Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Oklahoma Doctors vs. Obamacare
- Thread starter javaguru
- Start date
javaguru
Banned
It's a short watch, about six minutes, but exposes the fundamental problems that universal coverage will only exacerbate.
Unnecessary to watch. But thanks for the summary
javaguru
Banned
Case studies are always worth considering.
SinisterUproar
New member
There are so many other countries with universal health care an they all love it... Everyone should be entitled to health care.
javaguru
Banned
Yeah, everyone loves to put shit on their credit card but I'm not keen on a BMV clerk telling me I have to go into hospice as opposed to chemotherapy because I'm just taxpaying livestock and Barry is the farmer. I pay for my own healthcare 100% out of pocket.
Google the term democide, in the 20th century over 200 million people have been murdered by their own governments, excluding wars; Government is the last place to look for a solution to a problem.
This we can agree on
javaguru
Banned
Don't think you'll get me all turned on with your limited government sexy talk...I'm wise to feminine wiles.
False
P
psizzle_8
Guest
Lololololol
Love it...until they need an operation that's deemed as not an emergency or even critical. That knee replacement you "need" is really more of a want to them, so here's a pair of crutches for the next 8-12 months until they can see about getting you that knee.
By the time you get that knee replaced you need the other knee replaced which was previously fine, but you've been putting all that extra weight on it for the last year.
Oh and you've gained weight (fat) also because you couldn't work out as much or do cardio. Now the next year has gone by and you've got the second knee now and you've gained 100 lbs of fat. Now you're on meds for your high cholesterol, diabetes, high blood pressure and depression.
Everyone should be entitled to that.
zeosim
New member
I really don't know what the problem with universal healthcare is. I love not having to worry about a bills. So what if my taxes are high I don't know any different.
What I don't understand is the reasoning to not have universal coverage, and I can't be convinced it's better because I can go whenever I want, gp specialist it doesn't matter. Also who cares if you have to wait a little longer worth it for no bills. Also all they need to do is get more docs and the wait times go down
What I don't understand is the reasoning to not have universal coverage, and I can't be convinced it's better because I can go whenever I want, gp specialist it doesn't matter. Also who cares if you have to wait a little longer worth it for no bills. Also all they need to do is get more docs and the wait times go down
Fail
zeosim
New member
Lol you could work for fox
zeosim
New member
Lol wait a little bit with no bill, or get in fast and have a large bill I have to worry about on top of living paycheck to paycheck already. Hmmm let me think. As it is now I live comfortably and never have to worry about medical cost. No sweat off my back, like I said my taxes are all I know.
Hey good for you. If you like the poorly run and inefficient govt telling you when and where you can receive medical care then hats off to you. Take a look at the other govt run healthcare systems (Medicaid, Medicare) and you'll see it doesn't work for anyone involved (patients, providers, tax payers).
Why? I'm not a Republican
Quit making sense and people wont label you
SinisterUproar
New member
O'rly?
So you worked for an insurance company and they told you not to pay for shit? Is that how the operate?
Happens after every election.. teh haters and tin-foil wearing conspirathist crawl out of the woodwork.. they all evetually get over it.. Ted Nugent blew a gasket though..says he'll either be dead or in jail if Obama wins within the year or somethin like that..im still waiting for his results
ismaele00
New member
Java, I think you're a smart guy, and I don't really understand why you guys are against publich health system.
Could you give us a simple description of why you are against the public health?
I mean, something like:
1. It's expensive.
2. I'll have to pay more...
.
.
.
Not many coherent arguments against it (when looking at efficient and effective public/private hybrid systems in the world).
All you read is retarded rhetorical situations about how some guy's brother's friend's sister had to wait 8 months for someone to operate on an ingrown toenail.
ismaele00
New member
That's absolutly false bro.
First of all, if you want to get a private surgery to avoid waiting for the public, you're allowed.
You pay for that surgery and that's all. The post-surgery will be covered by the public that you're paying through taxes.
So you'll wait only if you don't have enough money to pay the private, what means that you wouldn't have money to pay the private wheter public wouldn't exist. So, now you have to wait but you'll have the surgery while if you wouldn't have the public system you'll have your surgery done never.
Second one.
