Those who live out of U.S. with Socialized Medicine

Emily65Roses · Nov 14, 2007

Kiel, I'm with you. Everyone in the US is out for themselves, and that's why everything is the way it is.

You know disabled people don't necessarily have any fault in their problem, but a lot of the "normal" population wouldn't hesitate to lump us in with the "lazy" people who just don't work. After all, in the end, we are often not pulling our weight.

Furthermore, the way the system is now fosters laziness. Perky and I were talking about this just today. In order to get any assistance, you have to be making almost NOTHING. So either you work your ass off at a minimum wage job and struggle to feed yourself and your family, or you sit on your ass and get the assistance you need. Perhaps instead, our system should work out a way of helping people who are working, to reward that type of behavior and further foster it in other people.

Buttttt.... why do that when we can spend... according to one group of economists' estimate... $255 MILLION a day killing people in a country we have no business being in in the first place?

The US government's priorities are bass ackwards. And the US is a very "individualist" society. YOU put in effort, YOU get rewarded. Screw everyone else, no matter their reason for not contributing, or not being able to contribute. If they don't contribute, they don't get rewarded. No matter the reason. End of story. That's how a lot of our population thinks, and certainly a lot of the population in charge.

Emily65Roses · Nov 14, 2007

Kiel, I'm with you. Everyone in the US is out for themselves, and that's why everything is the way it is.

You know disabled people don't necessarily have any fault in their problem, but a lot of the "normal" population wouldn't hesitate to lump us in with the "lazy" people who just don't work. After all, in the end, we are often not pulling our weight.

Furthermore, the way the system is now fosters laziness. Perky and I were talking about this just today. In order to get any assistance, you have to be making almost NOTHING. So either you work your ass off at a minimum wage job and struggle to feed yourself and your family, or you sit on your ass and get the assistance you need. Perhaps instead, our system should work out a way of helping people who are working, to reward that type of behavior and further foster it in other people.

Buttttt.... why do that when we can spend... according to one group of economists' estimate... $255 MILLION a day killing people in a country we have no business being in in the first place?

The US government's priorities are bass ackwards. And the US is a very "individualist" society. YOU put in effort, YOU get rewarded. Screw everyone else, no matter their reason for not contributing, or not being able to contribute. If they don't contribute, they don't get rewarded. No matter the reason. End of story. That's how a lot of our population thinks, and certainly a lot of the population in charge.

Emily65Roses · Nov 14, 2007

Kiel, I'm with you. Everyone in the US is out for themselves, and that's why everything is the way it is.

You know disabled people don't necessarily have any fault in their problem, but a lot of the "normal" population wouldn't hesitate to lump us in with the "lazy" people who just don't work. After all, in the end, we are often not pulling our weight.

Furthermore, the way the system is now fosters laziness. Perky and I were talking about this just today. In order to get any assistance, you have to be making almost NOTHING. So either you work your ass off at a minimum wage job and struggle to feed yourself and your family, or you sit on your ass and get the assistance you need. Perhaps instead, our system should work out a way of helping people who are working, to reward that type of behavior and further foster it in other people.

Buttttt.... why do that when we can spend... according to one group of economists' estimate... $255 MILLION a day killing people in a country we have no business being in in the first place?

The US government's priorities are bass ackwards. And the US is a very "individualist" society. YOU put in effort, YOU get rewarded. Screw everyone else, no matter their reason for not contributing, or not being able to contribute. If they don't contribute, they don't get rewarded. No matter the reason. End of story. That's how a lot of our population thinks, and certainly a lot of the population in charge.

Emily65Roses · Nov 14, 2007

Kiel, I'm with you. Everyone in the US is out for themselves, and that's why everything is the way it is.

You know disabled people don't necessarily have any fault in their problem, but a lot of the "normal" population wouldn't hesitate to lump us in with the "lazy" people who just don't work. After all, in the end, we are often not pulling our weight.

Furthermore, the way the system is now fosters laziness. Perky and I were talking about this just today. In order to get any assistance, you have to be making almost NOTHING. So either you work your ass off at a minimum wage job and struggle to feed yourself and your family, or you sit on your ass and get the assistance you need. Perhaps instead, our system should work out a way of helping people who are working, to reward that type of behavior and further foster it in other people.

Buttttt.... why do that when we can spend... according to one group of economists' estimate... $255 MILLION a day killing people in a country we have no business being in in the first place?

