I am 23, an American Citizen with government run health care.

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

Of all the times you could have picked to stand your ground, including on YOUR tax money spent to kill others, educate others, etc, why on health care?

What has triggered this sudden awakening and aggressive defense of your hard earned money?

It must be something, and the only thing I can think of is that it is politically based. Another example of party before country dogma.

I think it's primarily because:

A.) It's going to effect everyone, no offense but wars (at least our recent ones) and education don't directly effect everyone.

B.) It's a major overhaul of something, that is being done by only one Party. Usually, with matters like this, the American public likes to see consensus, ie both parties working together to craft a bill that both sides can support. That hasn't been the case with this round of health care reform, and it's painfully clear to all that is proposal only has ideas from one side of the aisle.

There are so many possible solutions to U.S. health care crisis that don't require a restructuring of the already damaged republic.

Let's try it, here's an idea:

Scholarship program for anyone who qualifies.
All tuition and living expenses paid by state.

Conditions:

During undergrad studies student work every aspect of hospital life.

Graduate the equivalence a nursing degree.

Medical Schools serve the general public.

Upon graduation from med school, new doctors are required to serve the public system for a minimum number of years or release by some kind of merit system.

Doctors are required to continue to carry any and all patients under his/her care using the federal system.

Doctors are required to serve at the public hospital 1 day a week 40 weeks a year for 10 years.

reply to post by schrodingers dog

I've never seen anything like this ...

Nothing raised their taxes....

reply to post by smarteye


80% of future Doctors would saaayyyy........

"Meh, I will just be an engineer"..

First, I would like to make a comment about addicting pain medications. Doctors that we have had would tell us if the med was addicting and not allow it after a certain period of time. They would then reccomend another one that wasn't. So, I would question the doctor who hands these out freely.

As for coverage for all, we are all human beings and deserve a chance at life. We all need medical coverage that we can afford. If there are things in the health plan that we disagree with, we need to be heard by our goverment and have to fight together for what is right.

I have to say that those who are so against paying for the less fortunate, may indeed BE the less fortunate one day. No one is invincible. We live in a society where too many people are self absorbed and spoiled and think of only themselves. How many people are without jobs who have worked hard their entire lives? Through no fault of their own, they are left in a position they never dreamed they would see themselves in. Think about the reality of life. It isn't all about you. Without compassion for your fellow man, what kind of person does that make you?

sorry but i cannot feel sorry for you TC. you chose to become an addict, why should I have to pay for you to recover from drugs that you should have never started doing in the first place?

Originally posted by pavil

A.) It's going to effect everyone, no offense but wars (at least our recent ones) and education don't directly effect everyone.

With all due respect education affects at least as many folks as a hc bill would. And my question was based on those who's sole argument is that they don't want THEIR hard earned tax dollars paying for for someone else's care. As such, x cents on your dollar going to a missile or to a mastectomy is the same x cent.

So I repeat the question, to those who stand on this point, why this?

B.) It's a major overhaul of something, that is being done by only one Party. Usually, with matters like this, the American public likes to see consensus, ie both parties working together to craft a bill that both sides can support. That hasn't been the case with this round of health care reform, and it's painfully clear to all that is proposal only has ideas from one side of the aisle.

I don't have to show you the polls of how many Americans support hc overhaul. And when the suits get back to DC and finally come up with a final bill I'm sure the American public will voice their opinion on it as well.

But that still doesn't answer my original question.

No matter, it was mostly rhetorical, it really can only be one thing.

[edit on 15 Aug 2009 by schrodingers dog]

Damn, we have one hell of a compassionate thread here, don't we?

I grew up with government run health care, right here in the USA. I am not and have never been a drug addict, and am not on medicare, medicaid, welfare, or anything else similar. The reason I got to experience "socialized" healthcare: My father was an officer in the US Air Force. I never lacked for excellent health care, we did not have to wait for critical health care, and I had excellent continuity of care.

Yes, for some people needing surgeries, it had to be scheduled, surgeries that were not required because of life-threatening problems. If someone needed surgery to remove an impacted toenail, for example, it might take 5-6 weeks to schedule that. I see the same thing now as an adult, through my insurance company. You don't get knee or shoulder surgery the day after you decide you want it. It has to be scheduled. I am at risk for colon cancer and my colonoscopies have to be scheduled and approved several weeks in advance through my current medical insurance company.

If there is a life-threatening problem that needs immediate surgery, in government run health-care, such as a twisted bowel, stroke, heart attack, etc, that gets dealt with right away. My husband served in the Coast Guard, and he experienced the same "socialized" government run health care that I experienced as an Air Force brat. Neither of us can understand the fuss. If government health care is good for our US Armed Forces that protect our country, how can all the people who are supposedly so supportive of the services be so negative against government health care for the rest of the country?

I had excellent health care while I was a dependent of my father who by the way was flying refueling planes in Korea in 1968 while I was being born (in a govt run hospital), and my husband also experienced excellent health care during his time with the Coast Guard during which he served in Desert Storm.

It's not just that taxes are being once again taken to bloat and entangle us with even more government interference and red tape. They are actually targeting the dollars that we spend for our own healthcare to tax for others to get free healthcare.

God forbid they actually reduce the insanely huge and getting bigger every day dirigible of washington spending. Hell no they won't reduce the trillions they give away wholesale to the rest of the planet every year. Definitely, go hundreds of billions into the hole on welfare for billionaires..

but common funds for healthcare?

Oh no. we can't have that. We've got to stick it to the folks who are already paying for their own healthcare. They're all rich right? They've got insurance. Lets tax them. Just the ones who pull that cash out of their pockets to pay their own insurance. That's Obamas plan for sustainable health care. Tax the insurance premiums.

I pay 600 a month for healthcare.

