jump to last post 1-25 of 25 discussions (554 posts)

Hey left! They lied about health care!

  1. Barefootfae profile image61
    Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago

    http://hotair.com/archives/2013/03/27/s … s-to-rise/

    To all those who swore and I am certain will still swear ACA won't raise premiums:

    Kathleen Sebelius.

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      In before the excuses or rationalizations.

      1. Barefootfae profile image61
        Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I am curious to see who refutes this.
        I have some suspects in mind...........

    2. Old Poolman profile image82
      Old Poolmanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      No matter what you say, or what you write, there will always be those who firmly believe this AHC is the best thing that ever happened.  Finally, something was done to put those greedy insurance companies, doctors, and hospitals in their place.  Now everyone can have "FREE" health care.
      The fact that they have not read the bill, don't understand the bill, and have no intention of paying for insurance doesn't matter.
      They love it, and they are right and you are wrong.

      1. Josak profile image58
        Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        It's not based on blind optimism it is based on the fact that it has worked all around the world, conservatives can predict gloom all they wish but a quick glance at all the highest living standard nations in the world and all the highest life expectancy nations in the world will show that it's nothing more than fear mongering.

        1. Old Poolman profile image82
          Old Poolmanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Josak - There are just so many possible ways this could have been accomplished without Obamacare.  Sure, it has some things that look good on paper, and some things that look bad on paper.  The unnerving part is not even have a good estimate on what the actual costs will be.
          Knowing there truly is just so much money available, what if the program is unable to support itself and goes belly up?
          Would we then be forced to seize bank accounts and confiscate funds as just happend in another country?
          Has it worked all over the world?  Many in other parts of the world would disagree with you.

          1. Josak profile image58
            Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            All the polling from nations which have it I have ever seen indicates wide support and massive opposition whenever anyone even mentions cutting it, furthermore they do it cheaper too.

            Hence as far as I am aware not a single nation has repealed such healthcare.

            OH also according to Gallup nations with public healthcare have a population which is much more satisfied with it's healthcare.

            http://www.gallup.com/poll/122393/oecd- … marks.aspx

        2. Barefootfae profile image61
          Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          The Secretary of the bleeding Health and Human Services says premiums will rise. Not Conservatives or Tea party people or whatever. Kathleen Flipping Sebelius.
          Why don't we address THAT?

          1. Josak profile image58
            Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I already have, she hasn't given figures I can find but the fact that now healthcare is unlimited (for example) cancels out the cost entirely, costs are matched to the service and in that respect amongst others the service is now far superior.

            1. Barefootfae profile image61
              Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              So the Secretary gave out false information?

              1. Josak profile image58
                Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Read again, I never said that.

                1. Barefootfae profile image61
                  Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  OK....

                  Look you are one of the ones who has claimed cost would not go up. Now she says it is.

        3. Marquis profile image59
          Marquisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You are clueless.

          1. Josak profile image58
            Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Good factual answer there tongue

    3. Josak profile image58
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Ok so many ways to tackle this

      #1: Your source lists a study as a source but links to a daily caller article without any links to the actual study that I could find (I might be missing it) given the lean of these sites and unable to actually see the study the claim is very dubious.

      #2: Costs pay for services, formerly your coverage might offer 20 000 in coverage per year, once that runs out you are in the cold, on the other hand with the ACA your coverage is now unlimited so you may be paying a bit more but your service is radically better. (That is just one example of how)

      #3: All of this is purely speculation, we have no idea if or how much these costs are going to rise we are at best estimating.

      #4 As the article points out the cost is place don the youngest demographics due to their statistical good health and yet Obama Care has massive youth support meaning the people complaining are generally people whom it will save money.

      #5 Penny pinching on lives is not something we should be interested in doing, certainly not something that holds any weight with me, the 45 000 lives saved every year is more than worth the extra cost.

      #6 Transitional periods often see price jumps before stabilization.

      1. Barefootfae profile image61
        Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Kathleen Sebelius.

    4. prettydarkhorse profile image63
      prettydarkhorseposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Business is insurance business.

      Isn't it it is too early to tell? It will officially start on Oct 1.

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        No, it's not too early to tell. Premiums are already rising specifically because of ACA.

  2. bn9900 profile image88
    bn9900posted 3 years ago

    Anyone who does try to refute it, is just a bullfaced liar.

  3. Marquis profile image59
    Marquisposted 3 years ago

    Death to Socialized medicine.

    1. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      As that equals death to me, you can take a hike!

      1. Marquis profile image59
        Marquisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Too bad for you and the crooks behind Socialized medicine scam.

        1. John Holden profile image59
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Health care in the UK costs about 9% of GDP and covers everybody.
          Health care in the USA costs about 16% of GDP and does not cover everybody!

          Who is scamming who?

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Nobody wants to talk about  that. I've tried.

            Lol, these discussions are funny. Always the same stuff, nobody is ever willing to actually take a step back and look at things.

