Tsunami Warning

[Gipper]

And the Dems are about to drown. Barry may beat out Jimma as the worst president of all time.

Oh, I almost forgot...its all George's fault.

The Health-Care Backlash
Peter Wehner - 12.21.2009 - 3:07 PM

Here are some thoughts on where things stand in the aftermath of the certain passage of the Senate health-care bill.

1. Few Democrats understand the depth and intensity of opposition that exists toward them and their agenda, especially regarding health care. Passage of this bill will only heighten the depth and intensity of the opposition. We’re seeing a political tsunami in the making, and passage of health-care legislation would only add to its size and force.

2. This health-care bill may well be historic, but not in the way the president thinks. I’m not sure we’ve ever seen anything quite like it: passage of a mammoth piece of legislation, hugely expensive and unpopular, on a strict party-line vote taken in a rush of panic because Democrats know that the more people see of ObamaCare, the less they like it.

3. The problem isn’t simply with how substantively awful the bill is but how deeply dishonest and (legally) corrupt the whole process has been. There’s already a powerful populist, anti-Washington sentiment out there, perhaps as strong as anything we’ve seen. This will add kerosene to that raging fire.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/wehner/202662

 

[pocketfullofshells]

60% support the Public Option....thats like ...hmmm alot more people then Voted Republican ...so guess we don't need you

 

[MrSheepish]

Until the last few years I was always kind of neutral on the health care debate. I guess I didn't think about it that much. But living in Europe has had a fairly big impact on those views. The European citizens I interact with have all been very happy with their health care. They come from a variety of nations, so I get confused about the details of their respective plans, but none of them have to worry about paying when they get sick. They don't have to worry about whether they went to the "right" doctor for their insurance company to be happy. They don't have to worry about having no coverage when they change/lose jobs. Unlike one of my friends in the USA they are never screwed because no one will cover them if they are sick to begin with, and they never have to worry about getting so sick that they exceed maximum coverage, nor do they ever have to worry about getting dropped if they lose their job due to sickness. Maybe this is all a bit expensive, but they still pay less on average per person for their care than we do.

So I honestly am a bit baffled by the heated opposition to reforming the American health care system, which seems more expensive and less fair to me. If more people traveled and saw how happy the rest of the first world was with their systems then I don't really see how they could continue to support the American system. Maybe the Democrats are going to screw it up, but the rest of the first world has figured out a decent way to treat their sick people. Even if this round ends up as a mess, someday, maybe 10 years or maybe 50 years from now, the USA will have a fair system of universal coverage as well, and they will defend it just as fiercely as they defend Medicare today.

 

[Gipper]

60% support the Public Option....thats like ...hmmm alot more people then Voted Republican ...so guess we don't need you

Wrong...

The public option was never liked by most Americans which is why the Dems dropped it. Do you get all your information from Media Matters?

Just 34% Say Passing Health Care Bill is Better Than Passing Nothing
Friday, December 18, 2009
Fifty-seven percent (57%) of voters nationwide say that it would be better to pass no health care reform bill this year instead of passing the plan currently being considered by Congress. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 34% think that passing that bill would be better.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...alth_care_bill_is_better_than_passing_nothing

 

[Gipper]

Until the last few years I was always kind of neutral on the health care debate. I guess I didn't think about it that much. But living in Europe has had a fairly big impact on those views. The European citizens I interact with have all been very happy with their health care. They come from a variety of nations, so I get confused about the details of their respective plans, but none of them have to worry about paying when they get sick. They don't have to worry about whether they went to the "right" doctor for their insurance company to be happy. They don't have to worry about having no coverage when they change/lose jobs. Unlike one of my friends in the USA they are never screwed because no one will cover them if they are sick to begin with, and they never have to worry about getting so sick that they exceed maximum coverage, nor do they ever have to worry about getting dropped if they lose their job due to sickness. Maybe this is all a bit expensive, but they still pay less on average per person for their care than we do.

So I honestly am a bit baffled by the heated opposition to reforming the American health care system, which seems more expensive and less fair to me. If more people traveled and saw how happy the rest of the first world was with their systems then I don't really see how they could continue to support the American system. Maybe the Democrats are going to screw it up, but the rest of the first world has figured out a decent way to treat their sick people. Even if this round ends up as a mess, someday, maybe 10 years or maybe 50 years from now, the USA will have a fair system of universal coverage as well, and they will defend it just as fiercely as they defend Medicare today.

