LGP Political Discussion Thread

[shafnutz05]

Just saw an interesting statistic....the death rate from cancer (i.e. what percentage of people that get cancer end up dying) is 38% higher in Britain and 16% higher in Canada. This is despite the fact that both of these countries guarantee "healthcare" to all of their citizens. The problem is, since they have a shortage of personnel and equipment and an excess of patients, many cancer diagnoses that are detected earlier here in the States aren't made until it is too late.

And yet, people want to bring a similar system to the United States. What would you rather have?

a) A fantastic medical system with cutting edge equipment; not everyone has health insurance, but there are government subsidies for people that can't afford it. If you show up at a hospital, you WILL be treated.

b) A mediocre-poor healthcare system that is guaranteed to everyone. You don't have to pay a dime for cancer and treatment of other diseases; unfortunately, you might have to wait a few months before you can even see a general practice doctor (and a year or two for a specialist), by which time the disease will have become untreatable?

I'll take great healthcare for most over crappy healthcare for all any day of the week.

[doublem]

Isn't that the same as the 45k that die every year in this country becasue they can't get health care?? Anyways the British system wouldn't be the same as anything in the United States. It's basically like the VA. Give me health care for everyone in my country any day of the week.

[Geezer]

Just saw an interesting statistic....the death rate from cancer (i.e. what percentage of people that get cancer end up dying) is 38% higher in Britain and 16% higher in Canada. This is despite the fact that both of these countries guarantee "healthcare" to all of their citizens. The problem is, since they have a shortage of personnel and equipment and an excess of patients, many cancer diagnoses that are detected earlier here in the States aren't made until it is too late.

And yet, people want to bring a similar system to the United States. What would you rather have?

a) A fantastic medical system with cutting edge equipment; not everyone has health insurance, but there are government subsidies for people that can't afford it. If you show up at a hospital, you WILL be treated.

b) A mediocre-poor healthcare system that is guaranteed to everyone. You don't have to pay a dime for cancer and treatment of other diseases; unfortunately, you might have to wait a few months before you can even see a general practice doctor (and a year or two for a specialist), by which time the disease will have become untreatable?

I'll take great healthcare for most over crappy healthcare for all any day of the week.

Another related issue will be the lack of new technology under Obamacare. Advances in new treatments etc are done with profit covering the cost of developing new technology. Without incentives our future "healthcare" will be more hazardous to your health.

[shafnutz05]

Isn't that the same as the 45k that die every year in this country becasue they can't get health care?? Anyways the British system wouldn't be the same as anything in the United States. It's basically like the VA. Give me health care for everyone in my country any day of the week.

I hear this argument all the time...."It's basically like the VA". I dealt with the VA for four years, and I continue to deal with them for certain issues. They are inefficient as all hell, and they are CONSTANTLY making mistakes, sometimes serious. What you have to understand is that just because everyone gets something for free doesn't make it a good thing. My wife and I bust our asses at our jobs, and we are very happy with our health coverage. I think it is ridiculously unfair that not only will I still have to pay for my insurance (while the uninsured will not), I will have to receive the same crappy, lousy rationed care.

And that 45,000k/year statistic you gave me? Complete and utter junk science. I did some research on that "study". The subjects in the study were interviewed once...if they died ten years later, their death was chalked up to not having health insurance. The researcher did not bother to investigate the cause of death, whether or not they were insured/uninsured at the time of their deaths, or what kind of medical care they received. And naturally, this study was released perfectly in conjunction with the healthcare debate in the Senate.

We work hard 5 days a week, and I am extremely, extremely happy with it. But that's not fair....why should I be entitled to great healthcare just because I work. No, instead, we are going to extend coverage to 30 million uninsured, including millions that are eligible for subsidies but don't bother to apply. Of course, a bunch of these 30 million are going to be flooding the same practitioners that I visit, so my quality of care and patient focus will suffer as a result. And I will still be paying the same cost (if not more) for mine. You want to provide healthcare for everyone? Take steps to reduce the cost........but no, that would be too simple wouldn't it? Why take practical steps to reduce healthcare costs when you can just pass a $2.5 trillion bill that will make everyone suffer? To hell with this government.

