• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senate committee passes health bill, first to act

Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
447
Reaction score
108
Location
Cottonwood Heights, UT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
WASHINGTON - The Senate health committee cast a milestone vote Wednesday to approve legislation expanding insurance coverage to nearly all Americans, becoming the first congressional panel to act on President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.

Senate committee passes health bill - Capitol Hill- msnbc.com

There is no use in spending this tremendous amount of money without looking at cost cutting first.
 
WASHINGTON - The Senate health committee cast a milestone vote Wednesday to approve legislation expanding insurance coverage to nearly all Americans, becoming the first congressional panel to act on President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.

Senate committee passes health bill - Capitol Hill- msnbc.com

There is no use in spending this tremendous amount of money without looking at cost cutting first.

But don'tchyouknow they are going to save so much money on this program that it will pay for itself!!!??? :rofl

Yes, this is stunning, but the level of ignorance that dominates American political policy these days is rife with it.

I have never been as pessimistic as I am now about our immediate future and I sincerely hope that the ignorant masses come to their senses in 2010 and get these complete morons OUT of power before the drag this country into 3rd world status.
 
But don'tchyouknow they are going to save so much money on this program that it will pay for itself!!!??? :rofl

Yes, this is stunning, but the level of ignorance that dominates American political policy these days is rife with it.

I have never been as pessimistic as I am now about our immediate future and I sincerely hope that the ignorant masses come to their senses in 2010 and get these complete morons OUT of power before the drag this country into 3rd world status.

Can you actually write out a honest dissent using facts, evidence, credible sources?

In regards to dragging this country into the 3rd world...you do realise that a lot of 3rd world nations have a better health care system than we have currently. The World Health Organization ranks us 37th - summary here
 
Yes, this is stunning, but the level of ignorance that dominates American political policy these days is rife with it.

It's not ignorance. They know exactly what they're doing.
 
Can you actually write out a honest dissent using facts, evidence, credible sources?

In regards to dragging this country into the 3rd world...you do realise that a lot of 3rd world nations have a better health care system than we have currently. The World Health Organization ranks us 37th - summary here

I'm sorry but the FACTS speak for themselves; over a trillion in deficit spending with much more to come and the result will be, although this is speculation on my part, to even further decline in employment and economic activity.

If Government does indeed pass healthcare legislation, you will see a vast decline in the level on competence of service and LONG waiting times for even the most mundane affliction; which is evidenced by all those other nations whose citizens have longer wait times and pay HUGE tax rates.

What part of Government spending money it doesn't have without an HONEST debate on how to pay for it do you NOT get?

As for the WHO, I am sorry, but the United Nations has ZERO credibility with me and many others who have seen their failures too often to lend it any credence.

If you add in level of care, technology and wait times, the US system super-exceeds anything in other nations.

But I did enjoy Michael Moore's movie where EVERYTHING was FREE, have to laugh just typing this, and how GOOD Cubans have it, this one borders on hysterics.

Carry on. :2wave:
 
WASHINGTON - The Senate health committee cast a milestone vote Wednesday to approve legislation expanding insurance coverage to nearly all Americans, becoming the first congressional panel to act on President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.

Senate committee passes health bill - Capitol Hill- msnbc.com

There is no use in spending this tremendous amount of money without looking at cost cutting first.

So Vets are finally going to be treated for Gulf War Syndrome?
 
They can't get treatment now?

They can't even get the government to admit the syndrome exists, because then the government would be liable to treat them, which would be costly.

Between battlefield chemical hazards and experimental anthrax inoculations, the symptoms pile up. Civilian doctors can't get the medical histories because they have been classified.
 
Last edited:
They can't even get the government to admit the syndrome exists.

What is keeping the current Government from admitting the syndrome exists?

My belief is that this issue is consistent with why we do not want Government managed healthcare; the Government is not acknowledging this syndrome because of what it will cost to treat.

But hey, if the Democrats get their legislation passed, expect many more similar stories of care being denied due to the costs.
 
Some Gulf War vets don't even qualify for VA bennies, much less get treatment for sand box shock.

Then expect more of the same if Democrats get their legislation passed and we are ALL subjected to the same care our Vets get.
 
Can you actually write out a honest dissent using facts, evidence, credible sources?

In regards to dragging this country into the 3rd world...you do realise that a lot of 3rd world nations have a better health care system than we have currently. The World Health Organization ranks us 37th - summary here

LOLOL!!!! I love when an ignoramus cites the WHO report.

You don't even know what's in the damn thing nor how they came up with those rankings and here you are repeating it because you heard some pro-Socialist kook reference it.

Very simple question for you. Do you honestly think that people from all over the world come to this country to receive the 37th best health care in the world? Don't strain your brain too hard on that one.
 
In regards to dragging this country into the 3rd world...you do realise that a lot of 3rd world nations have a better health care system than we have currently. The World Health Organization ranks us 37th - summary here
You do realize it is a biased report.



So Vets are finally going to be treated for Gulf War Syndrome?
They can't get treatment now?
They can't even get the government to admit the syndrome exists, because then the government would be liable to treat them, which would be costly.