Wrong again. You need to educate yourself.

When you are old or incur serious health problems, the Euro and Canadian socialistic health care plans fail miserably. They ration care and have death panels just like we will if the Dems get their way. Conditions in many of their hospitals is horrific by our standards. If you live in rural areas you really get screwed because rural hospitals lack everything.

Oh, and its all George's fault.

 

[MrSheepish]

You need to educate yourself.

That's my goal

When you are old or incur serious health problems, the Euro and Canadian socialistic health care plans fail miserably. They ration care and have death panels just like we will if the Dems get their way. Conditions in many of their hospitals is horrific by our standards. If you live in rural areas you really get screwed because rural hospitals lack everything.

Can you provide references for any of these claims? Specifically, non-anecdotal references? Anecdotes will not go in your favor. Between my own experiences and those of my friends I have seen health insurance companies in the USA deny coverage for doctors they told us they covered, I have seen them deny coverage for people enrolled under their plans based upon the location in which a person lived, and I have seen them almost ruin the life of a friend of mine who had a nasty but easily treatable pre-existing condition, but couldn't get coverage no matter what he did. None of these problems would have happened in any other civilized country. But these experiences may be rare in the scheme of things. I would much rather see statistics about treatments that are denied and/or the success rate of treating serious conditions.

 

[Gipper]

That's my goal

Can you provide references for any of these claims?

Yes...here you go. I know several people who got sick or injured in Europe and their experience was horrific. A friend broke her hip after a fall in the streets of Florence Italy. The hospital was dirty and nurses incompetent. She was in a large room with numerous other female patients. No air conditioning, no bathroom, flies buzzing...she could not walk and forced to use a bed pan which they failed to timely remove. After a few days she had to demand a sponge bath because they had no intention of cleaning her up. She then caught MRSA. Fortunately her husband got her the hell out of there and back home to the good old USA. She had to have a second surgery here to fix the F'ed up job the socialist surgeon did in Italy. This is but one example of the horrors of socialized medicine I can impart.

I have more news stories if your interested. Its endless. Yet, those who only get their news solely from liberal American news outlet will have never seen this and likely will discount it because socialism is the solution in their minds. No amount of factual information will sway them...

Over 45,000 NHS staff call in sick every day, which is lowering standards of patient care, according to the first national NHS Health and Wellbeing Review into staff habits.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6049107/Over-45000-NHS-staff-call-in-sick-each-day.html

http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=1878506&sponsor
Thousands of surgeries may be cut in Metro Vancouver due to government underfunding, leaked paper


In 1918, the Soviet Union became the first country to promise universal "cradle-to-grave" healthcare coverage, to be accomplished through the complete socialization of medicine. The "right to health" became a "constitutional right" of Soviet citizens. The proclaimed advantages of this system were that it would "reduce costs" and eliminate the "waste" that stemmed from "unnecessary duplication and parallelism" — i.e., competition.
In "civilized" England, for example, the waiting list for surgeries is nearly 800,000 out of a population of 55 million. State-of-the-art equipment is nonexistent in most British hospitals. In England, only 10 percent of the healthcare spending is derived from private sources.
Age discrimination is particularly apparent in all government-run or heavily regulated systems of healthcare. In Russia, patients over 60 are considered worthless parasites and those over 70 are often denied even elementary forms of healthcare.
In the United Kingdom, in the treatment of chronic kidney failure, those who are 55 years old are refused treatment at 35 percent of dialysis centers. Forty-five percent of 65-year-old patients at the centers are denied treatment, while patients 75 or older rarely receive any medical attention at these centers.
In Canada, the population is divided into three age groups in terms of their access to healthcare: those below 45, those 45–65, and those over 65. Needless to say, the first group, who could be called the "active taxpayers," enjoys priority treatment.http://mises.org/story/3650