          2. Marquis profile image59
            Marquisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            You do not have the amount of people in the UK that America has. Also, you can go to any hospital in America and not be turned down.

            America has the best doctors, facilities and medical schools. Even ARMY doctors are great.

            1. Josak profile image58
              Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              He is talking percentage of GDP population is irrelevant to that measure.

              You can go to any hospital in the UK and not only not be turned down but also not be charged afterwards.

              Best doctors? Prove it none of the available evidence indicates that, most seems to suggest it is Finland or Germany.

              We also have lower levels of doctor and care satisfaction than anywhere in the first world, ie. our care is not very good.

              1. Marquis profile image59
                Marquisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I know what he was talking about and don't care.

                The same thing applies at U.S. hospitals. You are not turned down for service and get the bill later. I said that already did I not?

                Like I said before, the U.S. has the best doctors. I don't attend of being sick and traveling to Germany or Finland. That includes that tropical paradise Cuba either.

                Lower levels of doctors and care satisfaction? Explain this.

                1. Josak profile image58
                  Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  So your first objection was irrelevant.

                  Your second statement is the same in Britain but also free and so does not prove your point.

                  No proof, facts say otherwise.

                  Surveys on satisfaction with care and the doctors one was cared for by conducted internationally showed the US scored lowest in the first world.

                  1. Marquis profile image59
                    Marquisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I never asked you to judge if my objections are relevant or not. And frankly, I don't care. Second, I don't have to prove a thing to you.

                    You have no proof, just a bunch of statements attacking mine. What type of proof is that?

                    I don't believe anything you say. It would help if you would stop  wasting your time. America is the best. America is better than the Uk and will remain that way until the end of time. Get mad and keep posting trash and biased polls so I can laugh some more.

      2. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You would die without free healthcare?

        1. Josak profile image58
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          It's a very common situation, I believe John suffered a stroke, many people cannot afford the sort of treatment involved to survive such an event or recover to a dignified state.

          As I qouted previously even with health assistance in the US before Obamacare it's estimated about 45 000 people die yearly due to not having coverage.

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I'm just surprised, I was under the impression that John was doing quite well.

            1. John Holden profile image59
              John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Yes I am, largely due to the NHS.

          2. HowardBThiname profile image90
            HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Here in the US - a stroke is an emergency situation and no hospital emergency room will turn a patient away. No ambulance will refuse to transport and we have the latest technology for quick treatment of stroke to prevent long-term damage.

            1. Josak profile image58
              Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Oh he would have received initial care but stroke recovery is a long term and costly process (it was for my brother anyway) costing hundreds of thousands of dollars in physio etc.even with insurance most plans don't cover anywhere near that much, until 2014 when they become infinite anyway, so yes the first treatment absolutely, the care required for a a dignified life, probably not.

              But yes you are correct, medicare in the US is already somewhat publicly run and it saves millions of lives, the same doom and gloom predictions were made of it too.

              1. HowardBThiname profile image90
                HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I wasn't really talking about Medicare, I was talking about emergency medical care that is available to anyone, even illegals, who walk through ER doors. You're right in that the quality and length of rehabilitation might be affected by the quality of insurance, but those with NO insurance are also treated because they are less of a burden on society if they recover. In my state, indigent patients are referred to local health facilities that treat them and charge them minimal fees, such as $10 per visit, which includes prescription drugs, although not all drugs qualify, but the generics are usually fine.

                If the person doesn't even have the $10 fee, it comes out of a kitty provided by local churches and charities.

                With Obamacare and the new provider rules, that could all change so the insurers are guaranteed their cut of money.

                Even Sebellius said yesterday that the Administration did not foresee how complex this plan would be to implement. It's a failure. Get ready to watch it crash.

        2. John Holden profile image59
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Well it isn't free health care .I've paid my share as has every other tax payer.
          And yes, I probably be dead by now without unlimited health care.

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Well here, it's free for half of the citizens, since they don't pay into the tax system.

            Glad you're alive, but both my wife and myself would never want to take from someone else to get treatment for one of us.

            1. John Holden profile image59
              John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              In the UK the only way you can avoid paying into the tax system is never to buy anything!

              It's no more taking from somebody else than claiming off your car insurance is taking from somebody else. Or indeed claiming off your health insurance in the US!

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Yup, not like that here though.

                1. John Holden profile image59
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  How do you buy anything and avoid contributing to tax then?

                  1. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Healthcare expenditures aren't paid by consumption taxes in the US.

    2. gmwilliams profile image86
      gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      AMEN to that!

  4. habee profile image91
    habeeposted 3 years ago

    Slice it or dice it any way you wish - we were misled about costs. I'm not saying I'm totally opposed to Obamacare - I'm not. I don't mind paying a little more if it means more people can be covered and get health care. What I resent is being lied to. My premiums have already risen and are scheduled to rise again. The Dems should have just been honest with us and said, "Your premiums might increase a bit, but more people, including children, will now have access to health care."

    Yeah, I know. Honest politicians - what a pipe dream!

