• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

One good thing about the so called health Care reform.......

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
It has allowed people to see obama /pelosi for what they are,think they had some independents scammed for awhile,but with the details of the so called health care reform bill finally getting some daylite,its obvious Gut medicare and use the $$$$$$$$$$$ to provide care to ghetto folks,now I would'nt be cruel enough to deny health care to anyone especially youngsters,but he needs another plan,You dont remove health care benefits from the men and women that built the country made it into the greatest nation on earth,then when they are elderly and insurance folks wont insure them at any price,take what little health care services they have and give it to the very folks that sat around and watched them build the country.
good luck
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Medicare payment cuts to Heart and Cancer doctors was already done. It was done in Jan 2009, and took affect this year, I believe.

Aug. 28 (Bloomberg) -- An Obama administration plan to cut Medicare payments to heart and cancer doctors by $1.4 billion next year is generating a backlash that’s undermining the president’s health-care overhaul.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601202&sid=aRqnpw9ZInJ4


Adding 30 million people to the number that are insured will cut your services in another way too. It is physically impossible to have the same doctor to patient ratio, when you add 10% of the population to the number of insured.

Your wait times will increase, until you can bring the doctor/patient ratio back in line. Unfortunately at the same time you are trying to add to the number of doctors, you will be losing doctors to retirement and adding patients, due to an ageing population.

Baby boomers start retiring next year.
 

TSR

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
Medicare payment cuts to Heart and Cancer doctors was already done. It was done in Jan 2009, and took affect this year, I believe.

Aug. 28 (Bloomberg) -- An Obama administration plan to cut Medicare payments to heart and cancer doctors by $1.4 billion next year is generating a backlash that’s undermining the president’s health-care overhaul.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601202&sid=aRqnpw9ZInJ4


Adding 30 million people to the number that are insured will cut your services in another way too. It is physically impossible to have the same doctor to patient ratio, when you add 10% of the population to the number of insured.

Your wait times will increase, until you can bring the doctor/patient ratio back in line. Unfortunately at the same time you are trying to add to the number of doctors, you will be losing doctors to retirement and adding patients, due to an ageing population.

Baby boomers start retiring next year.

On the other hand...... How many of those 30 million uninsured go without health services if they are truly sick??? I bet many go to "free" clinics or head to the emergency room.
 

Larrry

Well-known member
So how is all this cutting waste to pay for health care going. Or do they only worry about waste in gov if health care passes.
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
At least 36 state legislatures are considering legislation that would allow citizens to opt out of a key component of President Obama's health-care "reform" – an "individual mandate" requiring that all Americans have health insurance.
Both the House and Senate health-care bills require Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty. The House bill establishes a fine based on percentage of a person's income, while the Senate version creates a penalty as a flat fee or percentage of income, whichever is higher. Those refusing to get insurance could be found guilty of a misdemeanor crime, punishable by another fine or even jail time.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, formal resolutions or bills have been filed in opposition to the individual mandate in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

Lawmakers suggest approval of the legislation may spark a legal battle over states' rights versus the federal government's reach of power. The Boston Globe reported the measures could set the stage for "one of the greatest tests of federal power over the states since the civil rights era."

"The administration is trying to shift from a government by social compact, agreement between elected officials and citizens, to a government where the leaders tell the subjects what to do," Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall, chief sponsor of the measure in his state, told the Globe. "That is not what the American Revolution was about."

All I'm trying to do is protect the individual's right to make health-care decisions," Emmer said. "I just don't want the government getting between my decisions with my doctors."

He said an amendment wouldn't prohibit anyone from participating in a federal health program. It would simply prevent them from being forced to enroll.

"[T]ell me where in the U.S. Constitution it says the federal government has the right to provide health care," Emmer said. "This is the essence of the debate."

Opponents say the individual mandate is unconstitutional because the Constitution doesn't grant the federal government power to fine citizens for refusing to purchase goods and services. Ken Klukowski, senior legal analyst with the American Civil Rights Union, explained in a Politico commentary why there is no constitutional basis for the individual mandate.

"People who decline coverage are not receiving federal money, so that mandate can't fall under the spending part of the Tax and Spending Clause," he wrote.

Article I of the Constitution authorizes excise and capitation taxes, and the 16th Amendment created the income tax. However, Klukowski contends that government health insurance cannot be considered an excise, capitation or income tax.

"It can't be an excise tax because that's a surcharge on a purchase, and here people are not buying anything," he explained. "It can't be a capitation (or 'direct') tax because that is a tax on every person in a state and must be equal for every person in the state; this would be a levy that some people would pay and others would not. And it can't be an income tax because that must be based on personal income, not purchase decisions."