/rant

[shafnutz05]

You can pass practical steps to extend insurance coverage to more people by reducing costs and decreasing bureaucracy. Instead, the Democrat idiots are going to take control of the healthcare system, vastly increase bureaucracy, decrease incentive for doctors and nurses to enter the field and medical device/pharmaceutical companies to come up with new products, increase costs, and create a horrible situation in which we add millions of people to an already burdened system while taking away doctors.

I don't know what is so hard for people to understand. The government is not magic. This is like 8th grade economics. Here is a simple equation:

AMERICAN HEALTHCARE SYSTEM
+30,000,000 uninsured
-The medical professionals that decide to retire rather than stick it out for 5-10 more years in a system with fixed pay and more red tape
-Prospective medical students who come to the correct conclusion that it would be asinine to spend several hundred thousand dollars and ten years in medical school essentially to become a government employee and make a fixed wage.
-The productivity from the personnel that stay in the system....they will be making a fixed salary. While doctors and nurses do love to heal people, they don't do it out of the goodness of their hearts (most don't). They do it for the financial incentive that goes along with it as well. But again, the naivete of the left strikes again.

Massive rationing is going to result, long waits for treatment, even longer waits for specialists (wow, they will be REALLY hard to find), and good luck with the equipment shortages. Anyone with a simple grasp of supply and demand can see that this is going to be an unadulterated disaster, yet the only argument I keep hearing is

"HEALTHCARE NOW! 45,000 DIE EVERY YEAR!!"

God forbid we take rational steps to solve this problem instead of jumping to a rash conclusion that will affect the rest of our lives and will be near-impossible to reverse.

[doublem]

Without incentives our future "healthcare" will be more hazardous to your health.

What are you talking about? Do you have any numbers to back this up. This "incentives" system hasn't been working. It really doesn't matter if we have new technology or treatments when the people that need them can't afford them. Every system has flaws but the idea that the system isn't going to work becasue we don't have "incentives" has no evidence to it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01778.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

3. Foreign health-care systems are inefficient, bloated bureaucracies.

Much less so than here. It may seem to Americans that U.S.-style free enterprise -- private-sector, for-profit health insurance -- is naturally the most cost-effective way to pay for health care. But in fact, all the other payment systems are more efficient than ours.

U.S. health insurance companies have the highest administrative costs in the world; they spend roughly 20 cents of every dollar for nonmedical costs, such as paperwork, reviewing claims and marketing. France's health insurance industry, in contrast, covers everybody and spends about 4 percent on administration. Canada's universal insurance system, run by government bureaucrats, spends 6 percent on administration. In Taiwan, a leaner version of the Canadian model has administrative costs of 1.5 percent; one year, this figure ballooned to 2 percent, and the opposition parties savaged the government for wasting money.

4. Cost controls stifle innovation.

False. The United States is home to groundbreaking medical research, but so are other countries with much lower cost structures. Any American who's had a hip or knee replacement is standing on French innovation. Deep-brain stimulation to treat depression is a Canadian breakthrough. Many of the wonder drugs promoted endlessly on American television, including Viagra, come from British, Swiss or Japanese labs.

Overseas, strict cost controls actually drive innovation. In the United States, an MRI scan of the neck region costs about $1,500. In Japan, the identical scan costs $98. Under the pressure of cost controls, Japanese researchers found ways to perform the same diagnostic technique for one-fifteenth the American price. (And Japanese labs still make a profit.)

[doublem]

Isn't that the same as the 45k that die every year in this country becasue they can't get health care?? Anyways the British system wouldn't be the same as anything in the United States. It's basically like the VA. Give me health care for everyone in my country any day of the week.