The US government's priorities are bass ackwards. And the US is a very "individualist" society. YOU put in effort, YOU get rewarded. Screw everyone else, no matter their reason for not contributing, or not being able to contribute. If they don't contribute, they don't get rewarded. No matter the reason. End of story. That's how a lot of our population thinks, and certainly a lot of the population in charge.

Emily65Roses · Nov 14, 2007

Kiel, I'm with you. Everyone in the US is out for themselves, and that's why everything is the way it is.

You know disabled people don't necessarily have any fault in their problem, but a lot of the "normal" population wouldn't hesitate to lump us in with the "lazy" people who just don't work. After all, in the end, we are often not pulling our weight.

Furthermore, the way the system is now fosters laziness. Perky and I were talking about this just today. In order to get any assistance, you have to be making almost NOTHING. So either you work your ass off at a minimum wage job and struggle to feed yourself and your family, or you sit on your ass and get the assistance you need. Perhaps instead, our system should work out a way of helping people who are working, to reward that type of behavior and further foster it in other people.

Buttttt.... why do that when we can spend... according to one group of economists' estimate... $255 MILLION a day killing people in a country we have no business being in in the first place?

The US government's priorities are bass ackwards. And the US is a very "individualist" society. YOU put in effort, YOU get rewarded. Screw everyone else, no matter their reason for not contributing, or not being able to contribute. If they don't contribute, they don't get rewarded. No matter the reason. End of story. That's how a lot of our population thinks, and certainly a lot of the population in charge.

Faust · Nov 14, 2007

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: sakasuka

The DMV.

The Post Office.

Those responsible for evacuations prior to Katrina.

The government isn't very good at running things. There is no accountability.

Ask yourself what the life expectancy differences are in the US versus Canada versus Australia versus the UK for CF patients. It's quite different and there's a reason.

And ask yourself how comfortable you would be without access to the Vest.

What will fix the system is not eliminating insurance companies. But instead making the patient the customer. Right now the majority of Americans have health insurance through their employers. If the patient is mad, they don't have a choice other than to complain to HR about the insurance company. If patients were truly the customer rather than the employers, accountability would skyrocket.

I have no issue with the government giving each citizen a few hundred bucks to pay for health insurance. That's reasonable. But to have the government running it? If you like the DMV and the Post Office, then you will like socialized medicine. Just ask all the Canadians that come across the border for healthcare here.</end quote></div>

I think some of your examples are common ones, that to many people are incorrect. The DMV? Last time I was there it was extremely efficient, and I was in and out in like 20 mins. Granted it wasn't always that pleasant of an experience, but the organization (here at least) is extremely efficient now. Besides, aside from taking a decent amount of time to get something done there, how often does/did the DMV ever truely screw up and harm you due to their screw up? Not often i'll bet.

The Post Office? I don't know about you, but here, i'd say 99.9999% of all my mail that was even remotely important has gotten to my house just fine. I even get my mail that is so unbelievably mislabeled by the sender, i often wonder how they got it to my house. All my bills, letters from people I care about, and even spam crap I don't want get to my house just fine. I would venture most people would agree with my opinion of the Post Office. When was the last time you heard someone say "I just can't handle the Post Office screwing up so much and not getting my bills to me?!?!?!"? It's because it's a fallacy that they are a poorly run organization. If anything, they should be used as a model for other organizations to follow.

FEMA (your reference to katrina evacuations)...That's a whole different cluser f*ck all together. The head of the organization was appointed by Bush, on the credentials that he ran horse shows. Yes, horse shows. Many of the appointee's in the organization weren't assigned due to qualifications, they were assigned due to cronyism. Besides, that disaster (due to the antiquated levy system and poor infrastructure) was bound to happen sooner or later, and absolutely no one was prepared, including all the citizens.

If anything, there is little accountability (except to the share holders if the bottom line drops out) to private companies. If they screw up, they may fire one or a few people and then dip into their very deep pockets and start up a PR ad campaign and moron people forget about it. In government positions, if someone screws up, not only will you more than likely lose your job, if the screw up is big enough, you will probably never be able to get another position anywhere near the same market again.

The right leaning people who think primarily about $$$$ (usually cause it benefits them in some way), seem to think the government is 100% incapable of doing anything. Last I checked, while we have tons of flaws, our government does a pretty admirable job in keeping such a vast, intricate society afloat.

Most major cities have a nice library, parks, police force, fire fighters, water system, and countless other important services that at the worst run just ok, but more often run extremely well.

