Health Care, Obama.....

[Haggis]

Debunked? Please cite sources.
Death threats? No doubt?! You make it sound like you support it.
Democracy? Yes, we're a democratic republic. We're not a generic republic, because a non-democratic republic could exist.

Feels like you confirmed the same rabidity exists here.

Kind of like East Germany (DDR-Deutsch Democratis Republic) use to be.

 

[MrBluGruv]

Death threats? No doubt?! You make it sound like you support it.

As unsavory as behavior like that is, one can't deny, revolutions are rarely peaceful. And frankly, I think we're right on course for one given the extreme heavy-handedness of the government (regardless of whether or not they are right or wrong about this bill and others in the works.)

 

[xopher]

Obama Admin. Declares 'The End of Favoring Motorized Transportation'

CNSNews.com) - Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has announced that federal transportation policies will no longer favor “motorized” transportation, such as cars and trucks, over “non-motorized” transportation, such as walking and bicycling...

“Today, I want to announce a sea change,” LaHood wrote. “People across America who value bicycling should have a voice when it comes to transportation planning. This is the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of non-motorized.”


Flood gates are open, folks. C.Y.C.B.I...:shake:

I don't think it's too extreme to see that as a possibility, not one bit. The only thing that'll prevent that is the prior posted story about the government hard-on now for cutting motorized transportation in favor of "walking and bicycling". I guess we know what the government is gonna do with GM in the future now...

It only took 18 hours for "federal transportation policies will no longer favor “motorized” transportation, such as cars and trucks, over “non-motorized” transportation, such as walking and bicycling" turned in to "the government hard-on now for cutting motorized transportation in favor of 'walking and bicycling'".

People are emotionalizing an issue about transportation and immediately blurring the facts.

 

[Haggis]

It only took 18 hours for "federal transportation policies will no longer favor “motorized” transportation, such as cars and trucks, over “non-motorized” transportation, such as walking and bicycling" turned in to "the government hard-on now for cutting motorized transportation in favor of 'walking and bicycling'".

People are emotionalizing an issue about transportation and immediately blurring the facts.

I'am praying for the day to the end of the automobile and all other modern conveniences.

 

[MrBluGruv]

People are emotionalizing an issue about transportation and immediately blurring the facts.

I'd like to think I'm overreacting, but what would you gather from murmurs like that from government? This nation relies on motorized transportation, and not just for entertainment although it's only fair to admit that a large part of owning an automobile is the inherent freedom that goes with it.

 

[xopher]

Kind of like East Germany (DDR-Deutsch Democratis Republic) use to be.

We've been a democratic republic for nearly a quarter millenium. So was your point that a country that no longer exists emulated us, or that we predicted their existence and emulated them in advance?

As unsavory as behavior like that is, one can't deny, revolutions are rarely peaceful. And frankly, I think we're right on course for one given the extreme heavy-handedness of the government (regardless of whether or not they are right or wrong about this bill and others in the works.)

This is exactly the kind of extremist talk I'm talking about. There are people short on facts and quick on the trigger itching to get out their AR-15s and unleash violence about things they don't understand. Narrow minded individuals are thinking about a revolution instead of participating in their government. Carving another notch in my desk for reasons I'm disappointed in Americans.

 

[MrBluGruv]

This is exactly the kind of extremist talk I'm talking about. There are people short on facts and quick on the trigger itching to get out their AR-15s and unleash violence about things they don't understand. Narrow minded individuals are thinking about a revolution instead of participating in their government. Carving another notch in my desk for reasons I'm disappointed in Americans.

I don't think I understand, firstly participation in government isn't working its best right now, made apparent by the passing of this bill with disregard to the majority's wishes. Secondly, given that, why wouldn't people of a nation built on making a stand against principles it doesn't believe it consider the possibility of taking drastic action? At what point do you finally give in? Can NOTHING be done pre-emptively to protect your own interests any more without people calling you an extremist?

 

[xopher]

what would you gather from murmurs like that from government?

It means exactly what it said. A freeway bridge will no longer necessarily be more important than a footbridge or bike bridge.