I hear this argument all the time...."It's basically like the VA". I dealt with the VA for four years, and I continue to deal with them for certain issues. They are inefficient as all hell, and they are CONSTANTLY making mistakes, sometimes serious. What you have to understand is that just because everyone gets something for free doesn't make it a good thing. My wife and I bust our asses at our jobs, and we are very happy with our health coverage. I think it is ridiculously unfair that not only will I still have to pay for my insurance (while the uninsured will not), I will have to receive the same crappy, lousy rationed care.

And that 45,000k/year statistic you gave me? Complete and utter junk science. I did some research on that "study". The subjects in the study were interviewed once...if they died ten years later, their death was chalked up to not having health insurance. The researcher did not bother to investigate the cause of death, whether or not they were insured/uninsured at the time of their deaths, or what kind of medical care they received. And naturally, this study was released perfectly in conjunction with the healthcare debate in the Senate.

We work hard 5 days a week, and I am extremely, extremely happy with it. But that's not fair....why should I be entitled to great healthcare just because I work. No, instead, we are going to extend coverage to 30 million uninsured, including millions that are eligible for subsidies but don't bother to apply. Of course, a bunch of these 30 million are going to be flooding the same practitioners that I visit, so my quality of care and patient focus will suffer as a result. And I will still be paying the same cost (if not more) for mine. You want to provide healthcare for everyone? Take steps to reduce the cost........but no, that would be too simple wouldn't it? Why take practical steps to reduce healthcare costs when you can just pass a $2.5 trillion bill that will make everyone suffer? To hell with this government.

/rant

Oh god. Here we go again. First, I wasn't saying the VA sucked, I was saying that is what they have in the U.K. which is different from the rest of the world. For the millionith time treatment will not be rationed, but it basically is already. do you think all the people that don't have health care aren't working as hard as you??? It sounds like this is what bothers you, yet you seem to have no problem with people that work hard and still can't afford health care. You think there might be more problems then someones work ethic?? Like, I don't know the cost going up over 100% in a decade and a recession.

Why does everything in this country go back to someone must be lazy or they aren't working hard enough??? This crap isn't even an issue in other countries. Countries that work less then this one. You do know Americans work longer hours then most countries in the world??? Here are some facts about health care around the world. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01778.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; What facts will you accept??? The ones that you agree with.

I don't find it fair that 46 million Americans in my country can't get health care, I find it unfair that people go to bankruptcy trying to pay medical bills. I find it unfair that the "greatest country in the world" finds ways to fight endless wars, spends trillions of dollars on bailouts, but this country gets outraged by the idea that we might have to find a way to pay for it's citizens health care needs. For someone that has such a problem with spending it doesn't seem to bother you that we are again spending more money in war.

[shafnutz05]

I know a lot of Americans that work and can't get healthcare...you didnt listen to me. We absolutely need to come up with solutions that makes healthcare affordable to ALL Americans. I don't think people don't have healthcare because they are lazy. Do I have all the answers? Absolutely not. But I will tell you what...the one thing we do not want is the government to take control.

For the record, I am completely opposed to the trillion dollar bailout, stimulus, etc. I have a question for you. Would you favor interstate competition for insurance companies? That would lower cost a TON. Why do the Democrats refuse to allow this? As a matter of fact, why do the Democrats consistently oppose measures that would cut costs? We know they oppose tort reform because of all the money they get from the trial lawyer lobby. Why are the Dems so hellbent on passing this massive, massive bill that will forever change the healthcare in this country?

Because it was never about improving quality/quantity of healthcare in the first place. It's about the biggest power grab by the government from the private sector in American history.

First, I wasn't saying the VA sucked, I was saying that is what they have in the U.K. which is different from the rest of the world.

I know what you are implying...that because the system would be more like the VA, that makes it good. I am the one saying that the VA sucks, because I have dealt with them for 8+ years, and share many experiences with my fellow servicemembers and veterans. IT IS AWFUL.

You make me sound like some evil rich Republican that could care less about the single mothers working 40 hours with no healthcare. PASS BILLS THAT WILL REDUCE COSTS, AND OFFER TAX CREDITS SO PEOPLE CAN BUY IT!! But again, why do the Democrats oppose measures like this? Because their end-all be-all objective is to take control of the healthcare system. They could care less what it does to the cost/quality/quantity of care.