Also, I seriously don't think many Americans want a totally "free" health care system. We all understand the funds have to come from somewhere to fund something, especially so with something so insanely expensive as universal healthcare (note I didn't say FREE health care). I noticed you mentioned your job providing your health care. That is all fine and dandy, till your disease progresses till where you can't work anymore. Then what? Go on COBRA and pay 800+ dollars a month just for the right to have your old healthcare, and for a limited time? Medicare? As i've illustrated before, that is a complete joke. Medicaid? Sure, if you own nearly nothing in any value and make nearly nothing.

The bottom line is, all people, regardless of their status, should have the ability to have quality healthcare that IS NOT profit driven, and takes care of it's citizens. If you make X amount of money it should be a small percentage of that to cover you. Or just have it be a small universal amount, with exclusions for those who are very indigent. If we have nearly 300 million people in this country, even if the cost is very high, there should be no reason why they can't pay a small fee for great coverage.

The overall problem with the entire system is our insane level of monetary greed. These companies are based on profit, and answer to share holders. So instead of managing their business to provide the best possible care in the interest of the insured, they manage for the sole interest of retaining their finances. Sorry, i'd rather take my chances with a not for profit system, and possibly have to wait in triage depending on the severity of my situation, and pay a reasonable fee...Than deal with what we have now.

Faust · Nov 14, 2007

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: sakasuka

The DMV.

The Post Office.

Those responsible for evacuations prior to Katrina.

The government isn't very good at running things. There is no accountability.

Ask yourself what the life expectancy differences are in the US versus Canada versus Australia versus the UK for CF patients. It's quite different and there's a reason.

And ask yourself how comfortable you would be without access to the Vest.

What will fix the system is not eliminating insurance companies. But instead making the patient the customer. Right now the majority of Americans have health insurance through their employers. If the patient is mad, they don't have a choice other than to complain to HR about the insurance company. If patients were truly the customer rather than the employers, accountability would skyrocket.

I have no issue with the government giving each citizen a few hundred bucks to pay for health insurance. That's reasonable. But to have the government running it? If you like the DMV and the Post Office, then you will like socialized medicine. Just ask all the Canadians that come across the border for healthcare here.</end quote></div>

I think some of your examples are common ones, that to many people are incorrect. The DMV? Last time I was there it was extremely efficient, and I was in and out in like 20 mins. Granted it wasn't always that pleasant of an experience, but the organization (here at least) is extremely efficient now. Besides, aside from taking a decent amount of time to get something done there, how often does/did the DMV ever truely screw up and harm you due to their screw up? Not often i'll bet.

The Post Office? I don't know about you, but here, i'd say 99.9999% of all my mail that was even remotely important has gotten to my house just fine. I even get my mail that is so unbelievably mislabeled by the sender, i often wonder how they got it to my house. All my bills, letters from people I care about, and even spam crap I don't want get to my house just fine. I would venture most people would agree with my opinion of the Post Office. When was the last time you heard someone say "I just can't handle the Post Office screwing up so much and not getting my bills to me?!?!?!"? It's because it's a fallacy that they are a poorly run organization. If anything, they should be used as a model for other organizations to follow.

FEMA (your reference to katrina evacuations)...That's a whole different cluser f*ck all together. The head of the organization was appointed by Bush, on the credentials that he ran horse shows. Yes, horse shows. Many of the appointee's in the organization weren't assigned due to qualifications, they were assigned due to cronyism. Besides, that disaster (due to the antiquated levy system and poor infrastructure) was bound to happen sooner or later, and absolutely no one was prepared, including all the citizens.

If anything, there is little accountability (except to the share holders if the bottom line drops out) to private companies. If they screw up, they may fire one or a few people and then dip into their very deep pockets and start up a PR ad campaign and moron people forget about it. In government positions, if someone screws up, not only will you more than likely lose your job, if the screw up is big enough, you will probably never be able to get another position anywhere near the same market again.

The right leaning people who think primarily about $$$$ (usually cause it benefits them in some way), seem to think the government is 100% incapable of doing anything. Last I checked, while we have tons of flaws, our government does a pretty admirable job in keeping such a vast, intricate society afloat.

Most major cities have a nice library, parks, police force, fire fighters, water system, and countless other important services that at the worst run just ok, but more often run extremely well.