I don't think I understand, firstly participation in government isn't working its best right now, made apparent by the passing of this bill with disregard to the majority's wishes. Secondly, given that, why wouldn't people of a nation built on making a stand against principles it doesn't believe it consider the possibility of taking drastic action? At what point do you finally give in? Can NOTHING be done pre-emptively to protect your own interests any more without people calling you an extremist?

You provided another uncited emotionalized fact about the disregard to the majority's wishes: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-03-23-health-poll-favorable_N.htm

So one bill passing that you don't agree with means that government is failing and you're going to start a revolution? This is the equivalent of not winning in stickball and taking your ball and going home. Except you are threatening the lives of civilians and the stability of the western hemisphere and the world.

 

[CBT]

Debunked? Please cite sources. <---there were about 5 cameras rolling, they were all replyed on the news, no one can hear anything that was claimed, and no one even reacted liked something horrible was said just outside of the cameras listening devices, so....
Death threats? No doubt?! You make it sound like you support it. <---I just spent 20 years in a killing machine, it would be hypocritical of me to take away someone's freedom of speech for making a veiled threat, wouldn't it?
Democracy? Yes, we're a democratic republic. We're not a generic republic, because a non-democratic republic could exist. <---when the overwhelming majority of the Republic does not want this but the Democrats pass it anyway, this is not a democratic society.

Feels like you confirmed the same rabidity exists here.

I'm rabid for peoples freedom to choose, I have insulted no one for their opinions here, but the facts are facts. A vote for this unconstitutional bill is a vote for socialism.

 

[xopher]

What cameras? What reactions? Got a link?

What about freedom and speech and veiled threats? I don't understand what you're getting at.

Overwhelming majority? How much is that? Like 75% against and 25% for? Please see the USA Today link in the post above yours.

As for unconstitutionality, can you please describe how it is unconstitutional or can your constitutional lawyer post something describing how this is true?

 

[Dr Caleb]

Wait times for surgery, medical treatments at all-time high: report
Compared to 1993, wait times in 2007 are 97 per cent longer, report finds
Last Updated: Monday, October 15, 2007 | 4:09 PM ET
CBC News

How about something recent? Like, today?

"The Canadian Institute for Health Information released a report today that shows the majority of Canadian patients are getting surgery within an acceptable time frame and provinces have been successful in reducing their wait times."

http://www.calgaryherald.com/health...dures+still+lagging+others/2721626/story.html

From the Canadian Institute for Health Information, 12/05;
From Specialist to surgery 50% for hip replacement - waited 4.5 months
From Specialist to surgery 50% for knee replacement - waited 7 months.

"Compared to previous years, we're looking at progress," said Tracy Johnson, the institute's manager of special projects. "Most Canadians are receiving their priority-area surgery for cancer, for hip surgery and for cataracts within the benchmarks."

http://www.calgaryherald.com/health...ices+national+survey+finds/2724330/story.html

WHEN DOES GOV'T EVER HAVE ENOUGH MONEY AND WHEN DOES GOV'T SAY THE SOLUTION IS ANYTHING BUT MORE MONEY???

When isn't that the answer? If you want shorter 1350 times, it costs you money. If you want a bigger home, it costs you money. You want faster healthcare, it costs you money.

The point of public healthcare, is it costs everyone LESS money each, for better care. Something you appear to be ignoring - our system isn't perfect, but we pay less for it, live longer healthier lives and it costs us less per person to deliver it.

And quoting the Frasier Institute isn't going to score you any points. They are on record as wanting a for-profit system where our working system used to be.

" ST. JOHN 'S, N.L. -- Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams will undergo heart surgery later this week in the United States .
Deputy premier Kathy Dunderdale confirmed the treatment at a news conference Tuesday, but would not reveal the location of the operation or how it would be paid for."

Didn't read my link, huh? I linked to that story. He wanted a procedure not available in Canada, and paid for it himself. He would have been taken care of here, but he didn't want the normal surgery that came with an extended recovery period.