A millionaire pays 600 a month for healthcare.

I'm taxed on that 600 a month.

Mr Millionaire is taxed on that 600 per month.

Those taxes pay the coverage for the ' uninsured '

I make about 4.5% of what Mr Millionaire makes.

Mr no pay-for-care gets free healthcare.

Who gets screwed here?

Do the math. Percentages and fractions don't lie.

Gee why care now??? It's just the lower income people that are stupid enough to keep their own healthcare that really get screwed right?? Why should the higher tax brackets or the non payers worry about it ?

Those selfish and greedy marginal low rent morons who still manage to pay for healthcare. How selfish of them.

Senators should read these provisions and vote against them because they are dangerous to your health. (Page numbers refer to H.R. 1 EH, pdf version).

The bill’s health rules will affect “every individual in the United States” (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.

But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and guide your doctors decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”

Keeping doctors informed of the newest medical findings is important, but enforcing uniformity goes too far.

New Penalties

Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties. “Meaningful user” isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time” (511, 518, 540-541)

What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make.

www.bloomberg.com...





It was Obama himself who among many statements has claimed, and I quote:

He suggested that one way to save health-care costs is not to spend on procedures that "evidence shows [are] not necessarily going to improve care" for the sick and the dying. "Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller," the President said.

www.newswithviews.com...

Here are some videos form the Huff, which in case some people don't remember is a leftist website, which has videos about President Obama going against many of the promises, and statements he made in the past on healthcare.

www.huffingtonpost.com...


Here is an areticle in one of the many lies that president Obama has made in regards to healthcare for elderly. He claimed the AARP was on board, and in fact the AARP is not onboard as he claims.

blogs.abcnews.com...

That should be enough to keep some people reading, and watching some videos with some of the statements made by President Obama himself.


Those who keep cheering for the Obama healthcare reform should do themselves a favor, as well as to the rest of the American people, and READ what is being proposed instead of blindly cheering for the "CHANGE" like they did when they voted President Obama into office.



[edit on 15-8-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by Whine Flu
Damn, we have one hell of a compassionate thread here, don't we?

Compassion has no place in public policy.

Compassion is an individual feeling, and an individuals choice.

Compassion has no place in politics when it comes to public funds.

reply to post by redhatty


Excuse me, but could you manage to discontinue referring to people as "leeches"? I would appreciate it. Some of us find it quite offensive.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"In this part of the universe we know there is great injustice, and often the good suffer, and often the wicked prosper, and one hardly knows which of these is more annoying."

Bertrand Russell

reply to post by Night Star


There is another side to the pain killer addiction; Doctors should be sending the patients to pain thereapy to help alleviate the dependancy on pain killers, or at the very least reduce the dependancy. Many doctors do not prescribe that unless asked and it should be a mandatory prescription in many cases after the 2nd or 3rd prescription is prescribed. In many cases if the patient refused the pain therapy, then the doctor should also refuse to continue the prescription. (key words here are "in many cases" not all)

reply to post by aravoth


to be honest i dont know any surgeons but i do know medics, nurses, ambulance drivers whom all sworn the oath.

..be it a free man or slave

i thougth this implyed that after the oath is sworn it is their responcibility/duty to help wether you (as a medic) can afford it or not cause money is not the issue at hand , medicine/health is .

even i have sworn that oath.

and by law (the law by a country is governed) we all are responsible to act in case of emergency , be it your neigthbour or the man down the street you dont know who is hurt.

money / "greed" is a side issue one can discuss but this is all about personal wealth if i understood your comment right , i understand that it might seam foolish to do the "work" for free if you have put money into getting a degree/scholarship but that is your problem not the oath nor the patient who is expecting you to live by that oath.

im begining to lack for words that acturly seam to portey the issue ,

doctors, medics what every you want to call em by oath should have the patients intrests in mind ., not money nor hospital policy.

hospitals run on budgets and that money needs to come from somewhere

you can either get that money from tax or skip the tax and just take it out of the country/goverments budget

or as in some instances for god knows why, pay the tax and pay more for an insurance ie you pay double and get less

either way you pay for it in one way or an other in communion with others.

or as some prefere not to pay for a unified healthcare and just go private asuming you can afford it all your life and your childrens childrens life.

im lacking words, i just fail to see why some people look at their bellybutton.

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting


Excuse me, but could you manage to discontinue referring to people as "leeches"? I would appreciate it. Some of us find it quite offensive.

Well by the very definition of the word leech, thats exactly what they are.

Also known as a parasite.

reply to post by Night Star

I don't me to sound this way, but we are talking about America, where things even in this economy, are pretty good when you look at the rest of humanity.

If you really feel that way, extend your view globally. How much are you personally willing to sacrifice to ensure everyone in the world gets health care? It can be done, it's just a matter of you and I giving up much of the care we have become accustomed to. You won't find many of your fellow countryman willing to do that.

Personally, I do what I can for my family and friends first, then everyone else can get in line. Selfish? Perhaps, but that's how I look at things. I can't help anyone else till I can take take of myself and my family. I now own a business and can provide work to others and give to charities more then I ever could before. Am I a bad person?

Originally posted by TheAftermath

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting


Excuse me, but could you manage to discontinue referring to people as "leeches"? I would appreciate it. Some of us find it quite offensive.

Well by the very definition of the word leech, thats exactly what they are.

Also known as a parasite.

but then one migth ask what the goverment is if it needs a host to function

like the goverment like its people ?

bellybutton

reply to post by zerbot565



The government is a leech as well. Feeding and preying on the public while depleting its resources.

reply to post by TheAftermath


then we my friend have different views on what a goverment/country/state/union/society is

and today as far as my mind can process it is very utopic to belive one can live outside any of thous mentioned above.

to quote monty pyton : "what have the Romans ever given us."