Massachusetts' Obama-like reforms increase health costs, wait times

If you are curious about how President Barack Obama's health plan would affect your health care, look no farther than Massachusetts. In 2006, the Bay State enacted a slate of reforms that almost perfectly mirror the plan of Obama and congressional Democrats.
Those reforms reveal that the Obama plan would mean higher health insurance premiums for millions, would reduce choice by eliminating both low-cost and comprehensive health plans, would encourage insurers to avoid the sick and would reduce the quality of care.
http://www.detnews.com/article/2009...ike-reforms-increase-health-costs--wait-times

For those of you who are over 65, this bill in its present form might be lethal for you. People in England over 59 cannot receive stents for their coronary arteries. The government wants to mimic the British plan. For those of you younger, it will still mean restriction of the care that you and your children receive.
Over the past 35 years I have cared for over 1000 children born with congenital cataracts. In older children and in adults the vision is rehabilitated with an intraocular lens. In newborns we use contact lenses which ar! e very expensive. It takes Medicaid over one year to approve a contact lens post cataract surgery. By that time a successful anatomical operation is wasted as the child will be close to blind from a lack of focusing for so long a period of time.
We are being lied to about the uninsured. They are getting care. I operate at least 2 illegal immigrants each month who pay me nothing, and the children's hospital at which I operate charges them nothing also. This is true not only on Atlanta, but of every community in America.
Already, the top neurosurgeon at my hospital who is in good health and only 52 years old has just quit because he can't stand working with the government anymore. Forty-nine percent of children under the age of 16 in the state of Georgia are on Medicaid, so he felt he just could not stand working with the bureaucracy anymore.
Last week I had a lady bring her child to me. They are Americans but live in Sweden, as the father has a job with a big corporation. The child had the onset of double vision 3 months ago and has been unable to function normally because of this. They are people of means but are waiting 8 months to see the ophthalmologist in Sweden. Then if the child needed surgery they would be put on a 6 month waiting list. She called me and I saw her that day. It turned out that the child had accommodative esotropia (crossing of the eyes treated with glasses that correct for farsightedness) and responded to glasses within 4 days, so no surgery was needed. Again, rationing of care.
Thomas More Law Center - News

Did the fact that Canada has a socialist, government-run healthcare system --similar to the kind that President Obama wants to ram down the throats of Americans-- kill acclaimed actress Natasha Richardson? The short answer is yes, it may very well have done so.
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/03/21/did-canadas-universal-health-c

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/item_GCJDJyjiBPnoXPOkTu1x8L

FILTHY hospital wards are crawling with rats, cockroaches, flies and maggots, it has been revealed.

Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1519814.ece#ixzz0aZEIRjPA

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1519814.ece

 

[Gipper]

The wonders of socialized medicine...

How much you want to bet this story does not get reported in ONE major US newspaper or network??? Yet, many DF liberals still believe...

Parents forced to call 999 from outside GP surgery 'because doctors were too busy to see dying baby'

By Daily Mail Reporter
A couple whose baby was dying of meningitis were forced to dial 999 for an ambulance from outside their GP surgery - after being told doctors were too busy to see him.

Lee Freeman and Shaunna Bent sprinted more than a mile to their local GP surgery with five-month-old Jaydon in their arms after he was struck down with classic meningitis symptoms.

But when they arrived, a receptionist told them no doctor was available and they could leave their number so someone could call them back.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-surgery-doctors-busy-help.html#ixzz0fQfPVrfk

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Yes...here you go. I know several people who got sick or injured in Europe and their experience was horrific. A friend broke her hip after a fall in the streets of Florence Italy. The hospital was dirty and nurses incompetent. She was in a large room with numerous other female patients. No air conditioning, no bathroom, flies buzzing...she could not walk and forced to use a bed pan which they failed to timely remove. After a few days she had to demand a sponge bath because they had no intention of cleaning her up. She then caught MRSA. Fortunately her husband got her the hell out of there and back home to the good old USA. She had to have a second surgery here to fix the F'ed up job the socialist surgeon did in Italy. This is but one example of the horrors of socialized medicine I can impart.

I have more news stories if your interested. Its endless. Yet, those who only get their news solely from liberal American news outlet will have never seen this and likely will discount it because socialism is the solution in their minds. No amount of factual information will sway them...