 

[MrBluGruv]

*commenting xopher*

That's all well and good that you cite that article, but you reach a point where so many outlets provide polls that say otherwise that you can't hardly ignore it as propaganda. Even supposed "liberal" outlets have spoken out against this and Mr Obama's methods, would you figure everyone is just out to get him but are wrong in their numbers?

And this bill is hardly the equivalent to a "game of stickball" in regards to lawmaking. "One little bill" could also completely abolish people's rights to own a gun, and you bet people would make a stand against that. I really hope you don't try to spin that into it being some sort of redneck propaganda too.

 

[MrBluGruv]

it costs everyone LESS money each

Wasn't one of the major points of problem with people opposed to the bill that it is socialist at its core? I know it sure as hell wouldn't cost me less money, I guess I'm factored as a minority being a young person though.

 

[Dr Caleb]

Yup, lack of will all right; your politicians know that raising taxes even higher to fund the balloning Canadian health care costs will go over about as well as a f@rt in church.

Yup, and that VAT tax is just something you pay for the heck of it, eh?

Yup, and who doesn't appreciate government control over their lives (e.g. rationed healthcare)?

More lies you have been fed. I pay no provincial taxes AT ALL. We have no added provincial taxes, nor 'Value Added Tax', whatever that is. And the federal GST was LOWERED 2%, along with basic personal exemptions on INCOME tax. And we ran a federal and provincial SURPLUS, 5 years consecutive before this 'downturn' hit us.

The government has no control over my life, and healthcare is not rationed anywhere in Canada.

 

[xopher]

That's all well and good that you cite that article, but you reach a point where so many outlets provide polls that say otherwise that you can't hardly ignore it as propaganda. Even supposed "liberal" outlets have spoken out against this and Mr Obama's methods, would you figure everyone is just out to get him but are wrong in their numbers?

Please post the outlets conflicting with the most recent assessment.

And this bill is hardly the equivalent to a "game of stickball" in regards to lawmaking. "One little bill" could also completely abolish people's rights to own a gun, and you bet people would make a stand against that. I really hope you don't try to spin that into it being some sort of redneck propaganda too.

I'm not talking about other bills. I'm talking about this one, about healthcare, not guns. As a level-headed gun owner and enthusiast, I'm aware of the world of misinformation there as well. In this thread, I'm talking about how people have behaved, and what facts they have decided to embrace or ignore depending on how they felt at the time.

 

[CBT]

What cameras? What reactions? Got a link? <---if you didn't see any of it, including the threat, why are you asking me to disprove it? You took someone elses word that it actually occurred?

What about freedom and speech and veiled threats? I don't understand what you're getting at. <---I just spent 20 years in an outfit (our government) that killed whoever, whenever, wherever they wanted. I could care less who makes a death threat to someone. Free speech for all.

Overwhelming majority? How much is that? Like 75% against and 25% for? Please see the USA Today link in the post above yours.

As for unconstitutionality, can you please describe how it is unconstitutional or can your constitutional lawyer post something describing how this is true?<---The federal government has never attempted to require the American people to buy a particular product in the private sector. It’s not supported by the Commerce Clause [which grants Congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce]. The 10th Amendment says it's not a power granted to the federal government but is reserved by the people. We are talking about forcing people to enter the stream of commerce, not about those already in, and need to be regulated. This will force people to go into the private market and buy a product on penalty of fine or going to jail. That is unprecedented, and there is no principal distinction between forcing Americans to go out into the private sector and buy a private product and forcing them to buy anything else that Congress gets in its mind to do.

I hope this helps clarify my opinions for you.

 

[MrBluGruv]

Please post the outlets conflicting with the most recent assessment.


I'm not talking about other bills. I'm talking about this one, about healthcare, not guns. As a level-headed gun owner and enthusiast, I'm aware of the world of misinformation there as well. In this thread, I'm talking about how people have behaved, and what facts they have decided to embrace or ignore depending on how they felt at the time.

Well as I can't get those prior statistics, I can't argue the point any more than all I can say is I've seen them countless times and I know I wasn't dreaming.