For the millionith time treatment will not be rationed

Again, you have to be completely naive to think this (no offense). Will you please explain to me how adding 30-45 million previously uninsured to the healthcare system, while simultaneously decreasing (and yes, it will decrease significantly) the number of doctors and nurses and specialists, will not result in a shortage? This is such a simple concept....it will result in massive shortages of treatment and personnel, resulting in much longer wait times for treatment, etc.

As a result, the government (which will now control the reins) will HAVE to make decisions about who does and does not receive care for their particular ailments. This will be under the realm of Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, who gains a TON of power with this bill. I don't see why this is so hard to believe. For people to think that we are going to add this many people and we will all receive quality, timely care is insane, naive, and dangerous.

This is not some paranoid conspiracy theory, it's cold, hard economics (well, supply and demand theory applied somewhere else). I know you like science....well here it is.

[doublem]

We absolutely need to come up with solutions that makes healthcare affordable to ALL Americans.

Well, since you don't think the government can do it, I'm assuming you want a market solution, okay, name it? How will the market fix this problem? And if it so successful why haven't other countries turned to the market.

Would you favor interstate competition for insurance companies?

I don't have a problem with it but it's no long term solution. It doesn't answer the problems with price and the insurance companies would never allow such a idea to pass, it's the bottom line. You think that the answer is one that costs companies money. They don't want competition. The question is why would you favor it? Aren't you for state's rights?

For the record, I am completely opposed to the trillion dollar bailout, stimulus, etc.

But you have no problem with money spent on war?

Because it was never about improving quality/quantity of healthcare in the first place. It's about the biggest power grab by the government from the private sector in American history.

Seriously?? You are worried about the poor little health care companies that just bought off the White House, congress, and the media. Seriously?? That is your concern with the "private sector". The private sector was just swallowed hole last year by bailouts.

I know what you are implying...that because the system would be more like the VA, that makes it good.

No, that's not what I'm implying. I don't think having government doctors and hospitals is a good idea. I like France, Canada. The private/public system is a lot better, but it's still better then this system.

You make me sound like some evil rich Republican that could care less about the single mothers working 40 hours with no healthcare.

Yep. That's what I'm saying and I will even toss in most of the Dems as well.

Will you please explain to me how adding 30-45 million previously uninsured to the healthcare system, while simultaneously decreasing (and yes, it will decrease significantly) the number of doctors and nurses and specialists, will not result in a shortage? This is such a simple concept....it will result in massive shortages of treatment and personnel, resulting in much longer wait times for treatment, etc.

My idea would be to tax these companies a lot more money, tax the 1% more. Use that money to start programs to help fund more schooling for drs and such, but out of those 30-40 million not all of those people are going to be sick all the time and need treatment all the time. Massive shortages?? I don't think it will be that unbearable.

As a result, the government (which will now control the reins) will HAVE to make decisions about who does and does not receive care for their particular ailments. This will be under the realm of Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, who gains a TON of power with this bill. I don't see why this is so hard to believe. For people to think that we are going to add this many people and we will all receive quality, timely care is insane, naive, and dangerous.

Just like PRIVATE companies do everyday?? That happens right now. Why hasn't this happened in other countries? Actaully, the opposite happens everyone gets treated. Just ask Stephen Hawkins about it. He said he wouldn't be alive if it wasn't for his health care from the g. I still don't understand how you can worry about basically death panels when nothing like that has happened in all the countries that have some type of UH. Yet, the "real death panels" are here today and that is okay???

[doublem]

http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news ... f6162a05a2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yea Bernie.

As head of the central bank since 2006, Bernanke could have demanded that Wall Street provide adequate credit to small and medium-sized businesses to create decent-paying jobs in a productive economy, but he did not.

He could have insisted that large bailed-out banks end the usurious practice of charging interest rates of 30 percent or more on credit cards, but he did not.