If you'd have to wait 8 months (you won't, in Europe, a surgery like that is done in about 6 to 12 weeks) the public system will take care of everything you need until you get the surgery done (drugs, temporary prostheses, special transport, etc, etc) and the public employment service will pay you the same you received because of your work (because you're paying taxes while you're working).
As I said, it's as easy as choose people or money.
It's no secret that the medical industry is already overwhelmed with the extra bs that socialized medicine brings.
What my doctor thinks of ObamaCare - The Week
And yes, it is "socialized" in the sense that it's being forced down our throats by government, and...where's their money coming from again...
What my doctor thinks of ObamaCare - The Week
And yes, it is "socialized" in the sense that it's being forced down our throats by government, and...where's their money coming from again...
Last edited:
lol @ not understanding there is a vast difference between Obamacare and socialized medicine.
Fitguy308
Banned
We're the land of the free and home of the brave
redsamurai
Banned
oh that's right, somebody ought to remind him to go jump off a bridge. I can't wait for that feces bucket to be dead. Complete waste of organic matter.
Not to mention American society is a clusterfuck of standards next to places like Sweden or Canada. Obesity rates alone are more than triple and double theirs respectively. Being responsible for one's own health/lifestyle habits isn't exactly the norm here anymore. Considering our much greater population, add it all up and we'll have a medical system that'll be brought to its knees.
redsamurai
Banned
refreshing dose of reality right here. Why do we still listen to overblown hyperbole? Why is that american television tells us how much all these other countries suffer miserably under their socialized medicine...and then you talk to one and they say "no we like it eh", "you americans ooot to look into it yourselves eh".
Seriously, when I was in Toronto everybody fucking loved their healthcare. Not one peep. So wtf?
refreshing dose of reality right here. Why do we still listen to overblown hyperbole? Why is that american television tells us how much all these other countries suffer miserably under their socialized medicine...and then you talk to one and they say "no we like it eh", "you americans ooot to look into it yourselves eh".
Seriously, when I was in Toronto everybody fucking loved their healthcare. Not one peep. So wtf?
Maybe because they've never had anything else to compare it to? Or that the differences in our societies make a 1:1 translation of "what's best" practically impossible? I've never had a problem with affording or receiving excellent healthcare here either, whether it was the kind I bought myself when I had a part time job during school or the employer-funded variety I have now. Always taken care of on the spot, with minimal expense out of pocket and a minuscule if any cost to taxpayers.
National, government-assisted healthcare (I won't call it "socialized") is nothing but a big-ass Band-aid fix for a broken society with much deeper problems. The flaws and exploitations of a private solution aren't going to be remedied by handing over control to an entity that's nearly insolvent as it is because of ventures like these, either.
An interesting case and 17 points-
Mr. Johnson is a teacher at Hialeah Senior High School in Florida.
After School recently, a student posed an interesting question. His father was deceased, and he and his mother were living on a small income of which social security constituted a substantial portion. His mother had recently undergone an expensive operation, and it had been tough to pay the bills. His question was: "Why shouldn’t I favor government medical assistance?"
Other obligations prevented me from answering immediately, but the next morning the student received the following 17 points:
1. To the extent that your mother is living on social security she is already the victim of an actuarially unsound program classified by many as an outright fraud. A large part of your difficulty in meeting bills is the product of this government program designed to "help the aged." You may be sure that a government program designed to "help the sick" would fare no better, and probably worse. People do better if they are charged with personal responsibility for their welfare.
2. Social security payments are reduced or eliminated if your mother earns over $1,200 per year. This particular inequity within the entire inequitable program should be remedied, yet the problems posed by any attempt at "equity" tend to point up the undesirability of seeking "solutions" on a national basis.
3. Your mother’s income is undoubtedly suffering from inflation, which is the result of prior government activity. Please, therefore, do not ask for more government programs. Inflation raises the cost of everything, medical services and supplies included, and such "hidden taxation" affects all income, taxable and nontaxable.
4. If you ask the government to force others (through taxes) to help you in your particular situation, you cannot expect others not to ask government to force you to help them. In all probability you will end by paying out much more than you will receive through this process.
5. Assuming genuine need, private charities and local agencies would be willing and able to do considerably more along lines of aiding you if taxes were not already markedly diminishing their ability and inclination to function. The high progressive rate also tends to discourage many would-be doctors, whose terrific initial educational investment should be allowed to pay off. To the extent that a doctor shortage exists, government must share a substantial portion of the blame. My own dentist has cut his work-week from five days to four because, in the words of his financial adviser, he was "working too many days for the government." Do not, therefore, add to this tax burden.