Also, I seriously don't think many Americans want a totally "free" health care system. We all understand the funds have to come from somewhere to fund something, especially so with something so insanely expensive as universal healthcare (note I didn't say FREE health care). I noticed you mentioned your job providing your health care. That is all fine and dandy, till your disease progresses till where you can't work anymore. Then what? Go on COBRA and pay 800+ dollars a month just for the right to have your old healthcare, and for a limited time? Medicare? As i've illustrated before, that is a complete joke. Medicaid? Sure, if you own nearly nothing in any value and make nearly nothing.

The bottom line is, all people, regardless of their status, should have the ability to have quality healthcare that IS NOT profit driven, and takes care of it's citizens. If you make X amount of money it should be a small percentage of that to cover you. Or just have it be a small universal amount, with exclusions for those who are very indigent. If we have nearly 300 million people in this country, even if the cost is very high, there should be no reason why they can't pay a small fee for great coverage.

The overall problem with the entire system is our insane level of monetary greed. These companies are based on profit, and answer to share holders. So instead of managing their business to provide the best possible care in the interest of the insured, they manage for the sole interest of retaining their finances. Sorry, i'd rather take my chances with a not for profit system, and possibly have to wait in triage depending on the severity of my situation, and pay a reasonable fee...Than deal with what we have now.

Faust · Nov 14, 2007

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: sakasuka

The DMV.

The Post Office.

Those responsible for evacuations prior to Katrina.

The government isn't very good at running things. There is no accountability.

Ask yourself what the life expectancy differences are in the US versus Canada versus Australia versus the UK for CF patients. It's quite different and there's a reason.

And ask yourself how comfortable you would be without access to the Vest.

What will fix the system is not eliminating insurance companies. But instead making the patient the customer. Right now the majority of Americans have health insurance through their employers. If the patient is mad, they don't have a choice other than to complain to HR about the insurance company. If patients were truly the customer rather than the employers, accountability would skyrocket.

I have no issue with the government giving each citizen a few hundred bucks to pay for health insurance. That's reasonable. But to have the government running it? If you like the DMV and the Post Office, then you will like socialized medicine. Just ask all the Canadians that come across the border for healthcare here.</end quote></div>

I think some of your examples are common ones, that to many people are incorrect. The DMV? Last time I was there it was extremely efficient, and I was in and out in like 20 mins. Granted it wasn't always that pleasant of an experience, but the organization (here at least) is extremely efficient now. Besides, aside from taking a decent amount of time to get something done there, how often does/did the DMV ever truely screw up and harm you due to their screw up? Not often i'll bet.

The Post Office? I don't know about you, but here, i'd say 99.9999% of all my mail that was even remotely important has gotten to my house just fine. I even get my mail that is so unbelievably mislabeled by the sender, i often wonder how they got it to my house. All my bills, letters from people I care about, and even spam crap I don't want get to my house just fine. I would venture most people would agree with my opinion of the Post Office. When was the last time you heard someone say "I just can't handle the Post Office screwing up so much and not getting my bills to me?!?!?!"? It's because it's a fallacy that they are a poorly run organization. If anything, they should be used as a model for other organizations to follow.

FEMA (your reference to katrina evacuations)...That's a whole different cluser f*ck all together. The head of the organization was appointed by Bush, on the credentials that he ran horse shows. Yes, horse shows. Many of the appointee's in the organization weren't assigned due to qualifications, they were assigned due to cronyism. Besides, that disaster (due to the antiquated levy system and poor infrastructure) was bound to happen sooner or later, and absolutely no one was prepared, including all the citizens.

If anything, there is little accountability (except to the share holders if the bottom line drops out) to private companies. If they screw up, they may fire one or a few people and then dip into their very deep pockets and start up a PR ad campaign and moron people forget about it. In government positions, if someone screws up, not only will you more than likely lose your job, if the screw up is big enough, you will probably never be able to get another position anywhere near the same market again.

The right leaning people who think primarily about $$$$ (usually cause it benefits them in some way), seem to think the government is 100% incapable of doing anything. Last I checked, while we have tons of flaws, our government does a pretty admirable job in keeping such a vast, intricate society afloat.

Most major cities have a nice library, parks, police force, fire fighters, water system, and countless other important services that at the worst run just ok, but more often run extremely well.

Also, I seriously don't think many Americans want a totally "free" health care system. We all understand the funds have to come from somewhere to fund something, especially so with something so insanely expensive as universal healthcare (note I didn't say FREE health care). I noticed you mentioned your job providing your health care. That is all fine and dandy, till your disease progresses till where you can't work anymore. Then what? Go on COBRA and pay 800+ dollars a month just for the right to have your old healthcare, and for a limited time? Medicare? As i've illustrated before, that is a complete joke. Medicaid? Sure, if you own nearly nothing in any value and make nearly nothing.