  5. Marquis profile image59
    Marquisposted 3 years ago

    Socialized healthcare is not the way.

    1. Zelkiiro profile image84
      Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      America is ranked 39th in the world for healthcare quality, and our system is the most expensive by far.

      If socialized healthcare isn't the way to go, it's still a hell of a lot better than what we've been doing.

      1. psycheskinner profile image79
        psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Indeed. In fact most systems in use in other first world companies are demonstrably more effective, and more cost effective.

      2. Old Poolman profile image82
        Old Poolmanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I agree our current system just plain sucks.  I'm just not sure that Obamacare was the correct cure for our healthcare system.

        1. Zelkiiro profile image84
          Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Nobody's sure whether or not Obamacare is the right answer, but at least the issue is on the table.

          1. Mighty Mom profile image91
            Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I truly do not understand the motivation of those so vehemently opposed to getting so many of their fellow Americans onto health insurance.

            Either
            a) They continue to  believe everything the haters on breitbart.com, hotair.com, Fox News et al tell them (death panels!)
            or
            b) There is a disproportionate number of health insurance employees on Hub Page

            smile

            1. innersmiff profile image79
              innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Or they take the idea of liberty and extend it to its ultimate logical conclusion?

              It's not very often that you get a statist explicitly lay out their prejudices, but judging from most arguments for Obamacare, you could guess them: opponents are either NUTS (Fox News, Breitbart) or in the pay of some vested interest. If this is really the conclusion you have come to I think you need to do some wider research into why people might oppose any kind of state involvement in health.

              Oh, and Obamacare was essentially written by insurance companies to benefit them, and raising premiums continue to support the notion that it does. Imagine a law forcing people to buy products or services from whatever business you work from or own, wouldn't that be awesome?

            2. Old Poolman profile image82
              Old Poolmanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              MightyMom - I'm not so sure everyone is opposed to changes in our healthcare system.  Many are opposed to the secrecy behind this plan, and no clear answer on how much it will cost.
              It may have been better to look at several possible plans and pick the best one than adopting this plan when much of it is still unknown.
              Heaven knows changes are needed, I'm just not sure this plan was the best move we could have made.  No citizen I am aware of had any input whatsoever into what this plan would change and make better.

              1. Mighty Mom profile image91
                Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I agree with you, old Poolman.
                I do not believe Obamacare as written is the best this country can do for our citizens.
                I believe it was a hastily pushed through piece of compromise legislation.
                I understand why Obama was in such a hurry to push it through. And I'm glad he did.
                There is NO WAY anything close to this would get through the House post 2010!!

                As to having citizen input, that's a laugh.
                90% of Americans favor gun control and our Congress still will not pass it!
                Why would we think Congress would listen?

            3. HowardBThiname profile image90
              HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Anyone who still harbors hope that Obamacare will provide all Americans with healthcare, should read the figures from the CBO. 30 million will be without healthcare, and the lower-middle class will bear the brunt of insuring others.

              This is an incredibly bad plan and next year, 2014, expect to see Obama's staunchest supporters turn on him because of this.

              1. Josak profile image58
                Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Yes some people will remain uninsured by choice, not because they can't afford it but because they don't want it, they will pay a fine which will then cover their medical costs when they get sick and inevitably expect help anyway.

                Also link?

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  ?? I can't afford insurance, and shelled out over $12,000 last year for medical care.  Didn't ask anyone else to pay it, though - what is this "inevitably expect help" thing?

                  1. John Holden profile image59
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Again, ever claimed on your car insurance? Would you count that as "expecting somebody else to pay"?

                  2. Josak profile image58
                    Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I meant in a crisis, obviously you were able to pay your bills or at least arrange to pay them, when people are in grave medical situations and cannot the result is ultimately wanting state aid (not that I can fault them for it if it were my life or that of one of my family I am sure I would do the same).

              2. Mighty Mom profile image91
                Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Here's a fun quiz from the Kaiser Family Foundation*
                Enjoy!!
                http://quiz.kff.org/uninsured/uninsured-quiz.aspx

                *I imagine you count major insurers and health systems like Kaiser (biggest in the western US) as among those who will turn on Obama in 2014, right?

          2. innersmiff profile image79
            innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Yeah, right - there is a problem, so we therefore need to violate people's rights to do something about it, even though we have no idea whether it will work or not. At least the issue is on the table!

            1. Josak profile image58
              Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              No one's rights were violated at all, I know you consider taxation a violation of human rights but that is not a relevant opinion, nothing else about the ACA takes away people's rights. (and before we get "but it makes you buy healthcare!!!1") no it does not, it charges you for not doing so... charges which are in fact not enforced or enforceable to pay for the fact that if you get sick and can't afford the treatment the state will save your life.

              1. innersmiff profile image79
                innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Again, Josak, if we are to accept that the property we own is truly ours, taxation has to be considered theft. I know it's a bit awkward but it's the truth.