6. Even assuming that the taxes required to run a program of government medicine might aid your mother in the short run, such taxation would also put more people into her shoes.
7. Government bidding for medical services and supplies would increase costs. Great Britain‘s program has slightly more than tripled such costs. If you are serious in your alarm over high costs, you will resist a government program strongly.
8. Since the program would be designed to help millions of others, and not your mother alone, competition for supplies and services, in addition to raising costs, might make it difficult to obtain any at all. A shortage of goods and services would immediately occur if the government were to attempt to mitigate the effects of its own actions through price controls. Priority given to more serious cases would frustrate immediate treatment of minor cases. A man who could be "back on the job" in minutes might have to wait weeks, with resulting loss of production to himself and to society.
9. A program of socialized medicine, once begun, would be extremely difficult, politically, to abandon, no matter how mistaken the program should prove to be.
10. The vast majority of doctors do not like socialized medicine. The reasons they give—dislike of regimentation, the destruction of doctor-patient relationship, and the like—while important in themselves, are secondary to the inescapable conclusion. If the government seeks to accomplish by force something that would not occur voluntarily and institutes a program which doctors dislike, the result will be fewer, and poorer, doctors. We hardly want this situation.
11. The temptation to "get something for nothing" would prove irresistible for many people. Statistics contrasting the number and length of illnesses of those who have government health insurance (in Great Britain and elsewhere) with those who have private insurance (in the U.S. and elsewhere) provide amusing proof of this. A large portion of government expenditure would go to those whose needs are questionable. This, also, would increase costs. Lack of local administration and responsibility might frequently deny sufficient benefits to those whose needs are genuine.’
12. Socialized medicine would be another long step to total socialism. Socialism, whatever else it may do, hardly increases production. By its emphasis on distribution, it retards production in a thousand ways. This will lower the standard of living for everyone, your mother included.
13. The functions of medicine are basically twofold: administration of known drugs and techniques, and research. We come in contact with the profession through the former, but progress occurs only through the latter.’ Socialized medicine would cause a shifting of emphasis from research to general upkeep, with the result that over-all medical progress would be retarded. The British experience proves this beyond question.
14. Since the science of medicine under free enterprise in the United States has given us the best medical service in the world’s history; since it has prolonged life in a phenomenal manner; since our medical supplies and services are infinitely superior to those in any other country… you should attempt to retain these advantages by fighting to retain the system under which they developed.
15. It is a mistake for the government to consider the problems of the sick apart from those of society as a whole. Such consideration is a private matter, to be solved by private and local methods. Such a narrow outlook on behalf of the government obscures the broader problem which is, in a moral sense, one of promoting respect for the individual and the furtherance of initiative and self-providence; in an economic sense, one of increasing production for the benefit of all citizens;3 and in a political sense, one of removing government as a battlefield for special favor and substituting cohesion and solidarity for division and disintegration.
16. No system, not even the free economy, can give everyone everything he wants at once. It is dangerous to allow or encourage any government to substitute its judgment for that of its citizens. It is well to keep in mind that no country has come close to matching the United States in the solution of the very problem your mother presents. I would recommend investigation of the numerous, actuarially sound private health insurance programs, which already insure a substantial majority of all American families. There are approximately 150 such programs in the United States today. Such diversification provides an ability to suit individual requirements which would be impossible under a federal program.
17. Finally, let us consider the moral issue. You may feel that this is simple—that it is not morally correct for society to neglect those in need. But is there such a thing as "collective morality"?4 Is not moral action exclusively individual? Can any action be moral if it is induced by compulsion? Who is acting and thinking in moral terms: the person who, cognizant of those in need, seeks to remedy the situation insofar as possible by resorting to his own pocketbook, or a person who thinks only in terms of legislation to force everyone else to take care of the problem?
Even if the facts were otherwise and it could be shown that the government were capable of providing satisfactory medical care, the basic moral question you should ask yourself is this: What right have I to take another’s property without his consent, for my personal use? Under what conditions does it become proper or right for any individual or group to rob another?
I feel that when you have answered the questions contained in this last point, you may find the first sixteen arguments superfluous. At least I hope so.