The bottom line is, all people, regardless of their status, should have the ability to have quality healthcare that IS NOT profit driven, and takes care of it's citizens. If you make X amount of money it should be a small percentage of that to cover you. Or just have it be a small universal amount, with exclusions for those who are very indigent. If we have nearly 300 million people in this country, even if the cost is very high, there should be no reason why they can't pay a small fee for great coverage.

The overall problem with the entire system is our insane level of monetary greed. These companies are based on profit, and answer to share holders. So instead of managing their business to provide the best possible care in the interest of the insured, they manage for the sole interest of retaining their finances. Sorry, i'd rather take my chances with a not for profit system, and possibly have to wait in triage depending on the severity of my situation, and pay a reasonable fee...Than deal with what we have now.

Faust · Nov 14, 2007

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: sakasuka

The DMV.

The Post Office.

Those responsible for evacuations prior to Katrina.

The government isn't very good at running things. There is no accountability.

Ask yourself what the life expectancy differences are in the US versus Canada versus Australia versus the UK for CF patients. It's quite different and there's a reason.

And ask yourself how comfortable you would be without access to the Vest.

What will fix the system is not eliminating insurance companies. But instead making the patient the customer. Right now the majority of Americans have health insurance through their employers. If the patient is mad, they don't have a choice other than to complain to HR about the insurance company. If patients were truly the customer rather than the employers, accountability would skyrocket.

I have no issue with the government giving each citizen a few hundred bucks to pay for health insurance. That's reasonable. But to have the government running it? If you like the DMV and the Post Office, then you will like socialized medicine. Just ask all the Canadians that come across the border for healthcare here.</end quote>

I think some of your examples are common ones, that to many people are incorrect. The DMV? Last time I was there it was extremely efficient, and I was in and out in like 20 mins. Granted it wasn't always that pleasant of an experience, but the organization (here at least) is extremely efficient now. Besides, aside from taking a decent amount of time to get something done there, how often does/did the DMV ever truely screw up and harm you due to their screw up? Not often i'll bet.

The Post Office? I don't know about you, but here, i'd say 99.9999% of all my mail that was even remotely important has gotten to my house just fine. I even get my mail that is so unbelievably mislabeled by the sender, i often wonder how they got it to my house. All my bills, letters from people I care about, and even spam crap I don't want get to my house just fine. I would venture most people would agree with my opinion of the Post Office. When was the last time you heard someone say "I just can't handle the Post Office screwing up so much and not getting my bills to me?!?!?!"? It's because it's a fallacy that they are a poorly run organization. If anything, they should be used as a model for other organizations to follow.

FEMA (your reference to katrina evacuations)...That's a whole different cluser f*ck all together. The head of the organization was appointed by Bush, on the credentials that he ran horse shows. Yes, horse shows. Many of the appointee's in the organization weren't assigned due to qualifications, they were assigned due to cronyism. Besides, that disaster (due to the antiquated levy system and poor infrastructure) was bound to happen sooner or later, and absolutely no one was prepared, including all the citizens.

If anything, there is little accountability (except to the share holders if the bottom line drops out) to private companies. If they screw up, they may fire one or a few people and then dip into their very deep pockets and start up a PR ad campaign and moron people forget about it. In government positions, if someone screws up, not only will you more than likely lose your job, if the screw up is big enough, you will probably never be able to get another position anywhere near the same market again.

The right leaning people who think primarily about $$$$ (usually cause it benefits them in some way), seem to think the government is 100% incapable of doing anything. Last I checked, while we have tons of flaws, our government does a pretty admirable job in keeping such a vast, intricate society afloat.

Most major cities have a nice library, parks, police force, fire fighters, water system, and countless other important services that at the worst run just ok, but more often run extremely well.

Also, I seriously don't think many Americans want a totally "free" health care system. We all understand the funds have to come from somewhere to fund something, especially so with something so insanely expensive as universal healthcare (note I didn't say FREE health care). I noticed you mentioned your job providing your health care. That is all fine and dandy, till your disease progresses till where you can't work anymore. Then what? Go on COBRA and pay 800+ dollars a month just for the right to have your old healthcare, and for a limited time? Medicare? As i've illustrated before, that is a complete joke. Medicaid? Sure, if you own nearly nothing in any value and make nearly nothing.

