Here's what the GOP promises to do for YOU

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

*looks at all of those countries that "ration" health care* hmmm many seem to have significantly healthier populations than we do. odd...

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

http://www.allcountries.org/ranks/preventable_deaths_country_ranks_1997-1998_2002-2003_2008.html

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthy_life_table2.html

http://www.photius.com/rankings/world_health_performance_ranks.html

http://www.photius.com/rankings/total_health_expenditure_as_pecent_of_gdp_2000_to_2005.html

airshocker

I'm not okay with a system that prevents a woman from getting treatment that works against breast cancer because it's too expensive.

I'm not okay with a system where bureaucrats are in charge of what options I can choose to help me.

for the record BOTH of those have happened in the US under current systems.

the democratic party doesnt set health care premiums. If you dont like insurance companies raping you financially... maybe you should be blaming the insurance companies.

that would afterall, be logical.

markinthedark

It's logical to blame the party that pushed through legislation that gives the health insurance companies an excuse to raise premiums.

for the record BOTH of those have happened in the US under current systems.

Guybrush_3

Proof?

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

yeah we should have gone to a single payer system so that we could kill BS excuses for insurance companies to hike rates, and save that %15+ of pure profit that they are taking off of the top.

airshocker

Yeah because rationing healthcare is such a great idea!!!!

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

We seem to be talking about two entirely different things here. :P

airshocker

No I know what you're saying Gabu, but before I lambaste them I want to see what gets done. :P

Tsk, tsk, is that the-end-justifies-the-means logic I hear coming from you...? :P

Republicans don't seem to have that big an issue with rationing when it's the insurance companies that are doing it. -Sun_Tzu-

One of the good things the healthcare billed fixed.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

Here's what the democratic party says they will do for you!

Fix economy - Not done

Human rights! Human rights! - The current democratic president is a social conservative and so are many democrats!!

Let the bush tax cuts expire! - Damn we need someone to pay for our failure of a healthcare bill huh?

markinthedark

how could they fix the economy with the GOP putting a policy in place to halt all activity in the senate?

and we dont need someone to pay for the healthcare bill... if i recall its projected to actually save money. What we need someone to pay for is the fact that millions of american jobs are gone and not coming back... and thats a whole ton of tax revenue that has disintegrated.

I don't care what happened, it was promised and it was not kept, end of story.

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

for the record BOTH of those have happened in the US under current systems.

airshocker

Proof?

Tsk, tsk, is that the-end-justifies-the-means logic I hear coming from you...? :P

GabuEx

I'm going back to Assassin's Creed and pretending all my targets are you. :P

In regards to healthcare, I think the dems really should have pushed the issue that the current system is not sustainable. Even if you have insurance today, you will likely NOT be able to afford it in the future the way things are progressing. That way the 70% of the population with insurance may take more of an interest in the debate. That doing nothing is not an option. The status quo won't remain with inaction.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]Yes, because premiums have been going up for YEARS ANYWAY.-Sun_Tzu-

I have never had a premium increase like the ones I've been getting. It's insane. Don't talk to me about your coveted democratic party when they don't seem to be helping me out AT ALL.

I'll take my chances with the Republicans being obstructionists.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Tsk, tsk, is that the-end-justifies-the-means logic I hear coming from you...? :P

airshocker

I'm going back to Assassin's Creed and pretending all my targets are you. :P

I love you too. :P

It's pretty well-known now that insurance companies do everything in their power to make sure that they pay for as little treatment as possible. A sick insured person who requires treatment is referred to as a "medical loss" in the insurance industry. And yes, this means that they have denied covering life-saving treatments, like treatment for breast cancer, for the sake of profit. -Sun_Tzu-

But now they can't.,

Whereas Britain's NHS is no dream option to this day.

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

for the record BOTH of those have happened in the US under current systems.

airshocker

Proof?

http://www.globe-democrat.com/news/2010/nov/17/man-denied-new-liver-because-of-cost/

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/17/eveningnews/main5318652.shtml

and every health insurance company ever has bureaucrats deciding your options. What medications they will pay for, what doctors and procedures they will pay for etc.

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

for the record BOTH of those have happened in the US under current systems.

airshocker

Proof?

um...it happens all the time.

http://www.kmbc.com/r/4539521/detail.html

http://www.carcinoid.org/content/what-if-insurance-wont-pay

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/cancer/articles/2009/02/05/cancer-patients-often-stranded-in-health.html

I worked in a hospital this summer. And I can tell you first hand that insurance will try to wiggle their way out of paying for virtually every expensive medication they can get away with. And if you have **** insurance, you are screwed if you get sick with something expensive.