                And that . . . is a distinction without a difference - coercion is still an aggressive action. Even if what you offer me will save my life, give me an incredible sex life and make me exceedingly rich, I still have the right to refuse participation in it. Any other outcome has to be considered aggressive and a violation of individual rights.

            2. Barefootfae profile image61
              Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              http://s3.hubimg.com/u/7835462_f248.jpg

          3. Marquis profile image59
            Marquisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Obamacare is trash. I am so happy to hear how states have fought the scam known as "Obamacare."

            1. Cody Hodge5 profile image84
              Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              You mean all the states where the governors are now accepting the money to cover the costs?

      3. Marquis profile image59
        Marquisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I really do not care where America is ranked according to healthcare. There is a lot of politics in skewed polls put together by biased Leftists. America's healthcare will be ranked a lot lower the minute more people start to die due to socialized healthcare.

        1. Josak profile image58
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Like has happened precisely nowhere, yeah the facts won't change.

          1. innersmiff profile image79
            innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Um, been reading UK news lately?

            1. John Holden profile image59
              John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Um, it isn't socialised health care that has suddenly resulted in more deaths, it is the gradual privatisation coupled with the demoralising of staff and also the loss of essential workers in the health service.

              Thatcher started the rot by deciding that hospitals should be run like hotels, with maximum bed occupancy, neglecting to think of how a ward that was never emptied could be deep cleaned and where the victims of a disaster or even the effects of a spell of bad weather might be quickly given beds.

              If you really believe that more people die as a result of socialised health care, do some research and find that actually fewer people die as a result of socialised health care.

              1. HowardBThiname profile image90
                HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Too much room for abuse in socialized medicine. Take your Liverpool Care Pathway. For some terminal patients it might be helpful, but in the US, doctors actually try to save lives - not help end them.

                The abuse of something like that is way too tempting to a country that's feeling the crunch from healthcare funds.

                1. John Holden profile image59
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Have you ever been in a UK hospital and watched a crash team try to bring back to life a dead patient? No! I have and it sucks, it removed all dignity from the deceased. I'd have much rather they had been allowed to leave this life in a dignified manner, as the LCP allows.

                  Our doctors do save lives and furthermore they don't have profit orientated insurance companies to work against.

                  We aren't feeling the crunch from health care funds (which is just as or even more likely to happen in the USA) we are suffering from dolts who want to dismantle the system we have and replace it with a more inefficient USA style system.

                  1. HowardBThiname profile image90
                    HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Our system IS inefficient - thanks to the coming Obamacare. But we have the best trauma teams in the world. They don't "bring back" dead patients - but they save valuable lives that can be saved.

                    Your Liverpool Care Pathway is nothing more than your government playing god and choosing to let some of your people die. Here - we allow the patient and their family to make that very personal choice.

                    The UK and Europe, in general, have lousy healthcare. Sure, you might have enough to go around - but you don't have near the quality we have. You would like us to have it - misery does love company, but our will be even worse than yours. Ours is intricately tied to lining the pockets of insurance companies - so it will break the bank.

                    Your LCP is a sham and a shame - choosing who should live.

                    I'm sure we'll soon have something just as disgusting.

            2. Josak profile image58
              Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              The UK still thrashes our system both for cost and life expectancy, healthcare in the UK costs less less than a quarter of what it does here. As I understand it your system is slightly underfunded... and still kicking ours all around the park.

              We have 45 000 die yearly just from not being able to afford care, that does not even begin to count the tens on tens of thousands killed by insurance companies penny pinching. I am pretty sure whatever you guys have going on does not compare.

              1. HowardBThiname profile image90
                HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                On Obamacare, Josak, the number without healthcare will be 30,000,000.

                What makes you think none of those 30million will get sick?

            3. Hollie Thomas profile image61
              Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I can't believe that given your age, Innersmiff, you are still so naive. DO you honestly believe that men who have no other motivation than profit, would honestly want to improve services for the patients within the NHS, when they can make so much capital from shorts shrifting them?

      4. Marquis profile image59
        Marquisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        lol

        Joke, right?

        1. Josak profile image58
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          He is correct.

  6. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 3 years ago

    Here is what the article says in the gray box (gray for GRAY area, perhaps?)

    The secretary’s remarks are among the first direct statements from federal officials that people who have skimpy health plans right now could] face higher premiums for plans that are more generous. …

    “These folks will be moving into a really fully insured product for the first time, and so there may be a higher cost associated with getting into that market,” she said.  “But we feel pretty strongly that with subsidies available to a lot of that population that they are really going to see much better benefit for the money that they’re spending.”

    Yeah. She's really backing away from Obamacare in a big way.
    roll

    But I can't deny that some people's premiums will rise.
    In fact, my husband's premiums have already increased 100%.
    From 0 -- uninsurable in the pre-Obamacare insurance market -- to finally having health insurance.
    It is not FREE. It is not subsidized by any company's group plan. 
    He pays a monthly premium, copays, deductible and everything.

    Thank you, Mitt Romney, for paving the way for this long overdue legislation!

