Obama Care

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

A link from an insurance company? ...come on man...just scanned the first few pages...it says 1/3 are eligible for government assistance but aren't enrolled. These are people the government isn't paying for through various programs (i.e. medicaid, SCHIP, etc) so I'm not sure how you translated that to "82% covered or not really needing gov't coverage."

and of course the U.S. Census Bureau isn't influenced in any way by politicians & gov't bureaucrats interested in expanding the gov't sphere of influence.....

So before you completely discount the link, I'll break it down for you. The Census Bereau estimate of "uninsured" is 45.7M. What the Blue Cross, Blue Shield asserts is the following:

Of the 45.7M
- 14M would qualify for Medicaid/SCHIP or another gov't program to provide coverage.
- 13M make over $ 50K or more and have access to coverage and chose not to pay for it.
- 5.7M are short-term uninsured, or people who are between jobs, college grad, etc.
Total = 32.7M

The 8.2M number isn't in the link, and I'll have to look for where I found it again, but the 8.2M number includes an estimate of about 4.8M for illegal immigrants who were counted as "uninsured" by Census. Either way the 45.7M is grossly over-estimated. Using 8.2M as the real number of uninsured we have accounted for 82% of the 45.7M that you want covered....and we haven't passed any legislation or spent a dime.

Now back to my voucher point, why can't we use some sort of voucher for these 8.2M to buy private insurance, pass legislation limiting awards to malpractice lawsuits and see how things go, without a masive gov't intervention into health care.

[BringBackJoeT]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

1) Flatly wrong, absolutely not. Did I neglect to mention what was basically a war tax during the Civil War and the 1890s short-lived income tax, yes. But the basic premise is correct, the 16th ammendment wasn't in place until 1913.
2) I don't think you will read it. And I guess anyone who has a different opinion that those on the left is automatically "biased" and their ideas don't merit consideration.
3) GDAS got it http://www.thewarpath.net/parking-lo...tml#post568847
But to be clear the point is, people were making money in this country and it was growing just fine economically long before the income tax and the obscene amounts of federal government taxation/regulation/intervention today. I hate to hear the argument that the rich/successful wouldn't be so without the federal government, so they basically "owe" the government a much higher tax rate. This argument is so far from reality it's ridiculous.

Okay, maybe I won't rush out to buy the Bortz book you suggested. But if I did, it would be far from the first time I've read a book from "the other side," so to speak. Seriously, though, I checked it out on Amazon, and noted one of his other books is "The Terrible Truth About Liberals," and that under the "Customers Who Bought This Book Also Bought" section there is included Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" and Levin's "Conservative Manifesto."

You'd have to admit this is a background that would be hard to separate from the substance if I were to read it. I know, I know--I would actually have to pick it up before I could make any true judgments. But really, how much hope does someone writing from a virulently partisan standpoint really have of changing the mind of someone from the opposite side of the aisle? This, obviously, is criticism that extends to the left as much as the right.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by dmek25

•According to Statistics Canada, the official government statistical agency, "In 2005, the median waiting time was about 4 weeks for specialist visits, 4 weeks for non-emergency surgery, and 3 weeks for diagnostic tests. Nationally, median waiting times remained stable between 2003 and 2005 - but there were some differences at the provincial level for selected specialized services.… 70 to 80 percent of Canadians find their waiting times acceptable" "Access to health care services in Canada, Waiting times for specialized services (January to December 2005)," Statistics Canada, http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepu...75-XIE/82-575-
seems like about what we have here in the U.S. right now

Go no further than wiki to blow the above argument up.