He added, "All that's left is the Commerce Clause. And the people who declined to purchase government-mandated insurance would not be engaging in commercial activity, so there's no interstate commerce. That, in fact, is the government's problem with them: Those people refuse to take the money or play the game."
Likewise, the Congressional Research Service recently reported that determining whether an individual mandate is constitutional under the Commerce Clause "is perhaps the most challenging question posed by such a proposal, as it is a novel issue whether Congress may use this clause to require an individual to purchase a good or service."

Klukowski wrote that if Obama wants a plan that forces Americans to purchase insurance, he will need to "persuade the nation to adopt a constitutional amendment creating a right to health care."






There is allot more informationa @:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=127404
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The medicare cuts and the cuts in services are nothing more than what obama and them are blaming the insurance industry for. The insurance industry does not accept anyone with an existing sickness for a period of one year in most states. After one year any sickness must be covered in most states mandated by state law.

obama and the democraps are going to do away with not accepting anyone with a preexisting sickness. they then will cut services for things like cancer that already exists and have health tribunals which will consider age at the time of sickness expected life span and so on. Its nothing more than what the insurance industry already does in one way and far worse in another.

If your life is up in years you will be sent home to die or live on pain pills quite simply. With actions like this taking place there will be plenty of doctors to go around because of all of the services being denied to the elderly as well as the non elites!
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
TSR said:
hypocritexposer said:
Medicare payment cuts to Heart and Cancer doctors was already done. It was done in Jan 2009, and took affect this year, I believe.

Aug. 28 (Bloomberg) -- An Obama administration plan to cut Medicare payments to heart and cancer doctors by $1.4 billion next year is generating a backlash that’s undermining the president’s health-care overhaul.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601202&sid=aRqnpw9ZInJ4


Adding 30 million people to the number that are insured will cut your services in another way too. It is physically impossible to have the same doctor to patient ratio, when you add 10% of the population to the number of insured.

Your wait times will increase, until you can bring the doctor/patient ratio back in line. Unfortunately at the same time you are trying to add to the number of doctors, you will be losing doctors to retirement and adding patients, due to an ageing population.

Baby boomers start retiring next year.

On the other hand...... How many of those 30 million uninsured go without health services if they are truly sick??? I bet many go to "free" clinics or head to the emergency room.


Going to the emergency room only when you have an actual emergency is different than having coverage for family doctors etc.

It will be an additional pressure put on the whole system. Why do you think we have waiting lists in Canada. I thought people were dying in the streets in the US, due to not having insurance?

Well, they are dying in the ER hallways in Canada.

Funeral held for woman who waited 4 days for bed
Last Updated: Tuesday, March 9, 2010 | 10:49 PM ET


Concern over delayed surgeries and overcrowded emergency rooms dominated question period at Quebec’s national assembly on Tuesday, as debates resumed after the holiday break.

The issue has grabbed attention after the recent deaths of two patients — one waiting for heart surgery and the other who had spent four days waiting on a stretcher in the ER.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2010/03/09/mtl-qc-health-wait-fournier.html#ixzz0hoJ2N1yk
 

TSR

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
TSR said:
hypocritexposer said:
Medicare payment cuts to Heart and Cancer doctors was already done. It was done in Jan 2009, and took affect this year, I believe.




Adding 30 million people to the number that are insured will cut your services in another way too. It is physically impossible to have the same doctor to patient ratio, when you add 10% of the population to the number of insured.

Your wait times will increase, until you can bring the doctor/patient ratio back in line. Unfortunately at the same time you are trying to add to the number of doctors, you will be losing doctors to retirement and adding patients, due to an ageing population.

Baby boomers start retiring next year.

On the other hand...... How many of those 30 million uninsured go without health services if they are truly sick??? I bet many go to "free" clinics or head to the emergency room.


Going to the emergency room only when you have an actual emergency is different than having coverage for family doctors etc.

It will be an additional pressure put on the whole system. Why do you think we have waiting lists in Canada. I thought people were dying in the streets in the US, due to not having insurance?

Well, they are dying in the ER hallways in Canada.

Funeral held for woman who waited 4 days for bed
Last Updated: Tuesday, March 9, 2010 | 10:49 PM ET


Concern over delayed surgeries and overcrowded emergency rooms dominated question period at Quebec’s national assembly on Tuesday, as debates resumed after the holiday break.

The issue has grabbed attention after the recent deaths of two patients — one waiting for heart surgery and the other who had spent four days waiting on a stretcher in the ER.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2010/03/09/mtl-qc-health-wait-fournier.html#ixzz0hoJ2N1yk

People w/out insurance go to the ER all the time in the US they know they have to be treated. Wonder who actually winds up paying for those visits. Not every person knows a true emergency situation-is it acid reflux or a heart attack? Is it just a severe headache or an anneurism? BTW after reading all the posts here on Canada's system, I believe most Canadians know that it isn't perfect but where does that perfect one exist?
 