    1. HowardBThiname profile image90
      HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      30 million without health care, some of whom have it now but their employers are cutting back their hours so they can avoid paying it.

      In California, some insurers have already DOUBLED their premiums.

      This bill is a farce and it will fail. The only question left is how many will suffer because of it.

      2014 is the year the American people will turn against Obama for this mess.

      1. Josak profile image58
        Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Lies and more lies, the ACA according to the CDC will more than halve the number of uninsured, those who are left are those who are willingly choosing not to buy healthcare not those who cannot afford it.

        As for the doom and gloom predictions we are all quite inured to the conservative fear mongering from: "the army will collapse with the end of don't ask don't tell" to "Obama will destroy the economy" and yet here we are with a functioning army and a growing economy.

        Not a single country has ever repealed it's public healthcare laws except to replace them with a more public system, Obama care may well need tweaking but that is all.

  7. bn9900 profile image88
    bn9900posted 3 years ago

    This is for Mighty Mom.  it has nothing to do with our fellow Americans, did you miss the CNN and MSNBC reporting that 30 million ILLEGALS would get health care too?  It is comments like yours that boil my blood since you just showed your true liberal colors, and no I don't go to an of the channels you listed or websites either.  I don't have Cable as it is so full of liberal trash.  Liberals just don't think things through.  When you are illegal you are not American, you are not paying taxes, you are not following the laws.  So, as a hard working stay at home father, why should I pay for the healthcare of a illegal alien or their offspring?

    1. Josak profile image58
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Care to prove this claim, sounds life trash to me. Do some illegals get healthcare? I am sure some manage to sneak in with false documents or however (not in numbers enough to be significant)  but the ACA only covers citizens.

      1. Old Poolman profile image82
        Old Poolmanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Josak - Visit any hospital ER and you will see the numbers of illegals getting free health care.  It is against the law for the hospital to ask to see their documents, or to turn them away.   In my part of the country, they use the ER as primary care and get the needed treatment.
        They don't have to sneak in, they are guaranteed this care at no expense to them by our own laws.

        I'm not saying we should deny care for anyone who is seriously ill or injured.  I'm just telling you the reality of what goes on.  Will this change when Obamacare kicks in?  Will hospitals still be required to treat these non-documented persons with no insurance?

        They sneak into the country where the mother bears a child at no cost to them.  And then, the baby is automatically a citizen of this country?

        Do you see anything at all wrong with this?

        1. John Holden profile image59
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Do they hold up flags saying "I am an illegal immigrant"

          1. Old Poolman profile image82
            Old Poolmanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            John - An entire family with no form of ID at all is almost the same as holding up the flag you describe.  Unless you have spent a few hours sitting in one of our emergency rooms observing, you could not possibly know what really goes on.
            Even if they did declare themselves to be illegals, they would get the needed care and not be turned into the Border Patrol..

            1. Mighty Mom profile image91
              Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              You are absolutely correct.
              That is exactly how illegals get their health care. At the ER. The most expensive and least appropriate
              setting for non-emergency care.
              It's the only place they can go unless there happen to be free community clinics in the area.

              In working on the market analysis I posted the link to above, one of the most shocking statements I read (from focus group participants) was how they shop around different ERs based on the wait time!!
              Wow.

              Meanwhile, my then uninsured 19-year-old son went to the ER in Colorado, where he basically refused treatment. The bill was $2,300 which I was able to negotiate down to $1,800.
              How much do you think that bill was inflated to cover a portion of the hospital's  charity care?

              1. Old Poolman profile image82
                Old Poolmanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                A friends adult daughter was drug addicted and chronically unemployed.  She was eligle for free medical up to and including a heart transplant if it had been required.
                Her parents put her through drug rehab many times, and the last time actually worked.  She then found a job in a restuarant where they offered the bare minimum health care plan that she paid into out of her pay.
                She needed some minor knee surgery and her portion of the cost after the insurance paid their part was $13,000.  With her minimum wage job it will take her the rest of her life to pay this off.
                Try convincing her that it is better to be a productive member of society than it was to be drug addicted with totally free healthcare paid for by other patients and taxpayers.  It would be a hard sell.

                1. Mighty Mom profile image91
                  Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Why should anyone be disincented from being a productive member of society?
                  Or have to choose between working and getting needed medical care?
                  Or working for themself and maybe not qualifying for health insurance and working
                  for a big employer just so they have that benefit?
                  That, to me, is the antithesis of FREEDOM.

                  I am a strong advocate and always have been for taking the employer out of  it.
                  smile

                2. John Holden profile image59
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  And yet you are still opposed to socialised medicine!

            2. John Holden profile image59
              John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I'm sorry, I didn't realise that in the land of the free you had to carry ID!

              1. Old Poolman profile image82
                Old Poolmanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                John - Most legal citizens of this country have at leasr Social Security card and a drivers license.  This being the land of the Free as you put it, carrying ID is not required unless you happen to be driving.