Between battlefield chemical hazards and experimental anthrax inoculations, the symptoms pile up. Civilian doctors can't get the medical histories because they have been classified.
Lets be honest here.
There are vets who are treated for the symptoms they have, regardless if the syndrome exists or not.
Just because the syndrome hasn't been accepted doesn't mean the VA does not treat, or try to treat those eligible, for the symptoms they have.


:::::::::::::::::::



And just for some humor.


Apparently the American Medical Association has weighed in on the new Health Care Initiatives from the Obama Administration....

The Allergists voted to scratch it, but the Dermatologists advised not to make any rash moves.

The Gastroenterologists had sort of a gut feeling about it, but the Neurologists thought the Administration had a lot of nerve.

The Obstetricians felt they were all laboring under a misconception. Ophthalmologists considered the idea shortsighted.

Pathologists yelled, "Over my dead body!" while the Pediatricians said, 'Oh, Grow up!'

Oncologists fear it's malignant, while Osteopaths see it as holistic..

The Psychiatrists thought the whole idea was madness, while the Radiologists could see right through it.

Surgeons decided to wash their hands of the whole thing.

The Internists thought it was a bitter pill to swallow, and the Plastic Surgeons said, "This puts a whole new face on the matter."

The Podiatrists thought it was a step forward, but the Urologists were pissed off at the whole idea.

The Anesthesiologists thought the whole idea was a gas, and the Cardiologists didn't have the heart to say no.

In the end, the Proctologists won out, leaving the entire decision up to the a**holes in Washington .

And that's why, according to the sex therapists, we're all gonna get screwed!

Doctors speak out about health care proposal.... - Topic Powered by Eve For Enterprise
 
Last edited:
LOLOL!!!! I love when an ignoramus cites the WHO report.

You don't even know what's in the damn thing nor how they came up with those rankings and here you are repeating it because you heard some pro-Socialist kook reference it.

Very simple question for you. Do you honestly think that people from all over the world come to this country to receive the 37th best health care in the world? Don't strain your brain too hard on that one.

Then ignore the WHO....

France best, US worst in preventable death ranking

France, Japan and Australia rated best and the United States worst in new rankings focusing on preventable deaths due to treatable conditions in 19 leading industrialized nations, researchers said on Tuesday.

If the U.S. health care system performed as well as those of those top three countries, there would be 101,000 fewer deaths in the United States per year, according to researchers writing in the journal Health Affairs.

They called such deaths an important way to gauge the performance of a country's health care system.

18,000 deaths blamed on lack of insurance

2002, USA Today report on Institute of Medicine of the National Academies
More than 18,000 adults in the USA die each year because they are uninsured and can't get proper health care, researchers report in a landmark study released Tuesday.

The 193-page report, "Care Without Coverage: Too Little, Too Late," examines the plight of 30 million — one in seven — working-age Americans whose employers don't provide insurance and who don't qualify for government medical care.

I guess you can also ignore the OECD's 2009 report on our costs? We pay 16% with 75 million under and uninsured, where next in line is France at 11% with full coverage. So we pay more, receive less, have more deaths, wow, that is one hell of a system you want to crop up.
 
I remember reading awhile back that some of the discrepancies (if I remember correctly, in mortality rates) can be accounted for because of our diverse racial make-up.


Then ignore the WHO....

France best, US worst in preventable death ranking



18,000 deaths blamed on lack of insurance

2002, USA Today report on Institute of Medicine of the National Academies


I guess you can also ignore the OECD's 2009 report on our costs? We pay 16% with 75 million under and uninsured, where next in line is France at 11% with full coverage. So we pay more, receive less, have more deaths, wow, that is one hell of a system you want to crop up.
There are many factors to consider when making an evaluation, most of these reports do not bother to consider them, and because they do not, end up with biased results.
 
Coolguy said:
There are many factors to consider when making an evaluation, most of these reports do not bother to consider them, and because they do not, end up with biased results.
So, is your rebuttal to all studies comparing health care around the world is that it's just too complicated?

While I agree that sometimes you can get into comparing the proverbial apples to oranges and of course you can spin just about any statistic to make it fit into whatever you want it to fit.

However, if you take all the apples and oranges (and pears and bananas and kiwis and Apricots), toss out the high and the low, disregard Cuba and Mexico, how do you justify the United States spending way more in not only total dollars, but in percentages of just about any measure you can imagine, than every other industrialized country in the world and still not cover everyone and only have comparable health care.


In 2008, the United States will spend 17 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on health care.

Health care spending accounted for 10.9 percent of the GDP in Switzerland, 10.7 percent in Germany, 9.7 percent in Canada and 9.5 percent in France while covering ALL of their population.



HealthCareCosts.jpg
 
So, is your rebuttal to all studies comparing health care around the world is that it's just too complicated?
Please, don't put words into my mouth.
It is pretty clear what I said.