He could have broken up too-big-to-fail financial institutions that took Federal Reserve assistance, but he did not.

He could have revealed which banks took more than $2 trillion in taxpayer-backed secret loans, but he did not.

[shafnutz05]

Hey doublem, I totally understand where you are coming from. And no, I don't think the market alone can solve this problem. We need to try solutions like giving tax credits to people that cant afford insurance, give incentives to companies to offer insurance to ALL of their employees (regardless of work status). I don't want people to go without healthcare. My mother raised my sister and I from the time I was 9, and found a way to make it work. I just think this particular bill making its way through Congress is more about increasing government control than it is improving quality and cost of care. We want the same outcome, just have different ways of approaching it.

[shafnutz05]

And for once, I might agree with Bernie Sanders in the snippet you posted

[ExPatriatePen]

As it stands, I know that everytime I stuff a cheeseburger down my throat, drink to excess and sit my fat ass in front of the "Tube", that I'm exhibiting behavior that will come back to haunt me in one way or another. Under Obama care, it ain't my problem it's society's.

Personal responsibilty? Thats so 1980's.

[shafnutz05]

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-2684 ... -unethical

Not saying this is anything that we have to worry about in the near future (say the next five or ten years), but there are a lot of advocates out there pushing for the implantation of a microchip in your skin that will be used when you go to a medical facility to bring up your background. Obviously, the potential for abuse of this system is astronomical, and it seems to be a pretty major violation of privacy. Again, this is nothing that they are implementing now, but it's something I urge you all to keep an eye on as our government moves to take more and more control of the healthcare system (and thus our lives).

[thehockeyguru]

To me Health Care is going to pose the same problem that we've seen with the housing bubble. The government by feeling that people are "entitled" to something step in and make policy so that people can easily get something that they cant afford.

[shafnutz05]

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-2684 ... -unethical

oops....quoted a link

[shafnutz05]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091203/D9CC28S00.html

This White House seriously disgusts me. Now, I consider myself a pretty reasonable guy. But I have one hell of a hard time believing that the Secret Service (which is notorious for being overly protective and cautious) would let that reality show-wannabe couple in if they were not on the official guest list. These people are as professional as they come.

And don't even get me started on one Desiree Rogers. A close friend of the Obama family, she is a celebrity/socialite wannabe. During the state dinner for India, the social secretary has always been stationed at the front to make sure the guests match the guest list and to coordinate everything. But since she wanted to be a part of the limelight, she gave herself a seat at the dinner instead of doing her duty. Fast forward to the Salahis finding their way into the White House.

Congress is calling for hearings now....but guess what? Desiree Rogers is going to be protected from testifying. For the White House to make us believe that three Secret Service agents are being placed on leave is so insulting it is ridiculous. The agents would have NEVER let that couple in unless there was some sort of "wink wink nudge nudge" going on from someone higher up on the Obama staff. Now, we are going to watch these three agents become the fall guys, as Desiree Rogers continues her happy celebrity/socialite status position.

I'm sorry, but it has become absolutely nauseating how much this administration has degraded the Office of the President. Prospective reality stars crashing f'ing state dinners? I feel like the White House is being run like a reality show right now....normally this wouldn't fire me up that much, but I am pretty positive these three agents are being made out as scapegoats. The Secret Service is not that stupid, and it's no coincidence this happened at the first Obama state dinner.

[Gaucho]

I'm sorry, but it has become absolutely nauseating how much this administration has degraded the Office of the President.

As opposed to the one before, you mean?

[shafnutz05]

I'm sorry, but it has become absolutely nauseating how much this administration has degraded the Office of the President.

As opposed to the one before, you mean?

They degraded it in different ways....

Bush couldn't give a speech to save his life in the beginning (thankfully, he got somewhat better during his second term).

Obama has turned the Office into a Hollywood reality show. It's now more about glitz and glamour then substance.

And taking that one final sentence aside, what is happening with these Secret Service agents is ridiculous. Desiree Rogers is nothing more than a debutante that got her position because she is Michelle's friend, and naturally she will be protected from testifying at THEIR hearing.