                I'm sure they do it much differently where you live and everything you do must be better than the way we do it.

                I'm really glad you are in love with the system in place for you.  We would rather fix a broken system than just automatically force a system on every citizen of the country.  You will notice I used the word citizen.

                I'm curious why someone who doesn't even live here is so critical of these matters?  Could it be you just love socialism and would like the entire world to see things the way you do?

                1. John Holden profile image59
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  No, just differently. I just happen to think that our system gives me a lot more freedom than yours would.



                  The USA has more influence on my life than any other country outside the UK. Do you think I should just absorb this influence without question? Be a good little servant of the USA?

                  1. Old Poolman profile image82
                    Old Poolmanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    John - We all have the right to live most anywhere we want to, and you made your choice to stay in the UK.  That is great because you love it there.  As far as your system giving you more freedom than ours would give, I guess that depends on your definition of freedom.  I'm not sure what freedoms you refer to.

                    Good luck with shaping how things are done in the USA.  Our own citizens don't have much input or influence on this anymore.  Our President is a fan of the way things are done in other parts of the world and is steering us in that direction.

              2. Marquis profile image59
                Marquisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                It was a democrat's idea that we carry identification cards. You want to know who everyone is without people stealing your identity correct?

                It is a no-brainer.

          2. Marquis profile image59
            Marquisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            They should along with a law not rewarding behavior done by illegals.

          3. HowardBThiname profile image90
            HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            This is the United States - we do not let people die who come to our Emergency Rooms for help. Illegals know that - that's why they come. We will continue to do this - but now - we will do more. Various states are approving the Medicaid expansion for illegals.

            http://standwitharizona.com/blog/2013/0 … tion-plan/

            That means - the Americans who can't afford to pay their own premiums, but are not in a category (or state) where they get Medicaid, will have to pay a penalty.

            That penalty will go to pay for those on Medicaid - like the illegals.

            This plan is very possibly the worst social health plan in the civilized world.

            1. Josak profile image58
              Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              The ACA does not fund medicare, they are separate, as for not letting illegals (or anyone for that matter) die in emergency rooms by refusing care I can't say it's a very frightening prospect you are presenting, god forbid we show some human decency particularly to the innocent children of illegals who have done nothing at all wrong.(Oh the horror).

            2. John Holden profile image59
              John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Believe it or not we don't turn anybody away from our emergancy rooms!
              And beleive it or not because we don't discriminate and are much closer to Europe than you are we get none residents, not even illegal residents, coming to  take advantage of our health care facilities.

              I agree your health plan is about the worst in the western world.

        2. Josak profile image58
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          That is not the ACA it is not affected by the ACA so it is utterly irrelevant to this conversation.

    2. Josak profile image58
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Actually I am quite sure that there are not even 30 million illegals in the whole country, the estimates seem to put it at 10 to 11 million. Maybe you should get mad less and think more.

      1. Cody Hodge5 profile image84
        Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You also have to consider that the vast majority of immigrant children want to assimilate into the culture because they consider the United States to be their home.

        1. Old Poolman profile image82
          Old Poolmanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Correct Cody - The problem with this is the additional burdeon these instant citizens place on our financial aid AKA welfare systems.  They are immediately eligible by virtue of the fact they were born on US soil.

          1. Cody Hodge5 profile image84
            Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Right, I can appreciate that....but, if they are born on US soil, they are citizens. Therefore, we can't begrudge THEM for something that they didn't choose. Blame the parents if you have to blame or look to someone as the cause of the issue.

            1. Old Poolman profile image82
              Old Poolmanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Cody - Who in the world said anything about blaming the child.

              The parents enter the country illegally, go to a state of the art hospital for the wife to bear the child at the expense of other patients and taxpayers, and the child is automatically a citizen?

              And you are able to translate that scenario into someone blaming the child?  Could you explain that so that this old brain of mine can understand how you think all of that is OK?

          2. Josak profile image58
            Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Except that they are very profitable, first generation immigrants have some of the highest employment numbers of any demographic in the country, they work really hard, so that is complete trash.

    3. Mighty Mom profile image91
      Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Sorry your blood is boiling. It's really not that emotional of an issue.
      Fact: Taxpayers are already paying for (or subsidizing) health care for illegal immigrants who get free
      care in emergency rooms. 
      Are you sure you are not confusing health CARE with health INSURANCE?
      http://houston.cbslocal.com/2012/12/14/ … mmigrants/

      Liberals just don't think things through?  lol I'm not the one with boiling blood!
      Actually, I have spent quite a bit of time (like three solid months) thinking about Obamacare -- including its  impact on illegal immigrants and other low-income citizens.
      You see, here in the Central Valley of California (major ag area) we have a lot of them.

      I worked on this market analysis and strategic plan last summer:
      http://www.sierrahealth.org/doc.aspx?57
      Yup. Me and those other damned liberals like Kaiser Permanente, Sutter Health System, UC Davis Medical System, as well as a whole bunch of doctors -- not thinking through the problem.
      lol

      1. Marquis profile image59
        Marquisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Mighty Mom, remember Liberals live in their own warped world.