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

Here's what the democratic party says they will do for you!

Fix economy - Not done

Human rights! Human rights! - The current democratic president is a social conservative and so are many democrats!!

Let the bush tax cuts expire! - Damn we need someone to pay for our failure of a healthcare bill huh?

AutoPilotOn

how could they fix the economy with the GOP putting a policy in place to halt all activity in the senate?

and we dont need someone to pay for the healthcare bill... if i recall its projected to actually save money. What we need someone to pay for is the fact that millions of american jobs are gone and not coming back... and thats a whole ton of tax revenue that has disintegrated.

From what I heard arent the states required to pay into the healthcare? I may be wrong but I coulda sworn I heard that. So while it may cost less for federal someone the states have to make up difference?

i honestly dont have a clue... i suppose its possible. But even so its a moot point.... the heathcare bill isnt responsible in the slightest for the federal or state defecits. Its the fact that we lost millions of jobs.

trying to somehow make the healthcare bill responsible is simply ludicrous... its a political tactic and nothing more.

I love you too. :P

GabuEx

I'm just kidding. I'm pretending they're someone else, and no, not you Sun_Tzu. :P

And you know what. Screw EVERY LAST ONE OF YOU that is against the healthcare bill. If it weren't for that bill. In a few months I would be off of my parents insurance and have not be able to pay for my $400 a month worth of medication that I need.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]It's pretty well-known now that insurance companies do everything in their power to make sure that they pay for as little treatment as possible. A sick insured person who requires treatment is referred to as a "medical loss" in the insurance industry. And yes, this means that they have denied covering life-saving treatments, like treatment for breast cancer, for the sake of profit. airshocker

But now they can't.,

Whereas Britain's NHS is no dream option to this day.

http://www.globe-democrat.com/news/2010/nov/17/man-denied-new-liver-because-of-cost/

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/17/eveningnews/main5318652.shtml

and every health insurance company ever has bureaucrats deciding your options. What medications they will pay for, what doctors and procedures they will pay for etc.

Guybrush_3

All right, I'll concede that but it still doesn't prove the government can do it any better. The government cares about money too.

Not if the Republican base gets its way and repeals the health care law. As for the NHS, there are a lot of things not to like about it, but the NHS outperforms the U.S. health care system in a lot of ways and it is much, much cheaper. And it's also very, very popular - not even Thatcher could get rid of it and no Tory with any political ambition whatsoever would today (at least publicly) oppose the NHS. -Sun_Tzu-

This law SHOULD be repealed and replaced with something BETTER.

No one is saying it's entirely bad, but there are definitely some bad parts to it.

Who knows, maybe Paul Ryan who TOLD Obama what the healthcare bill would do, and he was right, will get a chance to add some of his fixes.

And democrats did this when republicans were in power so what its called politics.

Its nothing new at all its just a way to spin news to blame republicans

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

http://www.globe-democrat.com/news/2010/nov/17/man-denied-new-liver-because-of-cost/

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/17/eveningnews/main5318652.shtml

and every health insurance company ever has bureaucrats deciding your options. What medications they will pay for, what doctors and procedures they will pay for etc.

airshocker

All right, I'll concede that but it still doesn't prove the government can do it any better. The government cares about money too.

The government isn't for profit. They don't have to consider it a loss when someone gets sick. They aren't trying to make huge profits like corporations are. All they need to cover is operating costs. (about 5% compared to 20% average that most insurance companies take off of the top)

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

the democratic party doesnt set health care premiums. If you dont like insurance companies raping you financially... maybe you should be blaming the insurance companies.

that would afterall, be logical.

airshocker

It's logical to blame the party that pushed through legislation that gives the health insurance companies an excuse to raise premiums.

so the culprit are the people that give insurance companies an excuse and not the insurance companies themselves? doesnt that sound a little ridiculous?

insurance companies are always looking for an excuse to hike rates... the healthcare bill is going to give them millions of new customers... they arent going out of business if they dont hike rates, they just love making money.

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

*looks at all of those countries that "ration" health care* hmmm many seem to have significantly healthier populations than we do. odd...

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

http://www.allcountries.org/ranks/preventable_deaths_country_ranks_1997-1998_2002-2003_2008.html

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthy_life_table2.html

http://www.photius.com/rankings/world_health_performance_ranks.html

http://www.photius.com/rankings/total_health_expenditure_as_pecent_of_gdp_2000_to_2005.html

airshocker

I'm not okay with a system that prevents a woman from getting treatment that works against breast cancer because it's too expensive.

I'm not okay with a system where bureaucrats are in charge of what options I can choose to help me.

