have to pay for highway and road costs?

Absolutely. And while we are at it, they're are people whohave to go without food because they dont make a lot of moneyso we should have the government take over grocery stores and food distribution.And we can have the homelessget "free homes" provided by people with homes. If you can't afford college education, no problem, somebody else will pay your way. If you can't find a job, we'll just have the government force people to hire you even if you arent skilled and they cannot afford to pay you. After that, we can work on getting everyone free electricity. Free water.Free computers. Hurray for freedom, baby! Only problem is, How long into the people providing all the free stuffbecome the minority? But we'll let other generations deal with that detail. For now it's all about me me me.

I fail to see how ensuring that other people are able to maintain at least a basic quality of life is being selfish. Wouldn't a "me me me" attitude be refusing to help other people get medical care, shelter, food, and other basic necessities simply because you don't want to pay more taxes?

Oh yeah, and in regards to your little analogy with food production and grocery stores: The government already does something similar to that in the form of food stamps. In fact, they've been doing that for a very long time. Also, the government sometimes does subsdize water and electric bills. The government has also been helping students into college for a long time with things like public universities, community colleges, state-sponsored scholarships, and federal loans. Just about all of your points have already been in practice for a long time and the country obviously hasn't fallen into poverty as a result thus invalidating your entire argument. Nice try though.

Avatar image for Unassigned
Unassigned

1970

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#174 Unassigned
Member since 2004 • 1970 Posts

[QUOTE="Unassigned"][QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

1. I find it funny that conservatives never complained about all the money spent on Bush's personal wars, but god forbid we try to do healthcare reform!

2. Illegal immigrants wouldn't have health care. You would think people would be aware that that's a myth after the whole "YOU LIE!" debacle

3. Even assuming the money you pay in taxes for health insurance is equal to the money you would pay on private insurance, there are three massive benefits to having government care over private care:

  • Unlike private insurers, the government won't deny coverage due to pre-existing conditions
  • Unlike private insurers, the government won't try to weasle its way out of every major claim you try to make
  • Unlike with the current system, everyone would be covered with government insurance

So basically with the current system you pay a lot of money, you may not even see any return from it because the insurer may decide to cancel your plan/deny treatment if they think that organ transplant or new, lifesaving treatment is too expensive, and1/4th of the country doesn't even get insurance. With the government system you still pay lot of money, but now you will always get treatment when you need it and everyone gets coverage. It doesn't take a genius to figure out which is the better option.

gameguy6700

In regards to your point 1, a majority of Republicans aka. "Conservatives" complained quite loudly in the house/senate and on the streets about Bush's "personal" war, although I do find your immature view on that point quite commical.

Really? The republicans complained? Gee, I must have missed that when I was distracted by the 215 to 6 vote the Republicans cast in the house on the Iraq War resolution, or the 48 to 1 vote they passed in the senate.

Um... those votes were 7 years ago and it was a "Joint" vote which was also shared by democrats as to that ""Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002". Of course the conservatives complained about how much was going to be spent, just look at Vote on amendment (#1264) to H.R.2658 "To require the president to submit to Congress a cost estimate of military operations in Iraq." - PASSED This tells me that Senate Republicans were concerned with the money being spent since it was their votes that got the amendment passed. They wanted to be sure that total cost was NOT hidden from the public. It's the Democrats aka "non-conservatives" who wanted to keep the cost secret since only 3 voted for YEA for that amendment which is what your point 1 was in reference to: "Conservatives never complained about all the money spent". Hell yeah they complained, they wanted every red cent accounted for in the estimates budget.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180197

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#175 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180197 Posts

Both these posts need sources.

1

Mousetaches

Well here is the average income of the uninsured by states.

Avatar image for Ace_WondersX
Ace_WondersX

4455

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#176 Ace_WondersX
Member since 2003 • 4455 Posts

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

[QUOTE="StephenKing_1"]

So who should pay your bill if not you?

StephenKing_1

Yeah! And while we're at it, who the hell should pay the cops for coming out to your house to save you from the two guys stealing all your stuff? And who else but you should pay for the investigators to find out who killed your wife? And we should definitely return to the old days back when the fire department was a private service that you had to sign up and pay for. And why the hell should people without kids have to pay for education costs, or people without cars have to pay for highway and road costs?