[doublem]

http://www.benzinga.com/economics/53298 ... rity-money" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yesterday, Ben "Bubbles" Bernanke - testifying before the Senate Finance Committee that is considering his reappointment as Fed chairman - called for cutbacks in Medicare and Social Security even as unemployment rises and the middle class is endangered

More defense of his criminal friends. They are literally coming for your S.S. What a crap system we have.

[doublem]

Bush couldn't give a speech to save his life in the beginning (thankfully, he got somewhat better during his second term).

You have seem to miss the part where he wired tapped citizens,breaking the law numerous times, broke international law of war, and tortured people, and broke half the BOR in the process. Ahhh I guess those are small things. BTW, did you know that about 54% of this country thinks torture is A ok, where in Iran only 36% think that. The U.S. rankest highest in the world in terms of the citizenry cheering on torture.

[shafnutz05]

I have absolutely no problem with enhanced interrogation. No one is condoning torture just for the hell of it. I am sorry, but if a terrorist murderer is caught on the battlefield, is known to have vital information, and refuses to divulge it with a smile on his face? Oh well.

I like you phrase it as "cheering on torture". As if we would condone torture for anyone that disagrees with us, or we want as much torture as possible. If you want to issue Miranda Rights to terrorists, that's fine. Unfortunately, the rest of us recognize that we are in a battle against radical jihadism, and there are many people that will never rest until they wipe the "infidels" off the Earth.

[doublem]

The rest of the world seems to have a problem with it and so did this country at one point, even the sainted RR opposed such a thing.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention. . . . Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.

The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called "universal jurisdiction." Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution.

Convention Against Torture, signed and championed by Ronald Reagan, Article II/IV:

No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. . . Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law.

It actually goes treaties that the U.S. itself signed

Currently just over half of Americans say that the use of torture against suspected terrorists in order to gain important information can either often (19%) or sometimes (35%) be justified. This is the first time in over five years of Pew Research polling on this question that a majority has expressed these views. Another 16% say torture can rarely be justified, while 25% say it can never be justified.

In Iran, for instance, only 36% believe that torture can be justified in some cases, while 43% believe all torture must be strictly prohibited. Similarly, 66% of Palestinians, 54% of Egyptians, and over 80% of Western Europeans believe torture is always wrong. The U.S. has a far lower percentage than all of those nations of individuals who believe that torture should always be prohibited. At least on the level of the citizenry (as opposed to government), we're basically the leading torture advocacy state in the world.

[shafnutz05]

I think there's a good reason for that. Western Europe goes without saying. They have always been more "progressive" (for lack of a better word) than the US, so that does not surprise me. But does it really surprise you that less people support torture in Palestine, Egypt, and most of the Middle East? I am sure that has a lot to do with the fact that these governments routinely use torture against their own citizens for something as little as running a blog that comments on the leadership. If I lived in that kind of country, I am sure I wouldn't be a big fan of torture either.

[doublem]

I think there's a good reason for that. Western Europe goes without saying. They have always been more "progressive" (for lack of a better word) than the US, so that does not surprise me. But does it really surprise you that less people support torture in Palestine, Egypt, and most of the Middle East? I am sure that has a lot to do with the fact that these governments routinely use torture against their own citizens for something as little as running a blog that comments on the leadership. If I lived in that kind of country, I am sure I wouldn't be a big fan of torture either.

I guess recently you could say they were "progressive" but not during WW2, not for decades before that but that's beside the point, the international community, not to mention the Constitution of this country opposes such disgusting acts and the U.S. has been involved in conventions saying that ALL members should be punished. I don't know where this idea that West. Europe is always "progressive" they have been killing each other for centuries, maybe they finally figured it out. Yea, people that are tortured generally oppose such things so what does that tell you? Maybe, we shouldn't be doing it and better yet not tell the rest of the world that we have the moral high ground after doing things we agreed to never do, it's hypocritical and immoral.