The government isn't for profit. They don't have to consider it a loss when someone gets sick. They aren't trying to make huge profits like corporations are. All they need to cover is operating costs. (about 5% compared to 20% average that most insurance companies take off of the top)

Guybrush_3

That's not going to prevent them for rationing care. It didn't with the NHS.

I don't trust a system like that and I probably never will.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]Not if the Republican base gets its way and repeals the health care law. As for the NHS, there are a lot of things not to like about it, but the NHS outperforms the U.S. health care system in a lot of ways and it is much, much cheaper. And it's also very, very popular - not even Thatcher could get rid of it and no Tory with any political ambition whatsoever would today (at least publicly) oppose the NHS. airshocker

This law SHOULD be repealed and replaced with something BETTER.

No one is saying it's entirely bad, but there are definitely some bad parts to it.

Who knows, maybe Paul Ryan who TOLD Obama what the healthcare bill would do, and he was right, will get a chance to add some of his fixes.

Out of curiosity, what would 'better" be, and what are the bad parts in it?

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

http://www.globe-democrat.com/news/2010/nov/17/man-denied-new-liver-because-of-cost/

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/17/eveningnews/main5318652.shtml

and every health insurance company ever has bureaucrats deciding your options. What medications they will pay for, what doctors and procedures they will pay for etc.

airshocker

All right, I'll concede that but it still doesn't prove the government can do it any better. The government cares about money too.

not, directly, but its worth stating that America is ranked 37th in the world in health care.

I dont know off the top of my head which of those 36 have goverment run health care, but Im seeing a huge amount that do. In fact most of the ones seem to have it.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]Not if the Republican base gets its way and repeals the health care law. As for the NHS, there are a lot of things not to like about it, but the NHS outperforms the U.S. health care system in a lot of ways and it is much, much cheaper. And it's also very, very popular - not even Thatcher could get rid of it and no Tory with any political ambition whatsoever would today (at least publicly) oppose the NHS. GabuEx

This law SHOULD be repealed and replaced with something BETTER.

No one is saying it's entirely bad, but there are definitely some bad parts to it.

Who knows, maybe Paul Ryan who TOLD Obama what the healthcare bill would do, and he was right, will get a chance to add some of his fixes.

Out of curiosity, what would 'better" be, and what are the bad parts in it?

Out of curiosity, what would 'better" be, and what are the bad parts in it?

GabuEx

I just listed some of the bad parts to it near the beginning of the thread.

Here's something I read a couple days ago that lists what can be done to help fix healthcare.

Republican robot mantra: TORT REFORM TORT REFORM TORT REFORM TORT REFORM.....wstfld

Maybe you should wait for me to respond before you guess at what I'm going to say.

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

The government isn't for profit. They don't have to consider it a loss when someone gets sick. They aren't trying to make huge profits like corporations are. All they need to cover is operating costs. (about 5% compared to 20% average that most insurance companies take off of the top)

airshocker

That's not going to prevent them for rationing care. It didn't with the NHS.

I don't trust a system like that and I probably never will.

so it boils down to a fear based thing. Some folks are scared of change, others embrace it. But you cant have progress without change. The republican motto does seem to be "its different, be afraid" and it seems like it hit a chord with alot of folks.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]Not if the Republican base gets its way and repeals the health care law. As for the NHS, there are a lot of things not to like about it, but the NHS outperforms the U.S. health care system in a lot of ways and it is much, much cheaper. And it's also very, very popular - not even Thatcher could get rid of it and no Tory with any political ambition whatsoever would today (at least publicly) oppose the NHS. airshocker

This law SHOULD be repealed and replaced with something BETTER.

No one is saying it's entirely bad, but there are definitely some bad parts to it.

Who knows, maybe Paul Ryan who TOLD Obama what the healthcare bill would do, and he was right, will get a chance to add some of his fixes.

so it boils down to a fear based thing. Some folks are scared of change, others embrace it. But you cant have progress without change. The republican motto does seem to be "its different, be afraid" and it seems like it hit a chord with alot of folks.

markinthedark

Or, if it sounds too good to be true it usually is.

I wish that were actually the case, but it isn't. There is nothing more conservative that the GOP can do that insures as many people as the new health care law. Especially considering that the new health care law was originally the GOP plan for around 20 years, being proposed in 1993 as a counter to HillaryCare and being voted for by Scott Brown and signed into law by Mitt Romney in 2006 in Massachusetts. The only thing that the GOP can do is make the health care law worse if they continue to exhibit the same amount of partisanship and ideological dogmatism. -Sun_Tzu-

I don't agree with that at all.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Out of curiosity, what would 'better" be, and what are the bad parts in it?

airshocker

I just listed some of the bad parts to it near the beginning of the thread.