Health care in Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wait times
One of the major complaints about the Canadian health care system is waiting times, whether for a specialist, major elective surgery, such as hip replacement, imaging procedures such as MRI or Cystoscopy, or specialized treatments, such as radiation for breast cancer. Studies by the Commonwealth Fund found that 57% of Canadians reported waiting 4 weeks or more to see a specialist; 24% of Canadians waited 4 hours or more in the emergency room.[24]
A March 2, 2004, article in the Canadian Medical Association Journal stated, "Saskatchewan is under fire for having the longest waiting time in the country for a diagnostic MRI—a whopping 22 months." [25]
A February 28, 2006, article in The New York Times quoted Dr. Brian Day as saying, "This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week and in which humans can wait two to three years."[26] The Canadian Health Coalition has responded succinctly to these claims, pointing out that "access to veterinary care for animals is based on ability to pay. Dogs are put down if their owners can’t pay. Access to care should not be based on ability to pay." [27] The CHC is one of many groups across Canada calling for increased provincial and federal funding for medicare and an end to provincial funding cuts as solutions to unacceptable wait times [28]. In a 2007 episode of ABC News's 20/20 titled "Sick in America," host John Stossel cited numerous examples of Canadians who did not get the health care that they needed. [29]
According to the Fraser Institute, treatment time from initial referral by a GP through consultation with a specialist to final treatment, across all specialties and all procedures (emergency, non-urgent, and elective), averaged 17.7 weeks in 2005.[30][31] However, the Fraser Institute's report is greatly at odds with the Canadian government's own 2007 report.[32]
Since 2002, the Canadian government has invested $5.5 billion to address the wait times problem.[33] In April 2007, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced that all ten provinces and three territories would establish patient wait times guarantees by 2010. Canadians will be guaranteed timely access to health care in at least one of the following priority areas, prioritized by each province: cancer care, hip and knee replacement, cardiac care, diagnostic imaging, cataract surgeries or primary care.[34]

Canadians visiting the U.S. to receive health care



Some residents of Canada travel to the United States because it provides the nearest facilty for their needs. Some do so on quality grounds or because of easier access.

• According to a September 14, 2007, article from CTV News, Canadian Liberal MP Belinda Stronach went to the United States for breast cancer surgery in June 2007. Stronach's spokesperson Greg MacEachern was quoted in the article saying that the US was the best place to have this type of surgery done. Stronach paid for the surgery out of her own pocket.[45] Prior to this incident, Stronach had stated in an interview that she was against two-tiered health care.[46]
• When Robert Bourassa, the premier of Quebec, needed cancer treatment, he went to the US to get it.[47]
• In 2007, it was reported that Canada sent scores of pregnant women to the US to give birth.[48] In 2007 a woman from Calgary who was pregnant with quadruplets was sent to Great Falls, Montana to give birth. An article on this incident states, "There was no room at any other Canadian neonatal intensive care unit."[49]
• Champion figure skater Audrey Williams needed a hip replacement. Even though she waited two years and suffered in pain, she still did not get the surgery, because the waiting list was so long. So she went to the US and spent her own money to get the surgery.[50]
• A January 19, 2008, article in The Globe And Mail states, "More than 150 critically ill Canadians – many with life-threatening cerebral hemorrhages – have been rushed to the United States since the spring of 2006 because they could not obtain intensive-care beds here. Before patients with bleeding in or outside the brain have been whisked through U.S. operating-room doors, some have languished for as long as eight hours in Canadian emergency wards while health-care workers scrambled to locate care." [51]
• While some Canadians have gone to the US to receive health care services, the numbers are few and insignificant when compared to the population as a whole. Also note that travel costs to the US as well as other expenses make this trip to the US affordable only to those that have the money to do so. Many health care lobbyists in the US are using the argument that Canadians come to the US for treatment because they want to block a public option in the US.

Pretty damning of that country's system when the Premier goes out-of-country to get treatment. And he came here to use our "terrible" system.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by BringBackJoeT

Okay, maybe I won't rush out to buy the Bortz book you suggested. But if I did, it would be far from the first time I've read a book from "the other side," so to speak. Seriously, though, I checked it out on Amazon, and noted one of his other books is "The Terrible Truth About Liberals," and that under the "Customers Who Bought This Book Also Bought" section there is included Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" and Levin's "Conservative Manifesto."

You'd have to admit this is a background that would be hard to separate from the substance if I were to read it. I know, I know--I would actually have to pick it up before I could make any true judgments. But really, how much hope does someone writing from a virulently partisan standpoint really have of changing the mind of someone from the opposite side of the aisle? This, obviously, is criticism that extends to the left as much as the right.

Here's a link from a CNN Money writer abou the FairTax Book, not your traditional liberal bashing book (although that is good fun).

Money Magazine: Just how fair is the 'FairTax'? - Sep. 7, 2005

If you really want to read the book, PM me and I'll let you borrow mine. There is also a follow-on book that discusses many of the arguments from detractors of the plan.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

I am loving all this back an forth on thsi thread now.

I did want to comment on the bolded remark above.

