From: David Ruether on

"Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message news:j8ednTpSpe1f7S3XnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...

[...]
> This morning's (Wednesday) Investor's Business Daily has a front-page headline saying:
> "45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting
> If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul.

And in the last couple of days, well over 70% of doctors
supported the "public option" in another poll I caught on TV.
Good ol' polls can "say" whatever you want, I guess...! ;-)
--DR


From: Bob Larter on
Bill Graham wrote:
>
> "Douglas Johnson" <post(a)classtech.com> wrote in message
> news:bm0la513ptifqd2htorhffbk4a24j9sbtg(a)4ax.com...
>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> .....Can I blame the liberals for it? After all, it is a socialist
>>> idea. Can
>>> anyone get food simply by putting their feet on a supermarkets
>>> property? If
>>> so, then would you go for the idea today that food should be
>>> socialized? How
>>> about getting a room for the night by simply setting foot on a hotel's
>>> property?
>>
>> So you have a heart attack. The paramedics show up. Should they
>> require proof
>> of citizenship or ability to pay before starting CPR? Or before they
>> transport
>> you to the hospital? Should the hospital require it before they treat
>> you?
>
> In my world, yes, yes, yes. Everyone (all 300 million of us citizens)
> should have a government ID card, and/or a chip implanted in us that
> identifies us as US citizens in good standing, and if we are sick, then
> the chip should get us the treatment we need. Today's technology is more
> than adequate to accomplish this.

Jeez. Ever read 1984?

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
From: SMS on
David Ruether wrote:

> Yes - and that health care would not be "free" in any case, as it now is
> for many who currently (and expensively for the rest of us) use emergency
> room facilities in lieu of having a regular (and far less expensive) GP.
> As a tax-payer and health-care payer, I would much prefer to cover a
> $100 GP visit than a $1000 ER visit for an "illegal" concealed inside my
> bills.

It's more logical and less expensive, but you'll never see it for two
reasons. First, it's politically impossible because there are still too
many Republicans in the House and Senate. Second, that "free" ER visit
is now being funded by the operator of the hospital or clinic (public or
private or non-profit) and everyone's private insurance which goes up as
a result of the cost of indigent care. It's basically another unfunded
federal mandate borne by state and local governments and private
insurers. Providing coverage for illegals, while it would be cheaper
overall, would be something that the federal government would have to
fund. It would also attract more illegals. It's really moot anyway, as
illegals would be unlikely to sign up for government health care even if
offered since they'd be worried about being caught and deported.

OTOH, something needs to be done regarding the ER situation. My nephew
is an ER physician and the ERs are being overwhelmed by the uninsured,
mostly legal residents, that come in for free medical care, most of
which would not be necessary were the condition treated earlier. The
people really being hurt are the people that cannot afford insurance but
that are not indigent. They are the only ones paying $1000 for a $1000
ER visit, just as they are the only one's paying rack rate for hospital
stays.

> And I would also prefer that a communicable desease or potentially
> very serious and expensive condition be caught early through good care.
> It is short-sighted to see this in "us vs. them" terms when universal
> health care, including preventive care, helps us all. Or, for those against
> single payer health care (which is what SS Medicare is - and most are
> VERY happy with that, and its administrative costs are a small fraction
> of those of private insurance), look at the statistics. In EVERY country
> that has a single-payer system of health care, the average life span is
> greater than ours(!), and the cost of the health care system is less than
> ours(!). Yet the "know-nothings" hide their heads in the sand and mutter
> idiotic things like, "socialism"...

They mutter it because they are being told to mutter it. You have to
realize who these people are, for the most part. Under-educated,
under-employed, middle-aged, white males. These are now the core
constituency of the Republican party, and they do and say what Rush,
Sean, Glenn, etc. tell them do and say. They have no capacity for
looking at the big picture, and they have no desire or ability to check
out any facts for themselves. I don't want to have Godwin's law kick-in
so I'll avoid making the obvious statement.