        1. Cody Hodge5 profile image84
          Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          That's a good one haha

        2. Mighty Mom profile image91
          Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You say warped like it's a bad thing.

          1. Marquis profile image59
            Marquisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            To them, it is a good thing. Liberals have no real moral compass other than taking perverted things and trying to make them sane.

            1. Zelkiiro profile image84
              Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              You mean like how Liberals came up with the minimum wage, 40-hour work week, and safe working conditions?

              Yeah, those are really perverted.

              1. Marquis profile image59
                Marquisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Henry Ford came up with the 40 hour work week. And how do you know that Liberals were the ones who came up with safe working conditions? More make believe on your part to give modern day perverts credit.

                1. Zelkiiro profile image84
                  Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  "Henry Ford came up with the 40 hour work week."

                  Henry Ford came up with the assembly line and universal parts, not the 40-hour work week.

                  1. Marquis profile image59
                    Marquisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    It wasn't until 1905 that industries began implementing the eight hour work day on their own accord. One of the first businesses to implement this was the FORD MOTOR COMPANY, in 1914, which not only cut the standard work day to eight hours, but also doubled their worker’s pay in the process. 

                    To the shock of many industries, this resulted in Ford’s productivity off of these same workers, but with fewer hours, actually increasing significantly and Ford’s profit margins doubled within two years after implementing this change. 

                    This encouraged other companies to adopt the shorter, eight hour work day as a standard for their employees.
                    Finally, in 1937 the eight hour work day was standardized in the United States and regulated by the federal government according to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

                    It stipulated that workers were not to work more than 44 hours per week and any hours over 40 required of the worker were to be paid with overtime bonuses added to their normal pay rate.

                    Like I said before, Henry Ford came up with the 40 hour work week.

                2. John Holden profile image59
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Simple, safe working conditions are liberal in concept so whoever introduced them was being liberal.

                  1. Marquis profile image59
                    Marquisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Nope -

                    Name some names please -

                3. Cody Hodge5 profile image84
                  Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Ever heard of labor unions?

                  Would they be liberal or conservative?

            2. Mighty Mom profile image91
              Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Jesus was a liberal. Of course, that was years before the term "moral compass" was invented
              by narrow-minded people who will never need a compass because they are terrified to travel outside
              their teeny tiny little safe circle of self-righteous superiority.
              Sad.
              sad

              1. Barefootfae profile image61
                Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Jesus is....not was......and he is not a label of anything.
                The Democrats don't get to own him nor do the Republicans.
                Think differently all you will. You get to talk with him about it later.

                1. John Holden profile image59
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Who said he was a label?
                  How would you describe him then if you don't agree that he was liberal in regards to men?

                  1. Barefootfae profile image61
                    Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I am not going to make that kind of error and calling him anything...liberal or conservative IS an error.
                    You want to make that mistake be my guest.

              2. Marquis profile image59
                Marquisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Jesus was no Liberal. He did not marry gays and lesbians either.

                Jesus was here to save SOULS.

      2. Old Poolman profile image82
        Old Poolmanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Mighty Mom - I actually lived in California for many years, and had Kaiser Permanente as my health care provider.  Like all of them, they were not perfect, but they were darn good.  My wife even worked for Kaiser, and if they were available here in Arizona I would probably choose them over what I have now.

        1. Mighty Mom profile image91
          Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Kaiser is very innovative. Of all the health systems in that project they were lightyears ahead.
          Do tons of research studies. Have great programs (wellness and disease prevention as well as condition treatment. Their chemical dependency program is aces).
          I love the HMO model -- no reimbursements from third-party insurers. Easy.
          Not sure when you left CA but Kaiser was one of the first systems to go to EMRs.
          Everything is computerized. Any provider can look at your chart in seconds.
          You can email your doctor, look up lab results and appts online.
          It's terrific.

          I hope they expand to  AZ!! I don' t know what governs what markets they go into!
          I have often thought about going to work there. I would save a ton on premiums (I have individual plan. Ouch!)

          1. Old Poolman profile image82
            Old Poolmanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Mighty Mom - I left California about 15 years ago, and now like you I have an individual plan that covers basically nothing.

            I really have no complaints at all about the Kaiser HMO system.  They had a fairly high turnover in doctors, and hired many doctors from India, Egypt, and other places.  They were very knowledgeable when it came to medicine, but spoke very little and poor English.  It was sometime difficult to communicate your needs to the doctor.

            Perhaps they don't want to open facilities outside CA, or it has to do with the invisible state line barrier that affects all healthcare insurance companies.

            If they would come to Arizona, I would sign up with them without another thought.  At one point, they hired a pharmacist who's only job was to review patient records and find out what drugs each patient was taking.  He was horrifed at the combination of drugs some of the older patients were putting in their bodies.  In some cases, prescriptions had been changed but the patient didn't understand they were supposed to stop taking the previous drug so were taking both.