... how do you justify the United States spending way more in not only total dollars, but in percentages of just about any measure you can imagine, than every other industrialized country in the world and still not cover everyone and only have comparable health care.
Justify?

The 'Health Care' in the U.S., is at the top of (if not the best), treatment in the world and is only slightly comparable with other industrialized nations, being that our treatment is better.
Nor should we lower our standards of care to cover everyone.

As for actual costs.
Yes they could be lowered by implementing what the CATO Institute suggested in 1994.
 
Please, don't put words into my mouth.
It is pretty clear what I said.



Justify?

The 'Health Care' in the U.S., is at the top of (if not the best), treatment in the world and is only slightly comparable with other industrialized nations, being that our treatment is better.
Nor should we lower our standards of care to cover everyone.

As for actual costs.
Yes they could be lowered by implementing what the CATO Institute suggested in 1994.

And that is a misnomer and lie propagated by the right. Thanks for continuing the lies.
 
LOLOL!!!! I love when an ignoramus cites the WHO report.

You don't even know what's in the damn thing nor how they came up with those rankings and here you are repeating it because you heard some pro-Socialist kook reference it.

Very simple question for you. Do you honestly think that people from all over the world come to this country to receive the 37th best health care in the world? Don't strain your brain too hard on that one.


If we have the best health care system in the world, why isn't the rest of the world ditching their systems and trying to emulate us?
 
WASHINGTON - The Senate health committee cast a milestone vote Wednesday to approve legislation expanding insurance coverage to nearly all Americans, becoming the first congressional panel to act on President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.

Senate committee passes health bill - Capitol Hill- msnbc.com

There is no use in spending this tremendous amount of money without looking at cost cutting first.


I am confused by this OP and link. Which committee passed a health bill? The link is about Obama, I didn't see anything about a bill passing a committee vote.
 
But don'tchyouknow they are going to save so much money on this program that it will pay for itself!!!??? :rofl


It was never asserted that the program would pay for itself. It will be paid for through taxes on those making over $250k/yr and cost savings. Just as Obama campaigned on, and just as he was elected to do.
 
Republicans are anti-capitalists. They're afraid that the government run program will run the private insurance companies out of business. Or didn't you know that the public program was COMPETING with the private ones?
 
Please, don't put words into my mouth.
It is pretty clear what I said.



Justify?

The 'Health Care' in the U.S., is at the top of (if not the best), treatment in the world and is only slightly comparable with other industrialized nations, being that our treatment is better.
Nor should we lower our standards of care to cover everyone.

As for actual costs.
Yes they could be lowered by implementing what the CATO Institute suggested in 1994.


People with Medicare insurance are more satisfied with their coverage than people with employer-based insurance. What is the argument for denying what people like better, costs less, and offers easier and better access to physicians (as reported by the insureds).



Meeting Enrollees' Needs: How Do Medicare and Employer Coverage Stack Up?

May 12, 2009


Synopsis


In a national Commonwealth Fund survey, elderly Medicare beneficiaries reported greater overall satisfaction with their health coverage, better access to care, and fewer problems paying medical bills than people covered by employer-sponsored plans. The findings bolster the argument that offering a public insurance plan similar to Medicare to the under-65 population has the potential to improve access and reduce costs.

Davis_itl_Chart_51109.gif



The Issue


Much of the current health reform debate revolves around whether a public plan similar to Medicare should be made available to employers and individuals under age 65. The primary advantage of a Medicare-like plan is the cost reduction made possible by such a plan’s vast purchasing power and efficient public administration. Private coverage, on the other hand, can offer a greater variety of benefits, more flexibility in managing care, and more selective provider networks. In this study, the researchers sought to compare individuals with employer-sponsored plans and elderly individuals with Medicare to find out if a public plan could potentially improve access to necessary services and reduce the burden of medical bills for individuals under age 65.



Findings


  • Medicare beneficiaries are more satisfied with their insurance coverage. Only 8 percent of elderly Medicare beneficiaries rated their insurance “fair or poor,” in contrast with 18 percent of individuals with employer-based insurance. Thirty-two percent of Medicare beneficiaries had at least one negative insurance experience, compared with 44 percent of those covered by an employer plan.
  • Medicare beneficiaries report easier access to physicians. Ten percent of Medicare beneficiaries’ physicians did not accept their insurance, compared with 17 percent of respondents with employer-sponsored plans.
  • Medicare beneficiaries are less likely to report not getting needed services. Twelve percent of elderly Medicare beneficiaries reported going without care, such as prescribed medications or recommended tests, because of cost restraints. Of individuals with employer-based plans, 26 percent reported experiencing these cost/access issues.
  • Medicare beneficiaries are sicker and poorer but report fewer medical bill problems. Elderly Medicare beneficiaries were more likely to rate their health as fair or poor than the employer-coverage group (28% vs. 11%); more likely to have multiple chronic conditions (38% vs. 11%); and more likely to have incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty level (51% vs. 27%). Yet, Medicare beneficiaries were less likely to report a medical bill problem than those covered by employer plans.

more ...
 
Back
Top Bottom