The bottom line is, all people, regardless of their status, should have the ability to have quality healthcare that IS NOT profit driven, and takes care of it's citizens. If you make X amount of money it should be a small percentage of that to cover you. Or just have it be a small universal amount, with exclusions for those who are very indigent. If we have nearly 300 million people in this country, even if the cost is very high, there should be no reason why they can't pay a small fee for great coverage.

The overall problem with the entire system is our insane level of monetary greed. These companies are based on profit, and answer to share holders. So instead of managing their business to provide the best possible care in the interest of the insured, they manage for the sole interest of retaining their finances. Sorry, i'd rather take my chances with a not for profit system, and possibly have to wait in triage depending on the severity of my situation, and pay a reasonable fee...Than deal with what we have now.

Faust · Nov 14, 2007

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: sakasuka

The DMV.

The Post Office.

Those responsible for evacuations prior to Katrina.

The government isn't very good at running things. There is no accountability.

Ask yourself what the life expectancy differences are in the US versus Canada versus Australia versus the UK for CF patients. It's quite different and there's a reason.

And ask yourself how comfortable you would be without access to the Vest.

What will fix the system is not eliminating insurance companies. But instead making the patient the customer. Right now the majority of Americans have health insurance through their employers. If the patient is mad, they don't have a choice other than to complain to HR about the insurance company. If patients were truly the customer rather than the employers, accountability would skyrocket.

I have no issue with the government giving each citizen a few hundred bucks to pay for health insurance. That's reasonable. But to have the government running it? If you like the DMV and the Post Office, then you will like socialized medicine. Just ask all the Canadians that come across the border for healthcare here.</end quote>

I think some of your examples are common ones, that to many people are incorrect. The DMV? Last time I was there it was extremely efficient, and I was in and out in like 20 mins. Granted it wasn't always that pleasant of an experience, but the organization (here at least) is extremely efficient now. Besides, aside from taking a decent amount of time to get something done there, how often does/did the DMV ever truely screw up and harm you due to their screw up? Not often i'll bet.

The Post Office? I don't know about you, but here, i'd say 99.9999% of all my mail that was even remotely important has gotten to my house just fine. I even get my mail that is so unbelievably mislabeled by the sender, i often wonder how they got it to my house. All my bills, letters from people I care about, and even spam crap I don't want get to my house just fine. I would venture most people would agree with my opinion of the Post Office. When was the last time you heard someone say "I just can't handle the Post Office screwing up so much and not getting my bills to me?!?!?!"? It's because it's a fallacy that they are a poorly run organization. If anything, they should be used as a model for other organizations to follow.

FEMA (your reference to katrina evacuations)...That's a whole different cluser f*ck all together. The head of the organization was appointed by Bush, on the credentials that he ran horse shows. Yes, horse shows. Many of the appointee's in the organization weren't assigned due to qualifications, they were assigned due to cronyism. Besides, that disaster (due to the antiquated levy system and poor infrastructure) was bound to happen sooner or later, and absolutely no one was prepared, including all the citizens.

If anything, there is little accountability (except to the share holders if the bottom line drops out) to private companies. If they screw up, they may fire one or a few people and then dip into their very deep pockets and start up a PR ad campaign and moron people forget about it. In government positions, if someone screws up, not only will you more than likely lose your job, if the screw up is big enough, you will probably never be able to get another position anywhere near the same market again.

The right leaning people who think primarily about $$$$ (usually cause it benefits them in some way), seem to think the government is 100% incapable of doing anything. Last I checked, while we have tons of flaws, our government does a pretty admirable job in keeping such a vast, intricate society afloat.

Most major cities have a nice library, parks, police force, fire fighters, water system, and countless other important services that at the worst run just ok, but more often run extremely well.

Also, I seriously don't think many Americans want a totally "free" health care system. We all understand the funds have to come from somewhere to fund something, especially so with something so insanely expensive as universal healthcare (note I didn't say FREE health care). I noticed you mentioned your job providing your health care. That is all fine and dandy, till your disease progresses till where you can't work anymore. Then what? Go on COBRA and pay 800+ dollars a month just for the right to have your old healthcare, and for a limited time? Medicare? As i've illustrated before, that is a complete joke. Medicaid? Sure, if you own nearly nothing in any value and make nearly nothing.

The bottom line is, all people, regardless of their status, should have the ability to have quality healthcare that IS NOT profit driven, and takes care of it's citizens. If you make X amount of money it should be a small percentage of that to cover you. Or just have it be a small universal amount, with exclusions for those who are very indigent. If we have nearly 300 million people in this country, even if the cost is very high, there should be no reason why they can't pay a small fee for great coverage.

