Thread: Health Care in the USA

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

People who live in countries with nationalized health care pay for it. It ain't free. They sleep better at night because insurance companies aren't denying coverage for pre-existing conditions or canceling their policies at the slightest excuse when they need them most.

Do they sleep better with the possibility that their government could decide that the medical service they need is non-essential? or that their case is not a priority, forcing them to wait for months, maybe years, in line behind others who are deemed priorities? or that their lifestyle choices could be determined to be too risky and costly to the health care system and therefore coverage is denied until appropriate lifestyle changes are made (in other words shape up or ship out)?

Obama has repeatedly made a point about controlling health care costs. How can costs be controlled without some cutting? Who's to decide what's cut and what's kept? What's necessary, what's not?

It all sounds great droning out of the mouth of a polished demagogue like Obama. But if you really listen to the words he's spilling out, nothing he says makes much sense.

Originally Posted by honedright

Do they sleep better with the possibility that their government could decide that the medical service they need is non-essential? or that their case is not a priority, forcing them to wait for months, maybe years, in line behind others who are deemed priorities? or that their lifestyle choices could be determined to be too risky and costly to the health care system and therefore coverage is denied until appropriate lifestyle changes are made (in other words shape up or ship out)?

Obama has repeatedly made a point about controlling health care costs. How can costs be controlled without some cutting? Who's to decide what's cut and what's kept? What's necessary, what's not?

It all sounds great droning out of the mouth of a polished demagogue like Obama. But if you really listen to the words he's spilling out, nothing he says makes much sense.

Well I can't say what they have in mind as I haven't really read up on it of followed it. To be honest I don't think they will pass HC legislation. Maybe I am naive but I believe that if they did eventually move to something equivalent to the European version of a NHS it would be run with common decency and all this talk about euthanasia and deciding who lives and who dies wouldn't be a reality.

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

it would be run with common decency

what, in the last hundred years of American gov't, makes you think this would be the case? the system wouldn't be run by people either common or decent, it would be run by politicians and lobbyists... historically, the slimiest and single least trustworthy group of people in our country.

Originally Posted by jockeys

what, in the last hundred years of American gov't, makes you think this would be the case? the system wouldn't be run by people either common or decent, it would be run by politicians and lobbyists... historically, the slimiest and single least trustworthy group of people in our country.

We have the experience of how politicians have handled the Social Security program, almost running it down to the ground.

At every level, local, state or federal, politicians have demonstrated their inability to run anything within budget. The bigger the bill, the more opportunity they have to take money for different purposes.

I have not read this thread.... So somebody else might have pointed this out...

The new Cars 4 Clunkers program !!!!!

Cost = 1 Billion
Money to be actually disbursed to dealers = 500 Million

Administration cost 1/2 or 500 Million

Hello!!!! McFly..... how often do we have to see that the US Government (all parties) SUCKS at managing OUR money before we get a clue????????????????

Originally Posted by gssixgun

I have not read this thread....

Glen, you haven't missed much. I came to SRP with the resolution to stay out of controversial threads but Mark hypnotized me. It's all his fault.