Maybe before Obama works on the health care problem he needs to work on
the education problem, or we'll raise another generation of people that
lack critical thinking skills. But he'd better hurry. The Democrats are
unlikely to pick up any more House and Senate seats in the mid-term
election in 2010, and if history is any indication they'll likely lose
some seats. So Obama has only a year and a half to push through his
agenda prior to the evil-doers having more of a chance to stop him.
From: Pete Stavrakoglou on
"SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4ab1116d$0$1588$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net...
> David Ruether wrote:
>
>> Yes - and that health care would not be "free" in any case, as it now is
>> for many who currently (and expensively for the rest of us) use emergency
>> room facilities in lieu of having a regular (and far less expensive) GP.
>> As a tax-payer and health-care payer, I would much prefer to cover a
>> $100 GP visit than a $1000 ER visit for an "illegal" concealed inside my
>> bills.
>
> It's more logical and less expensive, but you'll never see it for two
> reasons. First, it's politically impossible because there are still too
> many Republicans in the House and Senate. Second, that "free" ER visit is
> now being funded by the operator of the hospital or clinic (public or
> private or non-profit) and everyone's private insurance which goes up as a
> result of the cost of indigent care. It's basically another unfunded
> federal mandate borne by state and local governments and private insurers.
> Providing coverage for illegals, while it would be cheaper overall, would
> be something that the federal government would have to fund. It would also
> attract more illegals. It's really moot anyway, as illegals would be
> unlikely to sign up for government health care even if offered since
> they'd be worried about being caught and deported.

News Flash! The Democrats are in complete control in the House and Senate,
they can pass anything they want. It's not the Republicans who are stopping
anything.

> OTOH, something needs to be done regarding the ER situation. My nephew is
> an ER physician and the ERs are being overwhelmed by the uninsured, mostly
> legal residents, that come in for free medical care, most of which would
> not be necessary were the condition treated earlier. The people really
> being hurt are the people that cannot afford insurance but that are not
> indigent. They are the only ones paying $1000 for a $1000 ER visit, just
> as they are the only one's paying rack rate for hospital stays.
>
>> And I would also prefer that a communicable desease or potentially
>> very serious and expensive condition be caught early through good care.
>> It is short-sighted to see this in "us vs. them" terms when universal
>> health care, including preventive care, helps us all. Or, for those
>> against
>> single payer health care (which is what SS Medicare is - and most are
>> VERY happy with that, and its administrative costs are a small fraction
>> of those of private insurance), look at the statistics. In EVERY country
>> that has a single-payer system of health care, the average life span is
>> greater than ours(!), and the cost of the health care system is less than
>> ours(!). Yet the "know-nothings" hide their heads in the sand and mutter
>> idiotic things like, "socialism"...
>
> They mutter it because they are being told to mutter it. You have to
> realize who these people are, for the most part. Under-educated,
> under-employed, middle-aged, white males. These are now the core
> constituency of the Republican party, and they do and say what Rush, Sean,
> Glenn, etc. tell them do and say. They have no capacity for looking at the
> big picture, and they have no desire or ability to check out any facts for
> themselves. I don't want to have Godwin's law kick-in so I'll avoid making
> the obvious statement.

You continue to espouse your opinions as if they're fact. I can say the
same about you - you take your marching orders from the leftist pundits.
You're claim is hollow.

> Maybe before Obama works on the health care problem he needs to work on
> the education problem, or we'll raise another generation of people that
> lack critical thinking skills. But he'd better hurry. The Democrats are
> unlikely to pick up any more House and Senate seats in the mid-term
> election in 2010, and if history is any indication they'll likely lose
> some seats. So Obama has only a year and a half to push through his agenda
> prior to the evil-doers having more of a chance to stop him.

Yes, we're all evil-doers. I think it's you who need an eductaion, one in
reality.


From: SMS on
David Ruether wrote:

> And in the last couple of days, well over 70% of doctors
> supported the "public option" in another poll I caught on TV.
> Good ol' polls can "say" whatever you want, I guess...! ;-)

There is hope. According to a Gallup poll (that's a lot more reliable
than the push poll by the right-wing IBD), by a 68% to 21% margin,
Americans oppose rather than support South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson's
shouted �You lie!� outburst.