  1. they're are people whohave to go without food because they dont make a lot of moneyso we should have the government take over grocery stores and food distribution.
  2. And we can have the homeless get "free homes" provided by people with homes.
  3. If you can't afford college education, no problem, somebody else will pay your way.
  4. Free water.
  5. Free computers.

Funny thing is that government already offers assistance on most of those things you listed and they haven't collapse yet. And some of the things you said aren't really relevant to the argument.

  1. Food Stamps
  2. Housing Projects
  3. Student Aid
  4. Water is already controlled by the government
  5. Computers aren't a necessity to life
Avatar image for Chargeagles1
Chargeagles1

1711

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#177 Chargeagles1
Member since 2006 • 1711 Posts

[QUOTE="Mousetaches"]

Both these posts need sources.

1

LJS9502_basic

Well here is the average income of the uninsured by states.

That is NOT the average income of the uninsured, but the average HOUSEHOLD income. They are comparing poverty rates, uninsured people, and the countrys average income. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

Avatar image for daqua_99
daqua_99

11170

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 14

User Lists: 0

#178 daqua_99
Member since 2005 • 11170 Posts

America needs to face the facts that 1) healthcare is in fact important and thus there needs to be some government intervention, and 2) the government and private sector can work together to form a system better than what they have now. Have a two-tiered system based on a means test like the system we have in Australia

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180197

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#179 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180197 Posts

[

That is NOT the average income of the uninsured, but the average HOUSEHOLD income. They are comparing poverty rates, uninsured people, and the countrys average income.

Chargeagles1

Dude those are not poverty rates. Here is what the US considers poverty... The government defines poverty as an annual income of $22,025 for a family of four, $17,163 for a family of three and $14,051 for a family of two.

Avatar image for gameguy6700
gameguy6700

12197

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#180 gameguy6700
Member since 2004 • 12197 Posts

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

[QUOTE="Unassigned"] In regards to your point 1, a majority of Republicans aka. "Conservatives" complained quite loudly in the house/senate and on the streets about Bush's "personal" war, although I do find your immature view on that point quite commical.Unassigned

Really? The republicans complained? Gee, I must have missed that when I was distracted by the 215 to 6 vote the Republicans cast in the house on the Iraq War resolution, or the 48 to 1 vote they passed in the senate.

Um... those votes were 7 years ago and it was a "Joint" vote which was also shared by democrats as to that ""Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002". Of course the conservatives complained about how much was going to be spent, just look at Vote on amendment (#1264) to H.R.2658 "To require the president to submit to Congress a cost estimate of military operations in Iraq." - PASSED This tells me that Senate Republicans were concerned with the money being spent since it was their votes that got the amendment passed. They wanted to be sure that total cost was NOT hidden from the public. It's the Democrats aka "non-conservatives" who wanted to keep the cost secret since only 3 voted for YEA for that amendment which is what your point 1 was in reference to: "Conservatives never complained about all the money spent". Hell yeah they complained, they wanted every red cent accounted for in the estimates budget.

So the cost wasn't hidden. Big ****ing deal. Doesn't change the fact that Republicans voted almost unanimously for something they knew was going to cost us hundreds of billions of dollars whereas democrats were more or less split between their more conservative members and their more liberal members.

Avatar image for Chargeagles1
Chargeagles1

1711

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#181 Chargeagles1
Member since 2006 • 1711 Posts

[QUOTE="Chargeagles1"]

[

That is NOT the average income of the uninsured, but the average HOUSEHOLD income. They are comparing poverty rates, uninsured people, and the countrys average income.

LJS9502_basic

Dude those are not poverty rates. Here is what the US considers poverty... The government defines poverty as an annual income of $22,025 for a family of four, $17,163 for a family of three and $14,051 for a family of two.

The title of the article is

Census Bureau estimates 46.3 million Americans are uninsured; poverty rate up; income down

So yes they are listing poverty rates. The uninsured do not earn 50000, that is the AVERAGE MEDIAN INCOME FOR ALL AMERICANS



Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180197

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#182 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180197 Posts

The title of the article is

Census Bureau estimates 46.3 million Americans are uninsured; poverty rate up; income down

So yes they are listing poverty rates. The uninsured do not earn 50000, that is the AVERAGE MEDIAN INCOME FOR ALL AMERICANS



Chargeagles1

Yes but the chart is the median income for the uninsured. Poverty level is a link that can't be accessed. However, 65K is not poverty level. Nor is 50K. Anyway what I copied and pasted is the US governments stat on what poverty is considered. Why are you arguing that? Yes uninsured people do in fact make significant money. Not all but they make as much as 75K. I gave you the chart.