But my comparison to gun rights is completely valid in this case. When you say that this health care bill is just a bill, one could assume that about any bill. All I'm doing is putting that into perspective, if you can believe and understand how upset people would get about that, you should be able to understand how people can get upset about this as well. As I've said before, some of their behavior has been questionable (in some cases, very radical, yes), but it should not be impossible to see where it stems from.



I'll phrase this juxtaposition to the group as a whole, I'm sure it's been mentioned somewhere else but I don't think I've seen it really thought about here or too many other places:

Given that many comparisons are being made along the lines of "government-run/socialized/institutionalized healthcare works well in 'x' country, it can work well in America", what would you have to say about that sentiment in comparison to almost the entire world's opinion on America trying to push our system of democracy onto other nations?

 

[CBT]

Given that many comparisons are being made along the lines of "government-run/socialized/institutionalized healthcare works well in 'x' country, it can work well in America", what would you have to say about that sentiment in comparison to almost the entire world's opinion on America trying to push our system of democracy onto other nations?

We do it at the end of a gun barrel. I'm sure the rest of the world loves it.

 

[Dr Caleb]

Wasn't one of the major points of problem with people opposed to the bill that it is socialist at its core? I know it sure as hell wouldn't cost me less money, I guess I'm factored as a minority being a young person though.

People south of 49 seem to get communism mixed up with socialism. They are very different. Communism does not involve commerce or democracy. Socialism is a more benevolent form of democratic government, that puts people first over commerce. It's nothing to be scared of. All of the G8 countries, and most of the G20 are socialist, and we seem to do just fine as far as freedom goes.

This bill doesn't approach what really needed to be done, IMO. Right now, I hear of people paying 2 and 3 THOUSAND dollars a month for healthcare coverage? I pay nothing. I pay through my taxes, specifically federal income tax and federal Goods and Services Tax (GST), which is about 17%-20% of my income. That also includes paying for things like fire, police, roads . . . and some of that goes toward healthcare.

The two things I see in the bill is they didn't have the balls to do. The first is to buy up all the insurance companies so that there would be only one insurer, or to legislate that the insurance companies could only cover things not covered by medicare. (We have private insurance companies here, like Blue Cross. They seem to do very well.) The second is some method to control costs.

That is how most socialized countries do it. Start with being the single health insurer and then say how much they will pay for a given procedure. I know some people's reaction will be that stifles innovation. But it doesn't. There are huge health centres, clinics and diagnostic labs all over the place here - and they are all privately owned. There are former shopping malls in my city that are almost totally specialized doctors clinics, offering everything from scalp to foot surgery. Services range from covered procedures, to elective. A sure sign there is no money in working is a socialized medical system. Right?

Several companies have tried to build a for-profit private health service. They had clinics, hospitals etc. They all offered 'faster' and 'better' care. The all went belly up inside a couple years, because no one was unhappy enough with the public system to switch.

 

[sailsmen]

Dr., the "benchmarks" are set by whom? Dr., who determines "normal surgery"?

My mother had her knee replaced with in 2 weeks from injury, it was not a "priority surgery". Our area has had the largest population displacement in our Nation's history resulting in a shortage of most services.

My father had cancer surgery with in 6 weeks of symptoms and 2 weeks of that was due to us researching alternatives.

I posted that Federal workers make ~$40K more in pay and benefits than their private sector equivalent. Our Gov't increases cost of everything it does and is unable to forecast with any reasonableness future expenditures.

We have a diverse population consisting of groups who live 10-15% less and have a high incidence of certain illinesses.

I lived in the UK. My mother was diagnosed with a rare form of cancer in 1996. If you met her you would never know she has cancer. Had she lived in the UK she woul dbe DEAD.

My father was diagnosed with cancer in 1998. If you met him you would never know he had cancer. Today he is cancer free. In the USA they remove the cancer and reconstruct. In the UK they only radiate. Radiation would have left him disabled with a 70% lower chance of being cancer free.

His surgeon practised in the UK for 2 years and left because they were not allowing surgery.

The Cancer survival rate for men in Canada is 58% and for men in the USA is 66%.

As my father's surgeon said "cancer is a family business", so I have a rather keen interest.