Do you support UHC?

[Blackjack200]

Originally posted by: Fern
How does a lack of HI translate into being a "lazy fuck"? If you're talking about unemplyed/poor, they have great HI. It's called Medicaid. In other words, in this country the easiest way to get the best coverage possible is become a "lazy fuck".

Fern

Wow, you obviously don't know dick about Medicaid - it pays providers so little that most won't even accept it. My parents took in a foster child a couple of years ago and ended up having to pay every dime for her doctor and dental visits. They could not find a single primary care physician or dentist that would take medicaid, and they live in a densely populated suburb of New York City.

I have it much worse off according to you, with my fortune 500 company's health plan, where I can walk into any physician's or specialist's office I want, get whatever care I want, doctor shop until I get whatever prescriptions I want, and never pay more than $10 out of my pocket for any of it.

Damn, I wish I had that awesome medicaid.:disgust:

 

[Acanthus]

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

What does the Declaration of Independence have to do with anything?

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Acanthus
<Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

What does the Declaration of Independence have to do with anything?

The Declaration of Independence changed everything.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Acanthus
<<Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

What does the Declaration of Independence have to do with anything?

The Declaration of Independence changed everything.

Not everything. And even so, it doesn't allow the Federal gov't to take over the healthcare industry and then run it.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
I live in a country where we have universal health care. It's a wonderful system and I certainly wouldn't trade it for any privatised system that I know of.

:thumbsup: Luckily, you guys don't have REPUBLICANS to mess shit up

Just FYI, because you're clearly not the brightest bulb in the box, the last time a serious push was made for UHC (1993-94) the DEMOCRATS controlled the White House, the House, and the Senate, and they still dropped the ball, like they probably will this time.

The Democrats have a corporatist wing (see UHC, NAFTA, deregulation, etc.) and a corporatist wing. The big money in the private healthcare system paid for propaganda to change public opinion, which led to politial pressure. The Democrats made a lot better effort for UHC than Republicans.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
I live in a country where we have universal health care. It's a wonderful system and I certainly wouldn't trade it for any privatised system that I know of.

:thumbsup: Luckily, you guys don't have REPUBLICANS to mess shit up

Just FYI, because you're clearly not the brightest bulb in the box, the last time a serious push was made for UHC (1993-94) the DEMOCRATS controlled the White House, the House, and the Senate, and they still dropped the ball, like they probably will this time.

The Democrats have a corporatist wing (see UHC, NAFTA, deregulation, etc.) and a corporatist wing. The big money in the private healthcare system paid for propaganda to change public opinion, which led to politial pressure. The Democrats made a lot better effort for UHC than Republicans.

Clearly you don't understand the differences in ideology if you come out with they "made a lot better effor for UHC". Why should the R party make an effort for something like UHC? UHC is going to be a colossal failure just like so many other gov't run programs. It's about time the federal gov't start following the Constitution instead of give itself more powers that aren't specifically granted it.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Clearly you don't understand the differences in ideology if you come out with they "made a lot better effor for UHC". Why should the R party make an effort for something like UHC? UHC is going to be a colossal failure just like so many other gov't run programs. It's about time the federal gov't start following the Constitution instead of give itself more powers that aren't specifically granted it.

Would you support UHC if an amendment were passed for it?

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
<Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

We have a pro-lifer here.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Clearly you don't understand the differences in ideology if you come out with they "made a lot better effor for UHC". Why should the R party make an effort for something like UHC? UHC is going to be a colossal failure just like so many other gov't run programs. It's about time the federal gov't start following the Constitution instead of give itself more powers that aren't specifically granted it.

Would you support UHC if an amendment were passed for it?

I would not support or vote for one. IF however it made it all the way through - I'd have little choice but to live under the care of the gov't.

 

[woodie1]

NO to any government run UHC program. There must be one or two government run programs that are successful but I cannot think of one right now.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Acanthus
<<<Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

What does the Declaration of Independence have to do with anything?

The Declaration of Independence changed everything.

Not everything. And even so, it doesn't allow the Federal gov't to take over the healthcare industry and then run it.

CADsortaGUY are you denying that The Declaration of Independence changed everything? 😉

Seriously though, it doesn't prevent them from doing it. 😉

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Acanthus
<<<<<Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

What does the Declaration of Independence have to do with anything?

The Declaration of Independence changed everything.

Not everything. And even so, it doesn't allow the Federal gov't to take over the healthcare industry and then run it.

CADsortaGUY are you denying that The Declaration of Independence changed everything? 😉

Seriously though, it doesn't prevent them from doing it. 😉

FAK - I was thinking he was talking about the B o R 😱

 

[Xellos2099]

Originally posted by: woodie1
NO to any government run UHC program. There must be one or two government run programs that are successful but I cannot think of one right now.

