Washington "shall" control your healthcare

[Dr.Who]

And a grocery store only makes a few cents on most everything they sell... MEANS NOTHING AND YOU KNOW IT!

The fact is that grocery stores can do this because people always have to eat and it all adds up. Same thing with rip off health insurance companies. They have the monopoly and they have the huge amount of people. So 4% (and it's usually higher) is an ASTRONOMICALLY, MONSTROUSLY, OUT OF THIS WORLD, HUGER THAN HUGE, UNBELIEVABLE amount of money!!!

And we've already posted many times the independent studies that clearly document that lack of health insurance does cause death. The indigent care thing is in no way on any equal plain with real healthcare... but you know that too.

You will simply say anything to keep people away from care and insurance companies between the patient and his or her doctor... and that my friend is pretty disgusting.

Study links 45,000 U.S. deaths to lack of insurance
Sep 17, 2009

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Nearly 45,000 people die in the United States each year -- one every 12 minutes -- in large part because they lack health insurance and can not get good care, Harvard Medical School researchers found in an analysis released on Thursday.

"We're losing more Americans every day because of inaction ... than drunk driving and homicide combined," Dr. David Himmelstein, a co-author of the study and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard, said in an interview with Reuters.

Overall, researchers said American adults age 64 and younger who lack health insurance have a 40 percent higher risk of death than those who have coverage.

The findings come amid a fierce debate over Democrats' efforts to reform the nation's $2.5 trillion U.S. healthcare industry by expanding coverage and reducing healthcare costs.

President Barack Obama's has made the overhaul a top domestic policy priority, but his plan has been besieged by critics and slowed by intense political battles in Congress, with the insurance and healthcare industries fighting some parts of the plan.

The Harvard study, funded by a federal research grant, was published in the online edition of the American Journal of Public Health. It was released by Physicians for a National Health Program, which favors government-backed or "single-payer" health insurance.

An similar study in 1993 found those without insurance had a 25 percent greater risk of death, according to the Harvard group. The Institute of Medicine later used that data in its 2002 estimate showing about 18,000 people a year died because they lacked coverage.

Part of the increased risk now is due to the growing ranks of the uninsured, Himmelstein said. Roughly 46.3 million people in the United States lacked coverage in 2008, the U.S. Census Bureau reported last week, up from 45.7 million in 2007.

Another factor is that there are fewer places for the uninsured to get good care. Public hospitals and clinics are shuttering or scaling back across the country in cities like New Orleans, Detroit and others, he said.

Study co-author Dr. Steffie Woolhandler said the findings show that without proper care, uninsured people are more likely to die from complications associated with preventable diseases such as diabetes and heart disease.

Some critics called the study flawed.

The National Center for Policy Analysis, a Washington think tank that backs a free-market approach to health care, said researchers overstated the death risk and did not track how long subjects were uninsured.

Woolhandler said that while Physicians for a National Health Program supports government-backed coverage, the Harvard study's six researchers closely followed the methodology used in the 1993 study conducted by researchers in the federal government as well as the University of Rochester in New York.

The Harvard researchers analyzed data on about 9,000 patients tracked by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics through the year 2000. They excluded older Americans because those aged 65 or older are covered by the U.S. Medicare insurance program.

"For any doctor ... it's completely a no-brainer that people who can't get health care are going to die more from the kinds of things that health care is supposed to prevent," said Woolhandler, a professor of medicine at Harvard and a primary care physician in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

All those people had access to health care and chose not to take advantage of it. It was their choice.

And you are a great proponent of class warfare.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Under a Palin Presiduncy, would Exorcisms be covered?????

​

 

[Dr.Who]

Under a Palin Presiduncy, would Exorcisms be covered?????

​

No exorcisms would not be covered. Anyone who thinks they would be is an idiot.

Surely you don't think they would be so you must not be an idiot on that basis.

But if you don't think exorcisms would be covered and yet you make a post alluding to exorcisms being covered then, while that does not make you an idiot it must make you something else.

 

[top gun]

I couldn't have said it much better than this, so I'll save my comments until this thread is going:

"The King James version of the Bible runs more than 600 pages and is crammed with celestial regulations. Newton's Principia Mathematica distilled many of the rules of physics in a mere 974 pages.

Neither have anything on Nancy Pelosi's new fiendishly entertaining health-care opus, which tops 1,900 pages.

So curl up by a fire with a fifth of whiskey and just dive in.

But drink quickly. In the new world, your insurance choices will be tethered to decisions made by people with Orwellian titles ("1984" was only 268 pages!) like the "Health Choices Commissioner" or "Inspector General for the Health Choices Administration."

You will, of course, need to be plastered to buy Pelosi's fantastical proposition that 450,000 words of new regulations, rules, mandates, penalties, price controls, taxes and bureaucracy will have the transformative power to "provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending . . . ."

It's going to take some time to deconstruct this lengthy masterpiece, but as you flip through the pages of the House bill, you will notice the word "regulation" appears 181 times. "Tax" is there 214 times. "Fees," 103 times. As we all know, nothing says "affordability" like higher taxes and fees.

The word "shall" - as in "must" or "required to" - appears over 3,000 times. The word, alas, is never preceded by the patriotic phrase "mind our own freaking business." Not once.

To vote for the bill, a legislator must believe a $1 trillion price tag is "revenue neutral," or that it alleviates any of the pain higher costs bring to the average American. This would require alcohol.

Real competition, as far as anyone can tell, is antithetical to the authors of this bill. Remember, you can purchase oranges from Florida and whiskey from Kentucky, yet you're prohibited from buying health insurance from anywhere outside your state . . . so sayeth Nancy Pelosi.