Tam

Well-known member
TSR said:
hypocritexposer said:
TSR said:
On the other hand...... How many of those 30 million uninsured go without health services if they are truly sick??? I bet many go to "free" clinics or head to the emergency room.


Going to the emergency room only when you have an actual emergency is different than having coverage for family doctors etc.

It will be an additional pressure put on the whole system. Why do you think we have waiting lists in Canada. I thought people were dying in the streets in the US, due to not having insurance?

Well, they are dying in the ER hallways in Canada.

Funeral held for woman who waited 4 days for bed
Last Updated: Tuesday, March 9, 2010 | 10:49 PM ET


Concern over delayed surgeries and overcrowded emergency rooms dominated question period at Quebec’s national assembly on Tuesday, as debates resumed after the holiday break.

The issue has grabbed attention after the recent deaths of two patients — one waiting for heart surgery and the other who had spent four days waiting on a stretcher in the ER.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2010/03/09/mtl-qc-health-wait-fournier.html#ixzz0hoJ2N1yk

People w/out insurance go to the ER all the time in the US they know they have to be treated. Wonder who actually winds up paying for those visits. Not every person knows a true emergency situation-is it acid reflux or a heart attack? Is it just a severe headache or an anneurism? BTW after reading all the posts here on Canada's system, I believe most Canadians know that it isn't perfect but where does that perfect one exist?
In the US Health care system the law says everyone is treated whether they can pay or not. Right? Well with the Canadian Government run system there is a Supreme Court ruling that said "access to a waiting list is not access to health care".
In other words, In the US you get health care and then worry about how to pay for it, if you can't the government does. In Canada we pay first then worry whether or not we are actually going to get health care when we need it. If the waiting list is to long, tens of thousands that have already paid once through our taxes, pay again by going to the US to recieve the treatment they need.

Ask yourself which would you rather worry about paying for healthcare you got when needed or getting the health care you need that you already paid for?

To let you know how well it works ask youself why did Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams go for treatment at the Mount Sinai Medical Center in Miami for his heart problem, when he had access to a waiting list for the same treatment in Canada?

'My heart, my choice,' Williams says, defending decision for U.S. heart surgery
Good thing he had the money to make the choice he did concerning "HIS HEART" :wink: :roll:
 

TSR

Well-known member
Tam said:
TSR said:
hypocritexposer said:
Going to the emergency room only when you have an actual emergency is different than having coverage for family doctors etc.

It will be an additional pressure put on the whole system. Why do you think we have waiting lists in Canada. I thought people were dying in the streets in the US, due to not having insurance?

Well, they are dying in the ER hallways in Canada.

People w/out insurance go to the ER all the time in the US they know they have to be treated. Wonder who actually winds up paying for those visits. Not every person knows a true emergency situation-is it acid reflux or a heart attack? Is it just a severe headache or an anneurism? BTW after reading all the posts here on Canada's system, I believe most Canadians know that it isn't perfect but where does that perfect one exist?
In the US Health care system the law says everyone is treated whether they can pay or not. Right? Well with the Canadian Government run system there is a Supreme Court ruling that said "access to a waiting list is not access to health care".
In other words, In the US you get health care and then worry about how to pay for it, if you can't the government does. In Canada we pay first then worry whether or not we are actually going to get health care when we need it. If the waiting list is to long, tens of thousands that have already paid once through our taxes, pay again by going to the US to recieve the treatment they need.

Ask yourself which would you rather worry about paying for healthcare you got when needed or getting the health care you need that you already paid for?

To let you know how well it works ask youself why did Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams go for treatment at the Mount Sinai Medical Center in Miami for his heart problem, when he had access to a waiting list for the same treatment in Canada?

'My heart, my choice,' Williams says, defending decision for U.S. heart surgery
Good thing he had the money to make the choice he did concerning "HIS HEART" :wink: :roll:

I guess this means that nobody leaves the US to go elsewhere for treatments???? If I had a serious illness and my ins. would pay for it I would go to where the top specialist was located for treatment. Could be what Mr. Williams did.
With respect to those taxes,etc. Do you actually think that those that do pay taxes and ins. premiums don't cover a large portion of those that don't pay anything? Kinda like that uninsured motorist section of my truck insurance.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
I guess this means that nobody leaves the US to go elsewhere for treatments???? If I had a serious illness and my ins. would pay for it I would go to where the top specialist was located for treatment. Could be what Mr. Williams did.
With respect to those taxes,etc. Do you actually think that those that do pay taxes and ins. premiums don't cover a large portion of those that don't pay anything? Kinda like that uninsured motorist section of my truck insurance.

and how is the Health Care reform bill going to fix that situation?

It is the same in Canada. The low income/no income earners are paid for by the taxpayers.

The problem is that you have obama trying to sell Health Care reform by telling people that people are dying in the streets, due to lack of insurance, etc. And then the taxpayer is also on the hook for the debt incurred.