I can't think of any. Public transportation and US postal service come to mind when it is the worst run government agency.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Public opinion polling usually shows the public in favor of UHC over our current system by 20 points or more, in quite a few cases it tops 2/3rds in favor. That's as close to a mandate as you're likely to get on an issue.

I bet huge majorities would also support free gov't-provided McMansions too, but good luck finding someone to pay for that.

 

[KMFJD]

Societies where incomes are relatively equal have low levels of stress and high levels of trust, so that people feel secure and see others as co-operative. In unequal societies, by contrast, the rich suffer from fear of the poor, while those lower down the social order experience status anxiety, looking upon those who are more successful with bitterness and upon themselves with shame. In the 1980s and 1990s, when inequality was rapidly rising in Britain and America, the rich bought homesecurity systems, and started to drive 4x4s with names such as Defender and Crossfire, reflecting a need to intimidate attackers. Meanwhile the poor grew obese on comfort foods and took more legal and illegal drugs.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: jpeyton
The GOP is screwed; health care bill by July.

We'll see if it passes. I'm thinking this will be 93-94 all over again.

All I know is that the Democrats have a lot of votes and a lot of time on their hands (through January 2017 at minimum).

This is true but I'm not so sure as many people want it as the Dems might think. I know ATPN isn't exactly a great polling area but I'm honestly shocked by the even split in the thread poll. I thought it would be extremely in favor as opposed to bouncing around 50%.

Public opinion polling usually shows the public in favor of UHC over our current system by 20 points or more, in quite a few cases it tops 2/3rds in favor. That's as close to a mandate as you're likely to get on an issue.

ATPN (and the internet in general) is a terrible place to get accurate data on what public opinion thinks. This site is mostly comprised of socially liberal/fiscally conservative people, which is probably the single smallest constituency of any political ideological combination in the United States today.

I'd actually like to see a link to such a poll. Many polls I have seen show pople want healthcare reform but shy away from having govt run health care.

 

[Pneumothorax]

Originally posted by: KMFJD
Societies where incomes are relatively equal have low levels of stress and high levels of trust, so that people feel secure and see others as co-operative. In unequal societies, by contrast, the rich suffer from fear of the poor, while those lower down the social order experience status anxiety, looking upon those who are more successful with bitterness and upon themselves with shame. In the 1980s and 1990s, when inequality was rapidly rising in Britain and America, the rich bought homesecurity systems, and started to drive 4x4s with names such as Defender and Crossfire, reflecting a need to intimidate attackers. Meanwhile the poor grew obese on comfort foods and took more legal and illegal drugs.

Welcome Komrade! Let's see I can either A: Spend 11+ years of my life after high school and work 60+ hours per week, see 40 patients a day and make $40K per year or B: Get a $40K job right after HS and work 40 hours per week, get all the cush benefits of a Union/Government/SEIU DMV job where I get 14 paid vacations per year and days off for "life balance" or C: Have family/networking connections and get to Work for the "People's Political Party" and make only $40K on paper, but drive around in my gov provided Mercedes ensuring everybody complies with the "People's Party" and catching all who dissent.

Let's just say you're going to get a lot of B's with many trying to get the C's and no one going for A.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: Pneumothorax

Originally posted by: KMFJD
Societies where incomes are relatively equal have low levels of stress and high levels of trust, so that people feel secure and see others as co-operative. In unequal societies, by contrast, the rich suffer from fear of the poor, while those lower down the social order experience status anxiety, looking upon those who are more successful with bitterness and upon themselves with shame. In the 1980s and 1990s, when inequality was rapidly rising in Britain and America, the rich bought homesecurity systems, and started to drive 4x4s with names such as Defender and Crossfire, reflecting a need to intimidate attackers. Meanwhile the poor grew obese on comfort foods and took more legal and illegal drugs.

Welcome Komrade! Let's see I can either A: Spend 11+ years of my life after high school and work 60+ hours per week, see 40 patients a day and make $40K per year or B: Get a $40K job right after HS and work 40 hours per week, get all the cush benefits of a Union/Government/SEIU DMV job where I get 14 paid vacations per year and days off for "life balance" or C: Have family/networking connections and get to Work for the "People's Political Party" and make only $40K on paper, but drive around in my gov provided Mercedes ensuring everybody complies with the "People's Party" and catching all who dissent.

Let's just say you're going to get a lot of B's with many trying to get the C's and no one going for A.

So do doctors in Canada, Japan, the UK, Germany, Sweden, and all the other countries with UHC make $40k/year?