The overall problem with the entire system is our insane level of monetary greed. These companies are based on profit, and answer to share holders. So instead of managing their business to provide the best possible care in the interest of the insured, they manage for the sole interest of retaining their finances. Sorry, i'd rather take my chances with a not for profit system, and possibly have to wait in triage depending on the severity of my situation, and pay a reasonable fee...Than deal with what we have now.

Faust · Nov 14, 2007

Also one more thing. The biggest reasons for American's failing health and being as disease ridden as we are, is almost entirely due to our lifestyle and diet. Massive fast food/meat consumption, very low fiber intake, general very poor nutrition coupled with a very sedentary lifestyle = extremely bad health. Our western approach to health care has always been reactive instead of proactive. What about a system where proper nutrition and exercise is stressed and taught? How about proper prescreenings to citizens to try and head off and treat potential health problems before they happen? supplying vitamins and minerals to your citizens would be a very good start, and the cost would be paid back 100 times over. It all comes back to greed. It's time we changed the way we view our care, not just from a profit vs non profit stance, but down to a very basic philosophical approach.

Faust · Nov 14, 2007

Also one more thing. The biggest reasons for American's failing health and being as disease ridden as we are, is almost entirely due to our lifestyle and diet. Massive fast food/meat consumption, very low fiber intake, general very poor nutrition coupled with a very sedentary lifestyle = extremely bad health. Our western approach to health care has always been reactive instead of proactive. What about a system where proper nutrition and exercise is stressed and taught? How about proper prescreenings to citizens to try and head off and treat potential health problems before they happen? supplying vitamins and minerals to your citizens would be a very good start, and the cost would be paid back 100 times over. It all comes back to greed. It's time we changed the way we view our care, not just from a profit vs non profit stance, but down to a very basic philosophical approach.

Faust · Nov 14, 2007

Also one more thing. The biggest reasons for American's failing health and being as disease ridden as we are, is almost entirely due to our lifestyle and diet. Massive fast food/meat consumption, very low fiber intake, general very poor nutrition coupled with a very sedentary lifestyle = extremely bad health. Our western approach to health care has always been reactive instead of proactive. What about a system where proper nutrition and exercise is stressed and taught? How about proper prescreenings to citizens to try and head off and treat potential health problems before they happen? supplying vitamins and minerals to your citizens would be a very good start, and the cost would be paid back 100 times over. It all comes back to greed. It's time we changed the way we view our care, not just from a profit vs non profit stance, but down to a very basic philosophical approach.

Faust · Nov 14, 2007

Also one more thing. The biggest reasons for American's failing health and being as disease ridden as we are, is almost entirely due to our lifestyle and diet. Massive fast food/meat consumption, very low fiber intake, general very poor nutrition coupled with a very sedentary lifestyle = extremely bad health. Our western approach to health care has always been reactive instead of proactive. What about a system where proper nutrition and exercise is stressed and taught? How about proper prescreenings to citizens to try and head off and treat potential health problems before they happen? supplying vitamins and minerals to your citizens would be a very good start, and the cost would be paid back 100 times over. It all comes back to greed. It's time we changed the way we view our care, not just from a profit vs non profit stance, but down to a very basic philosophical approach.

Faust · Nov 14, 2007

Also one more thing. The biggest reasons for American's failing health and being as disease ridden as we are, is almost entirely due to our lifestyle and diet. Massive fast food/meat consumption, very low fiber intake, general very poor nutrition coupled with a very sedentary lifestyle = extremely bad health. Our western approach to health care has always been reactive instead of proactive. What about a system where proper nutrition and exercise is stressed and taught? How about proper prescreenings to citizens to try and head off and treat potential health problems before they happen? supplying vitamins and minerals to your citizens would be a very good start, and the cost would be paid back 100 times over. It all comes back to greed. It's time we changed the way we view our care, not just from a profit vs non profit stance, but down to a very basic philosophical approach.

65rosessamurai · Nov 14, 2007

In comparison to Eastern Medicine, Western medicine mixes this-with-that to make some concoction that is to manipulate your body chemestry to make you feel better; Eastern medicine gives herbs and such to "amplifiy" the stuff your own body creates, in order to help you feel better...they both may "manipulate", but the difference is in the "side-effects"....the Eastern medicine side-effects is usually that it tastes real bitter and you have to drink it straight down, no capsulating, no pill-form...
But that has nothing to do with the Socialized Insurance Topic.