Here's something I read a couple days ago that lists what can be done to help fix healthcare.

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

so it boils down to a fear based thing. Some folks are scared of change, others embrace it. But you cant have progress without change. The republican motto does seem to be "its different, be afraid" and it seems like it hit a chord with alot of folks.

airshocker

Or, if it sounds too good to be true it usually is.

except its worked so well in every other 1st world country....

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Out of curiosity, what would 'better" be, and what are the bad parts in it?

airshocker

I just listed some of the bad parts to it near the beginning of the thread.

Here's something I read a couple days ago that lists what can be done to help fix healthcare.

You listed what you saw as bad effects, but I'm asking what parts of the actual act are bad.

As for the link, unless I'm misreading it, it seems as though that's Medicare reform, not general health care reform.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

*looks at all of those countries that "ration" health care* hmmm many seem to have significantly healthier populations than we do. odd...

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

http://www.allcountries.org/ranks/preventable_deaths_country_ranks_1997-1998_2002-2003_2008.html

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthy_life_table2.html

http://www.photius.com/rankings/world_health_performance_ranks.html

http://www.photius.com/rankings/total_health_expenditure_as_pecent_of_gdp_2000_to_2005.html

wstfld

I'm not okay with a system that prevents a woman from getting treatment that works against breast cancer because it's too expensive.

I'm not okay with a system where bureaucrats are in charge of what options I can choose to help me.

Well you can't really expect them to pay for experimental treatments can you?

i support this 100%. those radical liberals are always wanting to steal money from the rich and as you all know the rich are doing the worst in this economy

[QUOTE="wstfld"][QUOTE="airshocker"]

I'm not okay with a system that prevents a woman from getting treatment that works against breast cancer because it's too expensive.

I'm not okay with a system where bureaucrats are in charge of what options I can choose to help me.

Espada12

Well you can't really expect them to pay for experimental treatments can you?

What Paul Ryan wants to do is effectively privatize medicare, which will inevitably lead to more rationing and less seniors getting the care they need. -Sun_Tzu-

That's conjecture from you. I'm sorry, but I trust Ryan a lot more than an OTer.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]I wish that were actually the case, but it isn't. There is nothing more conservative that the GOP can do that insures as many people as the new health care law. Especially considering that the new health care law was originally the GOP plan for around 20 years, being proposed in 1993 as a counter to HillaryCare and being voted for by Scott Brown and signed into law by Mitt Romney in 2006 in Massachusetts. The only thing that the GOP can do is make the health care law worse if they continue to exhibit the same amount of partisanship and ideological dogmatism. airshocker

I don't agree with that at all.

except its worked so well in every other 1st world country....

cobrax55

Then move there. The EU isn't doing so hot. And who can blame them? I wouldn't be willing to pay the kind of taxes they have.

[QUOTE="wstfld"][QUOTE="airshocker"]

I'm not okay with a system that prevents a woman from getting treatment that works against breast cancer because it's too expensive.

I'm not okay with a system where bureaucrats are in charge of what options I can choose to help me.

Espada12

Well you can't really expect them to pay for experimental treatments can you?

Most socialized systems do. Most insurrances do as well, its just incredibly prolonged because you need a doctor to contact the insurrence agency directly.

... The only thing that the GOP can do is make the health care law worse if they continue to exhibit the same amount of partisanship and ideological dogmatism.-Sun_Tzu-

That's what I don't agree with, apologies.

[QUOTE="cobrax55"]

except its worked so well in every other 1st world country....

airshocker

Then move there. The EU isn't doing so hot. And who can blame them? I wouldn't be willing to pay the kind of taxes they have.

And yet the living conditions are better in many European countries then they are in America...

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

so it boils down to a fear based thing. Some folks are scared of change, others embrace it. But you cant have progress without change. The republican motto does seem to be "its different, be afraid" and it seems like it hit a chord with alot of folks.

airshocker

Or, if it sounds too good to be true it usually is.

on a normal basis i would be inclined to agree with you. But we arent treading new ground. Tons of other countries have a plethora of different healthcare systems in place working far better than ours... that have been tested and proven over a very long span of time. We have alot of examples to study and are fully capable of making a very educated decision to improve our healthcare system.

the main problem is, that for your healthcare to be cheaper... someone has to make less money off you. And the people making money, really like making money... and really dont want to see your healthcare be cheaper.

And yet the living conditions are better in many European countries then they are in America...

cobrax55

I'm living easy enough. Even though my taxes are too high and my premiums are going up.