LMAO...your hysteria {while substantiated with horror stories} are as common right here in our great country...ask any Veteran how he has survived many a stay at the area VA Hospital and you'll hear stories as heinous as you've provided

And as far as MSRA goes...just within my remote rural area; I know of 9 people from all walks of life/all age groups that have contracted that horrible disease and it had nothing to do with their direct care while in the hospital...but carry on with your hysteria...you look/sound so cute when you are getting all worked up

 

[citizenzen]

When you are old or incur serious health problems, the Euro and Canadian socialistic health care plans fail miserably.

And yet, the Canadians and Euros are outliving those in the good ol' USA. Heck, right now we're even being beat by Cuba! (Wasn't Cuba's healthcare featured in Michael Moore's movie Sicko? Why yes, I believe it was.)

From Wikipedia...

Life Expectancy

1 Japan 82.6
2 Hong Kong ( PRC) 82.2
3 Iceland 81.8
4 Switzerland 81.7
5 Australia 81.2
6 Spain 80.9
7 Sweden 80.9
8 Israel 80.7
9 Macau ( PRC) 80.7
10 France (metropolitan) 80.7
11 Canada 80.7
12 Italy 80.5
13 New Zealand 80.2
14 Norway 80.2
15 Singapore 80.0
16 Austria 79.8
17 Netherlands 79.8
18 Martinique ( France) 79.5
19 Greece 79.5
20 Belgium 79.4
21 Malta 79.4
22 United Kingdom 79.4
23 Germany 79.4
24 U.S. Virgin Islands (US) 79.4
25 Finland 79.3
26 Guadeloupe ( France) 79.2
27 Channel Islands ( Jersey and Guernsey) ( UK) 79.0
28 Cyprus 79.0
29 Ireland 78.9
30 Costa Rica 78.8
31 Puerto Rico ( US) 78.7
32 Luxembourg 78.7
33 United Arab Emirates 78.7
34 South Korea 78.6
35 Chile 78.6
36 Denmark 78.3
37 Cuba 78.3
38 United States 78.2​

 

[citizenzen]

Gip, and since you mentioned babies, let's look at infant mortality rates. (Notice that we got beat by Cuba again! Those commies!)

Again, from Wikipedia...

Infant Mortality

The infant mortality rate (IMR) is the number of deaths of infants under one year old per 1,000 live births. This rate is often used as an indicator of the level of health in a country.

1 Iceland 2.9
2 Singapore 3.0
3 Japan 3.2
4 Sweden 3.2
5 Norway 3.3
6 Hong Kong 3.7
7 Finland 3.7
8 Czech Republic 3.8
9 Switzerland 4.1
10 South Korea 4.1
11 Belgium 4.2
12 France 4.2
13 Spain 4.2
14 Germany 4.3
15 Denmark 4.4
16 Austria 4.4
17 Australia 4.4
18 Luxembourg 4.5
19 Netherlands 4.7
20 Israel 4.7
21 Slovenia 4.8
22 United Kingdom 4.8
23 Canada 4.8
24 Ireland 4.9
25 Italy 5.0
26 Portugal 5.0
27 New Zealand 5.0
28 Cuba 5.1
29 Channel Islands ( Jersey and Guernsey) 5.2
30 Brunei 5.5
31 Cyprus 5.9
32 New Caledonia 6.1
33 United States 6.3​

 

[Gipper]

And yet, the Canadians and Euros are outliving those in the good ol' USA. Heck, right now we're even being beat by Cuba! (Wasn't Cuba's healthcare featured in Michael Moore's movie Sicko? Why yes, I believe it was.)

From Wikipedia...

Life Expectancy

1 Japan 82.6
2 Hong Kong ( PRC) 82.2
3 Iceland 81.8
4 Switzerland 81.7
5 Australia 81.2
6 Spain 80.9
7 Sweden 80.9
8 Israel 80.7
9 Macau ( PRC) 80.7
10 France (metropolitan) 80.7
11 Canada 80.7
12 Italy 80.5
13 New Zealand 80.2
14 Norway 80.2
15 Singapore 80.0
16 Austria 79.8
17 Netherlands 79.8
18 Martinique ( France) 79.5
19 Greece 79.5
20 Belgium 79.4
21 Malta 79.4
22 United Kingdom 79.4
23 Germany 79.4
24 U.S. Virgin Islands (US) 79.4
25 Finland 79.3
26 Guadeloupe ( France) 79.2
27 Channel Islands ( Jersey and Guernsey) ( UK) 79.0
28 Cyprus 79.0
29 Ireland 78.9
30 Costa Rica 78.8
31 Puerto Rico ( US) 78.7
32 Luxembourg 78.7
33 United Arab Emirates 78.7
34 South Korea 78.6
35 Chile 78.6
36 Denmark 78.3
37 Cuba 78.3
38 United States 78.2​

This is total garbage and has been completely discredited numerous times. And, your posting it either indicates your ignorance or your progressive desire to distort, lie, and mislead.