Not to put it too harshly but that is a load of crap. Humans, not just Americans, act based on self-interest. No one does anything that doesn't bring some type of satisfaction to their own self-interest. It's the way we work. Hell it is the way all living beings work. This notion of "conscious thinking" is silly because we are all driven by our own unconscious thinking that we can, by definition, not control. Can we do better? Maybe but there isn't going to be some magical shift in base human action. It isn't something we can change any more than you can change how tall you are or what color your eyes are.

Self-interest is a product of the ego. You are not your ego -- it is separate from who you are, and it is a product of your mind. If you disagree, ask yourself: if you lose all your possessions are you any less? Your ego would say yes, because it identifies with forms. But if you are conscious, even in the slightest bit, you will understand why that is untrue. Perhaps you are totally unconscious. It is a plague that permeates mankind, so I wouldn't be surprised. However, I have hope that people will eventually awaken from their unconsciousness and be free of egoic thinking.

We are not, "driven by our own unconscious thinking," -- you are either driven by conscious thought, or by your ego (if you are unconscious). Since I suspect you are totally unconscious, I can understand why you think the ego is uncontrollable -- it has become you.

Conscious thinking is to be aware of your ego, and not let it control you (or be you, if you will). Do you think it is impossible to deny your ego? Would you be afraid of the results?

Jesus said, "Deny thyself." What do you think he meant?

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Now your getting it! And understand there will NEVER be a thought process shift in humanity like you mention. Don't forget, Communism was tried and failed miserably and left millions dead in its wake (Soviet Union, Cambodia, China).

The Black Book of Communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Never? I can tell you're old.

Just because you would rather consider yourself before others, doesn't mean everyone does (or will continue to).

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

Self-interest is a product of the ego. You are not your ego -- it is separate from who you are, and it is a product of your mind. If you disagree, ask yourself: if you lose all your possessions are you any less? Your ego would say yes, because it identifies with forms. But if you are conscious, even in the slightest bit, you will understand why that is untrue. Perhaps you are totally unconscious. It is a plague that permeates mankind, so I wouldn't be surprised. However, I have hope that people will eventually awaken from their unconsciousness and be free of egoic thinking.

We are not, "driven by our own unconscious thinking," -- you are either driven by conscious thought, or by your ego (if you are unconscious). Since I suspect you are totally unconscious, I can understand why you think the ego is uncontrollable -- it has become you.

Conscious thinking is to be aware of your ego, and not let it control you (or be you, if you will). Do you think it is impossible to deny your ego? Would you be afraid of the results?

Jesus said, "Deny thyself." What do you think he meant?

Holy cow man there may be no hope for you. I don't think you get it.

[GMScud]

Administration Delaying Release of Key Economic Report

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

Never? I can tell you're old.

Just because you would rather consider yourself before others, doesn't mean everyone does (or will continue to).

And us "old folks" find the term "old" offensive. I thought you youthful idealists soaking up the wonderful radical left-wing, anti-U.S. propaganda from the pot-smoking, hippie, anti-war college professors would've had a course or two on Political Correctness and learned the proper term to describe us is "experienced". J/K

Anyway, I make my statement based on the historical fact that men have always sought to dominate/control other men for their own gain. In reality, not theory, Communism dictates rights come from the "state" (other men). These men are subject to human failings and we see what happens (my previous post, 94M dead). This wonderful experiment in democracy and the belief that all men have rights not given by other men, but by God, is currently the greatest force for freedom from government oppression the world has ever seen. Once you've "experienced" a bit more of life I'm sure you'll be a great voice for democracy and conservatism.

Haven't you heard the quote; "If you aren't a liberal at 20 you have no heart, if you aren't conservative at 40 you have no brain".

[saden1]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

Self-interest is a product of the ego. You are not your ego -- it is separate from who you are, and it is a product of your mind. If you disagree, ask yourself: if you lose all your possessions are you any less? Your ego would say yes, because it identifies with forms. But if you are conscious, even in the slightest bit, you will understand why that is untrue. Perhaps you are totally unconscious. It is a plague that permeates mankind, so I wouldn't be surprised. However, I have hope that people will eventually awaken from their unconsciousness and be free of egoic thinking.

We are not, "driven by our own unconscious thinking," -- you are either driven by conscious thought, or by your ego (if you are unconscious). Since I suspect you are totally unconscious, I can understand why you think the ego is uncontrollable -- it has become you.