Census Bureau Statistics....

According to this census bureau report (most recent data available), there were about 47 million uninsured Americans in 2006. The chart above shows the household income levels of those 47 million uninsured Americans. There are 9,283,000 uninsured Americans living in households that make $75,000 or more, and this represents about 20% of the total number of uninsured. There are about 8.5 million American without health insurance in households making between $50,000 and $75,000. With those two groups combined, 38% of Americans without health insurance (almost 18 million people) lived in households with $50,000 or more of household income in 2006.

Avatar image for Chargeagles1
Chargeagles1

1711

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#183 Chargeagles1
Member since 2006 • 1711 Posts

[QUOTE="Chargeagles1"]

The title of the article is

Census Bureau estimates 46.3 million Americans are uninsured; poverty rate up; income down

So yes they are listing poverty rates. The uninsured do not earn 50000, that is the AVERAGE MEDIAN INCOME FOR ALL AMERICANS



LJS9502_basic

Yes but the chart is the median income for the uninsured. Poverty level is a link that can't be accessed. However, 65K is not poverty level. Nor is 50K. Anyway what I copied and pasted is the US governments stat on what poverty is considered. Why are you arguing that? Yes uninsured people do in fact make significant money. Not all but they make as much as 75K. I gave you the chart.

Census Bureau Statistics....

According to this census bureau report (most recent data available), there were about 47 million uninsured Americans in 2006. The chart above shows the household income levels of those 47 million uninsured Americans. There are 9,283,000 uninsured Americans living in households that make $75,000 or more, and this represents about 20% of the total number of uninsured. There are about 8.5 million American without health insurance in households making between $50,000 and $75,000. With those two groups combined, 38% of Americans without health insurance (almost 18 million people) lived in households with $50,000 or more of household income in 2006.

The website that you gave me shows the average income of a typical us citizen. They also show the % uninsured, and the % in poverty. where are you getting your numbers?

Avatar image for Chargeagles1
Chargeagles1

1711

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#184 Chargeagles1
Member since 2006 • 1711 Posts

LJS9502_basic.

I'm going to sleep now FYI, so if you don't see any responses, that's why. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=266719 I know its old, but it still is applicable.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180197

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#185 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180197 Posts

The website that you gave me shows the average income of a typical us citizen. They also show the % uninsured, and the % in poverty. where are you getting your numbers?

Chargeagles1

Those stats are from the Census Bureau....night.

Avatar image for Unassigned
Unassigned

1970

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#186 Unassigned
Member since 2004 • 1970 Posts

[QUOTE="Unassigned"]

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

Really? The republicans complained? Gee, I must have missed that when I was distracted by the 215 to 6 vote the Republicans cast in the house on the Iraq War resolution, or the 48 to 1 vote they passed in the senate.

gameguy6700

Um... those votes were 7 years ago and it was a "Joint" vote which was also shared by democrats as to that ""Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002". Of course the conservatives complained about how much was going to be spent, just look at Vote on amendment (#1264) to H.R.2658 "To require the president to submit to Congress a cost estimate of military operations in Iraq." - PASSED This tells me that Senate Republicans were concerned with the money being spent since it was their votes that got the amendment passed. They wanted to be sure that total cost was NOT hidden from the public. It's the Democrats aka "non-conservatives" who wanted to keep the cost secret since only 3 voted for YEA for that amendment which is what your point 1 was in reference to: "Conservatives never complained about all the money spent". Hell yeah they complained, they wanted every red cent accounted for in the estimates budget.

So the cost wasn't hidden. Big ****ing deal. Doesn't change the fact that Republicans voted almost unanimously for something they knew was going to cost us hundreds of billions of dollars whereas democrats were more or less split between their more conservative members and their more liberal members.

Yes that is a MAJOR BIG deal. Republicans AND democrats voted for "authorization for use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.

The H.R.2658 vote was to insure all parties knew how/when the money would be spend, it passed thanks to republicans to insure ALL parties had a dollar figure associated with the military amendments. If Conservatives did not care about the money (as you stated) they would have pushed this bill under and said "it's gonna' cost us as much as we want" but conservatives don't act that way.