I work for a State Government in IT, and make well over $40k/year. My father is a doctor with Medicare patients accounting for well over 90% of his patients and he makes many times $40k/year. Hospitals have nightmares over losing JCAHO certification because they'd loose their Medicare funding. Would they do that if the pay rates were so dismal?

Your argument is straight talking point and doesn't reflect the reality of Government work or Government health insurance or UHC in general.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I voted 'yes' for UHC...but do so with a caveat...I would advocate Australia's version NOT Canada's version. UHC is needed, it's humane, and the time has come...my major concern at this point is whether or not we can afford it and if we're smart enough to pick to right UHC model.

 

[Farang]

Yes, more important than roads or bridges

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Public opinion polling usually shows the public in favor of UHC over our current system by 20 points or more, in quite a few cases it tops 2/3rds in favor. That's as close to a mandate as you're likely to get on an issue.

I bet huge majorities would also support free gov't-provided McMansions too,..........

Why don't you run for public office with that theory and see how far you get.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Public opinion polling usually shows the public in favor of UHC over our current system by 20 points or more, in quite a few cases it tops 2/3rds in favor. That's as close to a mandate as you're likely to get on an issue.

I bet huge majorities would also support free gov't-provided McMansions too,..........

Why don't you run for public office with that theory and see how far you get.

As far as the White House, possibly - that's how far Obama got promising all sorts of things which only required additional taxes on the "rich" to pay for. But why pick on him? He's hardly the only pander-bear in public office; most follow the same formula, in BOTH parties. Promise things you can't or won't deliver, and hope the voters forget all those things once you get elected. It usually works. The last serious presidential candidate for either major party who I felt wasn't a complete liar was Paul Tsongas, but of course he lost to that most charming of pander-bears, Clinton, who promised both a 'middle-class tax cut' and univeral healthcare, neither of which he delivered. So the cycle goes . . .

 

[KMFJD]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: Pneumothorax

Originally posted by: KMFJD
Societies where incomes are relatively equal have low levels of stress and high levels of trust, so that people feel secure and see others as co-operative. In unequal societies, by contrast, the rich suffer from fear of the poor, while those lower down the social order experience status anxiety, looking upon those who are more successful with bitterness and upon themselves with shame. In the 1980s and 1990s, when inequality was rapidly rising in Britain and America, the rich bought homesecurity systems, and started to drive 4x4s with names such as Defender and Crossfire, reflecting a need to intimidate attackers. Meanwhile the poor grew obese on comfort foods and took more legal and illegal drugs.

Welcome Komrade! Let's see I can either A: Spend 11+ years of my life after high school and work 60+ hours per week, see 40 patients a day and make $40K per year or B: Get a $40K job right after HS and work 40 hours per week, get all the cush benefits of a Union/Government/SEIU DMV job where I get 14 paid vacations per year and days off for "life balance" or C: Have family/networking connections and get to Work for the "People's Political Party" and make only $40K on paper, but drive around in my gov provided Mercedes ensuring everybody complies with the "People's Party" and catching all who dissent.

Let's just say you're going to get a lot of B's with many trying to get the C's and no one going for A.

So do doctors in Canada, Japan, the UK, Germany, Sweden, and all the other countries with UHC make $40k/year?

I work for a State Government in IT, and make well over $40k/year. My father is a doctor with Medicare patients accounting for well over 90% of his patients and he makes many times $40k/year. Hospitals have nightmares over losing JCAHO certification because they'd loose their Medicare funding. Would they do that if the pay rates were so dismal?

Your argument is straight talking point and doesn't reflect the reality of Government work or Government health insurance or UHC in general.

Yep doctors in Canada and the EU barely make more than the average ditch digger....

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Public opinion polling usually shows the public in favor of UHC over our current system by 20 points or more, in quite a few cases it tops 2/3rds in favor. That's as close to a mandate as you're likely to get on an issue.

I bet huge majorities would also support free gov't-provided McMansions too,..........

Why don't you run for public office with that theory and see how far you get.

As far as the White House, possibly - that's how far Obama got promising all sorts of things which only required additional taxes on the "rich" to pay for. But why pick on him? He's hardly the only pander-bear in public office; most follow the same formula, in BOTH parties. Promise things you can't or won't deliver, and hope the voters forget all those things once you get elected. It usually works. The last serious presidential candidate for either major party who I felt wasn't a complete liar was Paul Tsongas, but of course he lost to that most charming of pander-bears, Clinton, who promised both a 'middle-class tax cut' and univeral healthcare, neither of which he delivered. So the cycle goes . . .

LOL, who says Obama can't deliver on his health care ideas? Reform is long overdue.

Just admit it, your analogy was horseshit.