Footnotes
1 For an excellent discussion of the tragedy of socialism in Great Britain, including socialized medicine, see Cecil Palmer, The British Socialist Ill-Fare State, (Caldwell, Idaho: Caxton Printers, Ltd., 1952). The above points have been substantially documented by British experience.
2 Many complaints about the "excessive cost" of drugs (particularly in relation to the low cost of the ingredients) would cease if people realized that it is often expensive research which makes many drugs available at all. It frequently takes millions in research to make a "cheap pill."
3 Government cannot do this in any positive sense, as seems to be thought these days. Government is to do this by a policy of minimum interference, and in its capacity as referee… not active participant.
4 For development of this thought, consult William Graham Sumner, What Social Classes Owe to Each Other, (Caldwell, Idaho: Caxton Printers, Ltd.,1954).
Like most things that seem too good to be true, devil's in the details.
Last edited:
I'm hoping for the former, although either would be an acceptable result.
zeosim
New member
Again I'll reiterate that I love Canada's system. So far noone has given a reason why it doesn't work. Usually I hear the taxes are high and they probably are but on a check that I get payed 1280 I bring home just under 1000 including my pension and other bs. So how are the taxes over bearing? No better way, I'm just not into the idea I should worry about medical costs as another bill
My info is based on speaking directly to Canadian doctors and nurses. This is just one of their many negative accounts.
Their system is fine as long as you are healthy.
You can also hop the border and get your surgery in the USA and the Canadian govt will pay the bill. Of course you have to be having a problem to necessitate a surgery while IN the USA for vacation/business etc. and not just go over specifically for the surgery.
I haven't spoken to any European doctors or nurses about healthcare there.
refreshing dose of reality right here. Why do we still listen to overblown hyperbole? Why is that american television tells us how much all these other countries suffer miserably under their socialized medicine...and then you talk to one and they say "no we like it eh", "you americans ooot to look into it yourselves eh".
Seriously, when I was in Toronto everybody fucking loved their healthcare. Not one peep. So wtf?
Talk to the doctors who see sick patients. Not your healthy Canadian friends.
It's like an HMO.
javaguru
Banned
Do you realize that healthcare providers consider medicaid their charity work?
javaguru
Banned
Indeed, the current system is fascist.
I watched Barry on John Stewart right after it passed, he pointed out that social security was originally sold as a program for widows and orphans but was expanded for everyone. It simply confirmed my suspicions, Barry care was designed to lead into single payer for everyone, medicare for everyone.
javaguru
Banned
All coercive relationships are immoral.
javaguru
Banned
I assume you're young and healthy...wait until you're 55+ with a serious health condition.
javaguru
Banned
Everyone loves shit they don't have to pay for....3 for 1 pizzas are popular too but nobody offers them long term because it would bankrupt the business. The average medicare patient receives $3.00 in services for every dollar they paid into the system. "Free shit" is popular among those receiving it; You'll get no argument from me.
exactly. most physicians who even accept medicaid/medicare, limit their practice for that population which means on average, medicaid/medicare patients wait longer for appointments. thats just one facet of the system (access) that is not working for the patient.
redsamurai
Banned
oh I wasn't referring to healthy people. I remember one of the convo's at a bar on lakeshore very well while watching the blessed NY Giants utterly ruin New Englands unbeaten season...oh happy mem's indeed. ANyway, dude was a heart patient. Had a stent put in if I remember correctly. Guy was not healthy in the slightest.
redsamurai
Banned
Nugent sucks that's why his shit should be burned, just who the fuck do you think you are?
OMG the foot in the door slippery slope!
bakemeacookie
New member
word. fewer and fewer co's nowadays offer healthcare. Most now just offer some sort of discount.
Penalizing them to offer it to employees ain't gonna work. The only option was natioanl healthcare like canada/uk/san franscico and they didn't go that route.
meh i didn't really mean that i was trying to pull smurfy's pigtails and if failed
LOL nice try
Gorilla-Pharma
New member
There is no country that has great national healthcare...and multiply there problems ten fold do to US being larger and more free loaders. I'm so sick of tools like you thinking everyone is entitled to shit.
did you even notice that was your post?
everytime you bitch about anything O related i'm posting that quote along with a u mad pic teeheeloooooooooooollo
lol
It's weird. I'm no democrat and I didn't vote for Obama and I don't agree with his politics. But at the same time, I have respect for him. I can't explain it. I think he's a smart, friendly, charismatic man who loves his family. I really think he wants what is best for this country and the people, I just don't agree with everything he does to achieve that.