What we are saying, is that what he proposes will not change a dang thing, except make it worse for those that are actually paying for it.

The main reason being discussed for reform in the US is cost. Well we in Canada have a system like that which they are proposing in the US, and it costs us as much as you are paying in the US.


Why do you want reform TSR? What do you think you will gain?
 

TSR

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
I guess this means that nobody leaves the US to go elsewhere for treatments???? If I had a serious illness and my ins. would pay for it I would go to where the top specialist was located for treatment. Could be what Mr. Williams did.
With respect to those taxes,etc. Do you actually think that those that do pay taxes and ins. premiums don't cover a large portion of those that don't pay anything? Kinda like that uninsured motorist section of my truck insurance.

and how is the Health Care reform bill going to fix that situation?

It is the same in Canada. The low income/no income earners are paid for by the taxpayers.

The problem is that you have obama trying to sell Health Care reform by telling people that people are dying in the streets, due to lack of insurance, etc. And then the taxpayer is also on the hook for the debt incurred.

What we are saying, is that what he proposes will not change a dang thing, except make it worse for those that are actually paying for it.

The main reason being discussed for reform in the US is cost. Well we in Canada have a system like that which they are proposing in the US, and it costs us as much as you are paying in the US.


Why do you want reform TSR? What do you think you will gain?

Both parties agree that reform is necessary. We can't continue on the same course. Hopefully(maybe a false hope)maybe we can take back some of those non negotiable things in that 2003 Medicare bill (no negotiation on drug prices, no drugs purchased from foreign countries, etc) at one time on C-spaan I heard the Dem's talking about such changes but its been a while. I haven't heard the Rep.'s say a word about it, maybe they did, but I haven't heard it. Maybe we can correct some past wrongs of both parties with respect to health care and make a little progress for the middle class. Personally I have great insurance but it would have been terrible for my mother(now deceased) who worked in a textile factory for 34yrs to have had to pay for her medications. Fortunately she married a retired military man and everything was paid . Its not that way for everyone. A little progress now, a little progress in the future. It could happen with some honest people in Congress (if there is such a thing).
 

Tam

Well-known member
TSR said:
hypocritexposer said:
I guess this means that nobody leaves the US to go elsewhere for treatments???? If I had a serious illness and my ins. would pay for it I would go to where the top specialist was located for treatment. Could be what Mr. Williams did.
With respect to those taxes,etc. Do you actually think that those that do pay taxes and ins. premiums don't cover a large portion of those that don't pay anything? Kinda like that uninsured motorist section of my truck insurance.

and how is the Health Care reform bill going to fix that situation?

It is the same in Canada. The low income/no income earners are paid for by the taxpayers.

The problem is that you have obama trying to sell Health Care reform by telling people that people are dying in the streets, due to lack of insurance, etc. And then the taxpayer is also on the hook for the debt incurred.

What we are saying, is that what he proposes will not change a dang thing, except make it worse for those that are actually paying for it.

The main reason being discussed for reform in the US is cost. Well we in Canada have a system like that which they are proposing in the US, and it costs us as much as you are paying in the US.


Why do you want reform TSR? What do you think you will gain?

Both parties agree that reform is necessary. We can't continue on the same course. Hopefully(maybe a false hope)maybe we can take back some of those non negotiable things in that 2003 Medicare bill (no negotiation on drug prices, no drugs purchased from foreign countries, etc) at one time on C-spaan I heard the Dem's talking about such changes but its been a while. I haven't heard the Rep.'s say a word about it, maybe they did, but I haven't heard it. Maybe we can correct some past wrongs of both parties with respect to health care and make a little progress for the middle class. Personally I have great insurance but it would have been terrible for my mother(now deceased) who worked in a textile factory for 34yrs to have had to pay for her medications. Fortunately she married a retired military man and everything was paid . Its not that way for everyone. A little progress now, a little progress in the future. It could happen with some honest people in Congress (if there is such a thing).

It's not that way here in Canada. Our system does not cover meds, eyes, dental and a whole list of other things the Obamacare is suppose to cover. Think of this our system that doesn't cover a whole list of things Obamacare will cover costs an estimated $173.9 billion/year for our population. So how can Obama cover your population with all the extras in his plan with just under $900 billion? Could this possably be why 81% of Americans KNOW it is going to cost more than Obama claims it will cost? And if waste is a hugh problem in Medicare why not REFORM IT by clean it up before implimenting another one that will bankrupt the US?

And as far as Williams leaving Canada for treatment. He is a Premier of a Province not just anyone. He is in charge of Health care for the citizens of his province but yet he doesn't truth that system with "HIS HEART". SO WHY SHOULD ANYONE ELSE TRUST IT WITH THEIR HEART???
 
Top