Avatar image for fidosim
fidosim

12901

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 0

#187 fidosim
Member since 2003 • 12901 Posts
People are concerned that this is more about power than actually making the system work better. Take the so-called "public option" for example. The donkeys (or at least a majority of them) want a government insurance option that people can opt into if they can't afford private insurance or don't want it. The stated goal of this option is to promote competition that will bring consumer costs down. However, the elephants think that this will phase out private insurance in its current widely available form. The public option will have the authority of government behind it, which will make it liable to eventually absorb the private system. The government will probably fund this public option by taking the money from insurance companies. In turn, insurance companies will have to let go of customers to save money, and these customers will join the public option.
Avatar image for Unassigned
Unassigned

1970

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#188 Unassigned
Member since 2004 • 1970 Posts

People are concerned that this is more about power than actually making the system work better. Take the so-called "public option" for example. The donkeys (or at least a majority of them) want a government insurance option that people can opt into if they can't afford private insurance or don't want it. The stated goal of this option is to promote competition that will bring consumer costs down. However, the elephants think that this will phase out private insurance in its current widely available form. The public option will have the authority of government behind it, which will make it liable to eventually absorb the private system. The government will probably fund this public option by taking the money from insurance companies. In turn, insurance companies will have to let go of customers to save money, and these customers will join the public option. fidosim
Seeing what I see now, I'll stick with the experienced private insurers.

Avatar image for muirplayer
muirplayer

406

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#189 muirplayer
Member since 2004 • 406 Posts

First you give poor people health care. Then what? They'll start asking for better water sanitation, better food services, better housing.Soon enough they'll startasking forfree education, andthey'll start getting higher-end skilled jobs, and then who's going to work in the factories? Hmmm? Who's going to do the crap jobs no one wants? No one will. Then our whole capitalist system will collapse and we'll all have to start calling each other comrade.

_BlueDuck_

You've got a very distorted view on things.

Poor people support the nation. It wouldn't survive without them, so why not make sure they live longer or healthier?

Free education is already available.

If they're not getting the higher-end skilled jobs already, it's not really going to start happening faster than it is now.

There will always be people to work in factores and do the crap jobs no one wants.

Avatar image for hakanakumono
hakanakumono

27455

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#190 hakanakumono
Member since 2008 • 27455 Posts

[QUOTE="fidosim"]People are concerned that this is more about power than actually making the system work better. Take the so-called "public option" for example. The donkeys (or at least a majority of them) want a government insurance option that people can opt into if they can't afford private insurance or don't want it. The stated goal of this option is to promote competition that will bring consumer costs down. However, the elephants think that this will phase out private insurance in its current widely available form. The public option will have the authority of government behind it, which will make it liable to eventually absorb the private system. The government will probably fund this public option by taking the money from insurance companies. In turn, insurance companies will have to let go of customers to save money, and these customers will join the public option. Unassigned
Seeing what I see know, I'll stick with the experienced private insurers.

Yes, they're very experienced at finding ways to avoid providing you with healthcare, which is why they are so much better than a government system that will try to provide you with healthcare.

Avatar image for Unassigned
Unassigned

1970

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#191 Unassigned
Member since 2004 • 1970 Posts

[QUOTE="Unassigned"][QUOTE="fidosim"]People are concerned that this is more about power than actually making the system work better. Take the so-called "public option" for example. The donkeys (or at least a majority of them) want a government insurance option that people can opt into if they can't afford private insurance or don't want it. The stated goal of this option is to promote competition that will bring consumer costs down. However, the elephants think that this will phase out private insurance in its current widely available form. The public option will have the authority of government behind it, which will make it liable to eventually absorb the private system. The government will probably fund this public option by taking the money from insurance companies. In turn, insurance companies will have to let go of customers to save money, and these customers will join the public option. hakanakumono

Seeing what I see now, I'll stick with the experienced private insurers.

Yes, they're very experienced at finding ways to avoid providing you with healthcare, which is why they are so much better than a government system that will try to provide you with healthcare.

My insurance carrier has NEVER denied any claim I've submitted and no hospital or Dr's office has EVER denied me care so do you want to try again?

Avatar image for Danm_999
Danm_999

13924

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#192 Danm_999
Member since 2003 • 13924 Posts

There isn't a single reason everyone opposes health care reform; and not all reasons are very good or even rational. Let here are many I've seen.

Some people don't the idea of big government and see a public option for health care as an unwanted extension of government.

Some people feel public health care is socialism, and in turn believe nothing good can come from socialist policies.