Conscious thinking is to be aware of your ego, and not let it control you (or be you, if you will). Do you think it is impossible to deny your ego? Would you be afraid of the results?

Jesus said, "Deny thyself." What do you think he meant?

Too much philosophizing dog. I don't think you're dealing with the ego so much as the id....these folks are concerned with keeping more of their money.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

Too much philosophizing dog. I don't think you're dealing with the ego so much as the id....these folks are concerned with keeping more of their money.

aaaaaannnnddd were out. Saden is back to his dodge, avoid, deny. So close to actual self realization and he backs out.

Nope. Never been the problem and never been the assertion. Solve the problem in something approaching a cost effective manner and everybody on this board would go with you. Don't solve it or create a solution so expensive as it is doomed to fail, and no one backs it.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Holy cow man there may be no hope for you. I don't think you get it.

LOL, yeah I guess I'm doomed. What a terrible way to think, huh? I'm so dysfunctional.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

And us "old folks" find the term "old" offensive. I thought you youthful idealists soaking up the wonderful radical left-wing, anti-U.S. propaganda from the pot-smoking, hippie, anti-war college professors would've had a course or two on Political Correctness and learned the proper term to describe us is "experienced". J/K

Anyway, I make my statement based on the historical fact that men have always sought to dominate/control other men for their own gain. In reality, not theory, Communism dictates rights come from the "state" (other men). These men are subject to human failings and we see what happens (my previous post, 94M dead). This wonderful experiment in democracy and the belief that all men have rights not given by other men, but by God, is currently the greatest force for freedom from government oppression the world has ever seen. Once you've "experienced" a bit more of life I'm sure you'll be a great voice for democracy and conservatism.

Haven't you heard the quote; "If you aren't a liberal at 20 you have no heart, if you aren't conservative at 40 you have no brain".

You must have missed the point where I said once we have shifted to conscious thinking. The idea is that if we could deny our egos, a commune would best serve everyone. Hard to believe, I know.

Also, don't stereotype too much. You have no idea what my beliefs are. Just because I try to think positive, I must be all those "bad" things you mentioned?

Haven't you heard the quote: "You can't teach an old dog new tricks."

BTW, I'm mostly conservative -- trust me.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by saden1

Too much philosophizing dog. I don't think you're dealing with the ego so much as the id....these folks are concerned with keeping more of their money.

You really don't get it do you Saden, its not about keeping more money, it is about what type of government can actually work in this world. Its about not putting a massive debt on our childrens backs that will bury the promises of this country. You can ignore my posts on the debt as much as you want but that doesn't make it less real. Are their some who only think its about leave my money alone, sure, and ya know if they earned it, and contribute back reasonably, there is nothing wrong with that sentiment. But the big and real debates around the uhc is about what our future will be like, I for one would like it to be fiscally sound first, from their we can do all sorts of great things.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

and of course the U.S. Census Bureau isn't influenced in any way by politicians & gov't bureaucrats interested in expanding the gov't sphere of influence.....

So before you completely discount the link, I'll break it down for you. The Census Bereau estimate of "uninsured" is 45.7M. What the Blue Cross, Blue Shield asserts is the following:

Of the 45.7M
- 14M would qualify for Medicaid/SCHIP or another gov't program to provide coverage.
- 13M make over $ 50K or more and have access to coverage and chose not to pay for it.
- 5.7M are short-term uninsured, or people who are between jobs, college grad, etc.
Total = 32.7M

The 8.2M number isn't in the link, and I'll have to look for where I found it again, but the 8.2M number includes an estimate of about 4.8M for illegal immigrants who were counted as "uninsured" by Census. Either way the 45.7M is grossly over-estimated. Using 8.2M as the real number of uninsured we have accounted for 82% of the 45.7M that you want covered....and we haven't passed any legislation or spent a dime.

Now back to my voucher point, why can't we use some sort of voucher for these 8.2M to buy private insurance, pass legislation limiting awards to malpractice lawsuits and see how things go, without a masive gov't intervention into health care.

You know what really bothers me? That you think the Census Bureau and BCBS are on the same playing field. I really did look at the document looking for methodology used and all I got was "Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002; BCBSA analysis." WTF does that mean? How did they arrive at "13M make over $ 50K" is beyond me.

I'm sorry but this document is totally unacceptable.