Here's a thought...if you compare the price of medication in Canada in comparison with the U.S., I'll bet there's a major difference....Even with Japan, the price on some of their products in comparison to what I've seen so far in the U.S. was tremendoulsy different. (the E-flow for example)

So, one solution would be to stop over-charging all those medical products and put them to a more reasonable price before getting into a system which would make "All Animals Equal", like in that story, "Animal Farm"....Theoretically, that ought to work....

65rosessamurai · Nov 14, 2007

In comparison to Eastern Medicine, Western medicine mixes this-with-that to make some concoction that is to manipulate your body chemestry to make you feel better; Eastern medicine gives herbs and such to "amplifiy" the stuff your own body creates, in order to help you feel better...they both may "manipulate", but the difference is in the "side-effects"....the Eastern medicine side-effects is usually that it tastes real bitter and you have to drink it straight down, no capsulating, no pill-form...
But that has nothing to do with the Socialized Insurance Topic.

Here's a thought...if you compare the price of medication in Canada in comparison with the U.S., I'll bet there's a major difference....Even with Japan, the price on some of their products in comparison to what I've seen so far in the U.S. was tremendoulsy different. (the E-flow for example)

So, one solution would be to stop over-charging all those medical products and put them to a more reasonable price before getting into a system which would make "All Animals Equal", like in that story, "Animal Farm"....Theoretically, that ought to work....

65rosessamurai · Nov 14, 2007

In comparison to Eastern Medicine, Western medicine mixes this-with-that to make some concoction that is to manipulate your body chemestry to make you feel better; Eastern medicine gives herbs and such to "amplifiy" the stuff your own body creates, in order to help you feel better...they both may "manipulate", but the difference is in the "side-effects"....the Eastern medicine side-effects is usually that it tastes real bitter and you have to drink it straight down, no capsulating, no pill-form...
But that has nothing to do with the Socialized Insurance Topic.

Here's a thought...if you compare the price of medication in Canada in comparison with the U.S., I'll bet there's a major difference....Even with Japan, the price on some of their products in comparison to what I've seen so far in the U.S. was tremendoulsy different. (the E-flow for example)

So, one solution would be to stop over-charging all those medical products and put them to a more reasonable price before getting into a system which would make "All Animals Equal", like in that story, "Animal Farm"....Theoretically, that ought to work....

65rosessamurai · Nov 14, 2007

In comparison to Eastern Medicine, Western medicine mixes this-with-that to make some concoction that is to manipulate your body chemestry to make you feel better; Eastern medicine gives herbs and such to "amplifiy" the stuff your own body creates, in order to help you feel better...they both may "manipulate", but the difference is in the "side-effects"....the Eastern medicine side-effects is usually that it tastes real bitter and you have to drink it straight down, no capsulating, no pill-form...
But that has nothing to do with the Socialized Insurance Topic.

Here's a thought...if you compare the price of medication in Canada in comparison with the U.S., I'll bet there's a major difference....Even with Japan, the price on some of their products in comparison to what I've seen so far in the U.S. was tremendoulsy different. (the E-flow for example)

So, one solution would be to stop over-charging all those medical products and put them to a more reasonable price before getting into a system which would make "All Animals Equal", like in that story, "Animal Farm"....Theoretically, that ought to work....

65rosessamurai · Nov 14, 2007

In comparison to Eastern Medicine, Western medicine mixes this-with-that to make some concoction that is to manipulate your body chemestry to make you feel better; Eastern medicine gives herbs and such to "amplifiy" the stuff your own body creates, in order to help you feel better...they both may "manipulate", but the difference is in the "side-effects"....the Eastern medicine side-effects is usually that it tastes real bitter and you have to drink it straight down, no capsulating, no pill-form...
But that has nothing to do with the Socialized Insurance Topic.

Here's a thought...if you compare the price of medication in Canada in comparison with the U.S., I'll bet there's a major difference....Even with Japan, the price on some of their products in comparison to what I've seen so far in the U.S. was tremendoulsy different. (the E-flow for example)

So, one solution would be to stop over-charging all those medical products and put them to a more reasonable price before getting into a system which would make "All Animals Equal", like in that story, "Animal Farm"....Theoretically, that ought to work....

Those who live out of U.S. with Socialized Medicine

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

65rosessamurai

Guest

65rosessamurai

Guest

65rosessamurai

Guest

65rosessamurai

Guest

65rosessamurai

Guest