I had almost zero respect for Bush.
ismaele00
New member
There is no country that has great national healthcare...and multiply there problems ten fold do to US being larger and more free loaders. I'm so sick of tools like you thinking everyone is entitled to shit.
You've not been recently in France, have you?
I'll ask you more, if you don't mind, have you ever been out of the States? Maybe, that's the problem...........
No offence bro.
Gorilla-Pharma
New member
You've not been recently in France, have you?
I'll ask you more, if you don't mind, have you ever been out of the States? Maybe, that's the problem...........
No offence bro.
........................been to France, and all through Europe. Also been to Canada, Mexico, Australia. No offence taken.
maybe i can...you are a liberal, more right leaning democrat.
Be careful with that...
sorry but i did say that i don't agree with his politics and i didn't vote for him.
Be careful with that...
How does that differ from Reagan?
yea cause we should only elect the cool hip guy with little creditentials to office not some schmuck successful business owner...i can't wait to watch american idol omg!
i'm so furious i'm pissing all over the place
a little dull for sure...but a good man and would've made a good president, a natural leader.
charisma and little else doesn't strike me as good pres material but fuk it now
lol
When did I say I thought Obama was a good pres? You Repub are so pissy. I said I don't agree with his politics and I've never voted for him. But I find him charismatic and likeable on a personal level. Repub can't handle any positive words about Obama. The loss still hurts, doesn't it?
the loss hurts big time on many levels true.
energy is my immdeiate concern
the loss may hurt those in the private sector moreso than me though.
and i have a good thing to say about obama, he is a good campaigner
Fitguy308
Banned
Drop the attitude
you like boners too?
Or single moms can spend more time with their kids (even the black ones)
Yeah. Except I guarantee there are no blacks in Mitt's binders of women
lol binders of women was such a nonissue. There are no whites who cling to their guns and religion in obamas binders either
Yet benghazi story gets buried so obama can get elected
Gotta have priorities i suppose
You can't tell a joke when you see one?
federal regulations on hydralic fracturing may crimp these plans eh?
time will tell
"The drilling process that has brought U.S. energy independence within reach faces renewed scrutiny from the Obama administration and an uncertain future in many states.
Oil and gas industry leaders remain enthusiastic yet cautious that hydraulic fracturing, commonly known as "fracking," will be fully embraced by the newly re-elected President Obama and state leaders.
Fracking is a controversial but highly successful practice that has unlocked massive amounts of fuel. Endorsements from Mr. Obama and state leaders would make fracking the cornerstone of U.S. energy policy for decades to come.
Industry leaders won't have to wait long for their first clue to what the future holds.
Next month, the Environmental Protection Agency is expected to release a draft of its long-awaited report on suspected links between water pollution and fracking, which uses huge amounts of water, combined with sand and chemical mixtures, to crack underground rock and release trapped oil and gas.
The completed EPA study won't be finished until 2014, but the draft will provide an early indication to which energy path the Obama administration will take in the next four years."
http://www.elp.com/news/2012/11/23/...bama-nl-epa-report-could-doom-its-future.html
i drove 120 miles a day, and my house is heated with petro, both of which have remained costly.
and neither of which run on sunbeams, unicorn farts, or winds..
So, you're upset about some regulations that may or may not occur at some point in the future and the possible but nowhere near guaranteed effects they may or may not have on production?
The IEA came to the above conclusion like 2 weeks ago. Dont think much has changed since then.
I thought this would be good news.
So, you're upset about some regulations that may or may not occur at some point in the future and the possible but nowhere near guaranteed effects they may or may not have on production?
The IEA came to the above conclusion like 2 weeks ago. Dont think much has changed since then.
I thought this would be good news.
bro you were just celebrating usa oil production surpassing SA in 2020, i was demonstrating that it is not a foregone conclusion and will depend on numerous factors including regulation and ability to access.
I get that - I just dont think anything major is going to get in the way. Methinks Obama can sacrifice some friends in the EPA in exchange for a bunch of domestic jobs + us on our way to energy independence. Good legacy to have.
agreed it would a good legacy to have and would score points with me...time will tell
You may have been joking but the rest of the country believes it
Don't drop the soap