The "Average Life Expectancy" Lie
By r2streu - Posted on August 4th, 2009


Tell any pro-ObamaCare Democrat that socialized healthcare doesn't work, and you are sure to receive the smug reply that "countries with a single-payer system have a higher life expectancy." Technically, that's true. But, as the saying goes, there are "lies, damned lies and statistics." The lie in this particular set of stats is indeed not in the stats themselves, but in the inference you are asked to draw from them. You are told, for example, that Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom rate higher in life expectancy than the U.S. because of their public healthcare systems.

You're asked to believe that all this happens in a vaccuum. That the only -- or at least largest -- factor in life expectancy is the mode and quality of health insurance. But that isn't the case. The Life Expectancy figure is based upon an average of death ages from any cause; and that includes non-medical causes.
http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/story/r2streu/2009/08/04/the_average_life_expectancy_lie

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

This is total garbage and has been completely discredited numerous times. And, your posting it either indicates your ignorance or your progressive desire to distort, lie, and mislead.

My, My, My...you have been learning quite a lot from your fearless leader...like attitude, communication, thoughtful rejoinder and how to carry on an open discussion about a topic **warning** Will Robinson, you could be heading for another week in Siberia

Wikipedia: This is a list of countries by life expectancy at birth, the average number of years to be lived by a group of people born in the same year, if mortality at each age remains constant in the future. Each entry includes total population as well as the male and female components. Several non-sovereign entities are also included in this list. The figures reflect the quality of healthcare in the countries listed as well as other factors including ongoing wars and HIV/AIDS infections. Figures are from the CIA World Factbook2009[1] and from the 2006 revision of the United Nations World Population Prospects report, for 2005-2010.[2]. Only countries/territories with a population of 100,000 or more in 2007 are included in the United Nations list.
The life expectancy at birth of the world is 67.2 years (65.0 years for males and 69.5 years for females) for 2005-2010 according to United Nations World Population Prospects 2006 Revision and 66.57 years (64.52 years for males and 68.76 years for females) for 2009 according to CIA World Factbook 2009.
Many of the countries with the lowest life expectancies, namely Swaziland, Botswana, Lesotho, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Namibia, Zambia, Malawi, the Central African Republic, Mozambique, and Guinea-Bissau, are suffering from very high rates of HIV/AIDS infection, with adult prevalence rates ranging from 10 to 38.8 percent [3]. Also note that in countries with high infant mortality rates, the life expectancy at birth will be lower and may not reflect the life expectancy a person who has survived his or her first year of life would have.

So when you post 'ONE' just one source and expound on that as "discredited numerous times" you really-really don't have anything else and in that same said article {one article} are the exact sources that the Wikipedia use and your article states that one would need to use for proof of the stats...hmmm

And then your article clearly states that there are as many stats for as there are against the statement/results/opinion in your article It would appear my little goose-stepping friend that you've gored yourself with your own petard...so your vitriolic venting isn't worth the angst about this subject matter...it's just a subject for discussion, CALM THE HELL DOWN

 

[citizenzen]

This is total garbage and has been completely discredited numerous times.

You brought up elder care. If these countries are so poor at it, one wonders why they live years longer on average than we do. Same thing with your single reference to a baby who died. When you consider that in the US 6.3 out of 1000 infants dies in the US versus 4.8 in the UK, you have to wonder how many horror stories you are ignoring in your own country.

I have little doubt that if these statistics backed up your side of the debate you'd be more than happy to use them.

 

[dogtowner]

Can you provide references for any of these claims? Specifically, non-anecdotal references? Anecdotes will not go in your favor.

and yet that's all you offer.