Some people don't think that health care is something the state should provide or become involved in.

Some people don't think the United States can afford to fund such a system.

Some people are worried about illegal immigrants using the system, or citizens exploiting the system.

Some people believe Americans should be treating the causes of poor health, rather than the health care system.

Some people profit immensely from the current setup, and don't want that changed.

Some people are concerned public health care will increase the number of abortions performed, and the social acceptance of abortions increase.

Some people don't actually understand the issue, and are simply responding to cues from the GOP/insurance companies/popular commentators like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.

Avatar image for Flamecommando
Flamecommando

11634

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#193 Flamecommando
Member since 2003 • 11634 Posts

I don't get it at all. Americans seem paranoid that their country is going to turn into the next Soviet Union if they accept the Health reforms.

Yet America has plenty is socialised services.... schools, police, fire service, libraries etc...

dbowman

And they are working so well right now....

Avatar image for Danm_999
Danm_999

13924

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#194 Danm_999
Member since 2003 • 13924 Posts

[QUOTE="dbowman"]

I don't get it at all. Americans seem paranoid that their country is going to turn into the next Soviet Union if they accept the Health reforms.

Yet America has plenty is socialised services.... schools, police, fire service, libraries etc...

Flamecommando

And they are working so well right now....

Is there a big problem with American schools, police departments, fire departments and libraries?
Avatar image for Sajedene
Sajedene

13718

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#195 Sajedene
Member since 2004 • 13718 Posts
I had to read through the whole thread to see that majority of the people who clamor for the U.S. to adopt this health care are: 1. from another country who only know of their system and have no experience with the U.S. current system - and have yet to experience how broken and selective their "system for everyone" is. 2. Younger, U.S. kiddies who don't work full-time to fully understand how much of their own money and freedom and choices and quality of health care they will be giving up because they dont earn a living or have any family to look out for. 3. Full-time workers who work the lower income bracket or feel philanthropic enough since they have no family to think about (or dont think about) I've experienced both systems and even if the U.S. system isnt the best and needs some tweaking - its is far better than "free" health care.
Avatar image for Ninja-Hippo
Ninja-Hippo

23434

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#196 Ninja-Hippo
Member since 2008 • 23434 Posts
[QUOTE="Sajedene"] I've experienced both systems and even if the U.S. system isnt the best and needs some tweaking - its is far better than "free" health care.

Unless you cant afford it, in which case it's useless. That's the issue here. Also, i think it's ridiculous to say 'american healthcare is better than free healthcare'. Unless you've undergone long-term and serious medical care in the States, the UK, Canada and a couple of other countries to make such a bold comparison, i'd say that's a comment plucked out of thin air.
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180197

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#197 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180197 Posts
[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="Sajedene"] I've experienced both systems and even if the U.S. system isnt the best and needs some tweaking - its is far better than "free" health care.

Unless you cant afford it, in which case it's useless. That's the issue here. Also, i think it's ridiculous to say 'american healthcare is better than free healthcare'. Unless you've undergone long-term and serious medical care in the States, the UK, Canada and a couple of other countries to make such a bold comparison, i'd say that's a comment plucked out of thin air.

Just to clear things up....in the US you can still get health care if you don't have insurance. Yes you will be billed for the service but you can give as little as $10 a month and that has to be accepted as proper payment.
Avatar image for Ninja-Hippo
Ninja-Hippo

23434

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#198 Ninja-Hippo
Member since 2008 • 23434 Posts
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Just to clear things up....in the US you can still get health care if you don't have insurance. Yes you will be billed for the service but you can give as little as $10 a month and that has to be accepted as proper payment.

There are a number of procedures and prescription which are refused if you dont have adequate insurance, unless that has changed since Obama took office.
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180197

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#199 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180197 Posts
[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Just to clear things up....in the US you can still get health care if you don't have insurance. Yes you will be billed for the service but you can give as little as $10 a month and that has to be accepted as proper payment.

There are a number of procedures and prescription which are refused if you dont have adequate insurance, unless that has changed since Obama took office.

There are a number of procedures and prescriptions that are refused under public care as well.
Avatar image for Ninja-Hippo
Ninja-Hippo

23434

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#200 Ninja-Hippo
Member since 2008 • 23434 Posts
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] There are a number of procedures and prescriptions that are refused under public care as well.

Very few, and they're mostly frivolous ones such as cosmetic surgery, nothing life threatening or seriously debilitating.