Instead of creating a new market with interstate trade, what we get is the institution of the pleasant-sounding "Health Insurance Exchange," which exists, it seems, only to accommodate a non-competitive, government-run insurance option.

Now, finding a name for a state-run program without offending the lingering capitalistic sensibilities of bourgeoisie has been problematic. So Pelosi went with the innocuous "consumer option" - known for a fleeting moment as the "competitive option" and popularly as the "public option." Whatever your preference is, it's the option that leads to a single-payer insurance program.

Democrats say we can save billions by funding a plan that uses billions of wasted tax dollars from another public plan that we already supplement with billions. Make sense?

In actuality, we pay for all this by "cost sharing," or "sharing the cost" of insuring everyone through higher prices and taxes. But no fear. The legislation taxes "the rich." The bill doesn't index the tax to inflation so more of you will be on the hook as inflation rises due to the tragically irresponsible behavior of Congress and the White House. The rich - many of them small-business owners - are already set to see their rates go up in 2010.

Hey, who needs those jerks to create real jobs when we have Washington pretending to do it?

All of this, as Madame Speaker says, constitutes a "a historic moment for our nation and families." True. No legislation in modern American history compares when in comes to injecting itself into the everyday decisions of the citizen.

And few can compete with its deception. The bill's intentions are cloaked in euphemisms and it is teeming with ulterior motives, all cobbled together in closed-door meetings where industry payoffs are offered using taxpayer dollars to facilitate a power grab of unprecedented cost.

All of it, rolled right into a neat 1,900 pages."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/10/30/masterfleece_theater_98951.html

Honest Abe had a good quote for the above synopsis...

He can compress the most words into the smallest ideas better than any man I ever met.
Abraham Lincoln

The FACTS ARE that this Health Insurance Reform stops insurance companies from being able to deny coverage for preexisting conditions or have caps on benefit amounts for treatments. Good & needed things of that sort.

And even with a Public Option only maybe 8 or 10% would even be in a Public plan. Regular employer based insurance goes on. The only difference is their plans have to meet some minimum standard. Those standards being things like you can't disallow for preexisting or cap benefit amounts for treatments.

Here's what we really have here and how some are trying to twist this into some ridiculous "freedom or liberty" thing. I'll go back to honest Abe.

In this senario...

The insurance companies are the wolf.
The government is the Shepard.
The public are the sheep.

The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty. Plainly, the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of liberty.
Abraham Lincoln

 

[Dr.Who]

The FACTS ARE that this Health Insurance Reform stops insurance companies from being able to deny coverage for preexisting conditions or have caps on benefit amounts for treatments. Good & needed things of that sort.

NY already has no preexisting conditions and the result is that they pay about four times as much for insurance as I do in the midwest. I don't need that kind of help.

And even with a Public Option only maybe 8 or 10% would even be in a Public plan. Regular employer based insurance goes on. The only difference is their plans have to meet some minimum standard. Those standards being things like you can't disallow for preexisting or cap benefit amounts for treatments.

Those "minimum standards" don't allow for the kind of insurance many people need; catastrophic coverage. The freedom to buy only catastrophic coverage will be gone.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

No exorcisms would not be covered. Anyone who thinks they would be is an idiot.

Surely you don't think they would be so you must not be an idiot on that basis.

But if you don't think exorcisms would be covered and yet you make a post alluding to exorcisms being covered then, while that does not make you an idiot it must make you something else.

Yeah.....one o' the unclean; no doubt.

 

[Dr.Who]

Yeah.....one o' the unclean; no doubt.

How does a video of a couple of people praying for a person while touching that person indicate that anyone wants either exorcisms or government sponsored exorcisms?

Do you really equate praying, something that some huge percentage of our population engages in, to exorcisms? Do you fail to understand the difference between what happens in a church and what the gov does? That would explain a lot.

 

[TruthAboveAll]

How does a video of a couple of people praying for a person while touching that person indicate that anyone wants either exorcisms or government sponsored exorcisms?

Do you really equate praying, something that some huge percentage of our population engages in, to exorcisms? Do you fail to understand the difference between what happens in a church and what the gov does? That would explain a lot.

In general, Dr., just stop at "you fail to understand" when commenting on Shaman & Company. THAT explains a lot...

 

[Dr.Who]

In general, Dr., just stop at "you fail to understand" when commenting on Shaman & Company. THAT explains a lot...

After noticing an intelligent response a couple of days ago I removed him from my ignore list. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt for now.

 

[Phoenix68]

I couldn't have said it much better than this, so I'll save my comments until this thread is going:

"The King James version of the Bible runs more than 600 pages and is crammed with celestial regulations. Newton's Principia Mathematica distilled many of the rules of physics in a mere 974 pages.

Neither have anything on Nancy Pelosi's new fiendishly entertaining health-care opus, which tops 1,900 pages.

So curl up by a fire with a fifth of whiskey and just dive in.

But drink quickly. In the new world, your insurance choices will be tethered to decisions made by people with Orwellian titles ("1984" was only 268 pages!) like the "Health Choices Commissioner" or "Inspector General for the Health Choices Administration."

ACA Open Enrollment Reaches Record-Breaking 14.5 Million!!!!!
February 2, 2022
.

​

 

[Phoenix68]

The traditional republican attack to every democratic bill for the past 60 years. You can't really argue with what the democrats are actually doing so you talk about what the bill might lead to. This is essentially the same argument against FDR's new deal and the fear of the "slippery slope to socialism" that hasn't manifested in the in the over half a century since.

​

 

[Phoenix68]

Washington "shall" control your healthcare​

......REPUBLICAN-style!!!!!
.

​

 

[Phoenix68]

A West Virginia TOAST To OBAMACARE!!!!
March 29, 2022​