            If Obamacare would provide a service as good as Kaiser I would be 100% in favor of the new system.  However, I have my doubt's that any government run agency will even come close.  The post office is a classic example of that statement.

            If you ever get the opportunity to go to work for Kaiser, do it.  They are a great company to work for.  My wife left because we moved or she would have stayed until retirement.

            1. Cody Hodge5 profile image84
              Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I think what we need to do now is look at Obamacare and see where we can continue to make improvements.

              I can see how the system isn't yet "perfect", but I think that the framework put in place advances our healthcare system greatly. Now it is time for everyone to seek improvements to the system instead of claiming that somehow this will destroy America and waste time repealing something that will never be repealed.

              1. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image93
                TIMETRAVELER2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I find it interesting that people are complaining about the AHA before it has even been fully implemented.  I also find it interesting that people don't seem to realize that the AHA as it now stands is only the beginning of a plan that will be refined and improved as time goes on.  While people like to call Sebelius and others "liars", they don't seem to realize that neither she nor the government can control what the medical pharmaceutical and equipment providers are charging for their products, and that cost increases will continue until some new laws are passed.
                Everybody says "oh, they're hiding the truth"...etc...when actually, the entire plan is right there for everybody to see on whitehouse.gov.  Why don't you whiners take the time to READ THE DETAILS?  Nobody ever said the AHA would provide free medical care, and to think this is ludicrous.  And as far as insuring illegals, etc...the law of the land requires hospitals to take care of anybody who comes to the ER.  However, if you've ever really been sick, you know that ER visits are only one part of the level of care many people need...illegals and others are not getting the rest.  Pharmacies do not give meds away, doctors do not work for free, blood tests, etc. cost plenty...these people are not getting those services.  Yes, we all pay for their ER visits, and we were doing that prior to the AHA.  In fact, that is one of the reasons it exists because it is trying to stop the ER visits as much as possible.  Ten years from now all of us will be happy that the AHA exists, and it is not, by the way, "socialized medicine".  Those who say that do not understand that term.  Beginning January 2014 the full plan kicks in, and from that point on, you will be able to see its results.  So stop putting the cart before the horse and give things time to level out.

                1. bn9900 profile image88
                  bn9900posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  TT2- you must be from another time and place if you really believe all that. I have read a good portion of that bill, something that very few dom, ad I hate it, it is something that a dictator would shove down our throats...oh wait never mind.  Obamacare takes away a lot more than it gives.  If you want healthcare, get off your duff get a job and pay for it yourself....Why should I pay for your healthcare when I have no say in your health?

                  1. Josak profile image58
                    Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Oh you read "a good portion" tongue good for you big_smile you are "really" on the ball.

                    Takes away what exactly?

                    For several reasons #1 Prevents the spread of disease, if someone can't get treatment they remain contagious which means you and your family can get sick as a result.
                    #2 Moral duty, if you are comfortable with the fact that 45 000 people die yearly in the US for lack of healthcare you are very different to me.
                    #3 Massive economic cost, if a person is sick and does not get treatment they will miss work, if a person dies from lack of treatment the economy loses their abilities and often has to care for their family.
                    #4 Crime, people who need money to afford treatments often turn to crime for the money which costs all of society.
                    etc. etc. etc.

  8. Marquis profile image59
    Marquisposted 3 years ago

    Liberals are the modern day perverts. I will come up with a hub to explain why and when they regressed into madness.

    1. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image93
      TIMETRAVELER2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      bn9900:  FYI...you already were paying for the healthcare of other people prior to the existence of the AHA, or in all of your intense research did you somehow miss that fact!  FYI...I have spent a huge amount of time researching Obamacare.   I was at it long before it ever got to the point of being voted in.  As I said, it is far from perfect, but at least it gives us a framework upon which to build.  I have already seen many positives that have come about because of Obamacare:  for example, the simple fact that doctors are not required to electronically submit prescriptions will save 7000 lives annually.   Josak is spot on with his comments and as for Marquis:  what makes you think people are "liberals" just because they disagree with your own views!  That is a pretty harsh judgment.  Furthermore, referring to anybody on this or any other forum as a "pervert" is against the TOS.  Do you want to be banned from HP?  If not, tone it down, my friend.  This is still America and we all are still entitled to our own views without somebody abusing us for having them!

      1. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image93
        TIMETRAVELER2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Type correction:  Doctors are NOW required to, etc. etc.  Sorry/

        1. bn9900 profile image88
          bn9900posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Yes I know this, but I also had the CHOICE to pay out of pocket, which I did majority of the time.

  9. Marquis profile image59
    Marquisposted 3 years ago

    The Left will always hide their hideous agenda somewhere. I feel sorry for older people because they are going to die in the streets wrapped inside a blanket.

    1. Josak profile image58
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Like has happened precisely nowhere in all the countries that have instituted such systems, all of which have seen rising life expectancy and all of the first world one's have longer life expectancies than the US. tongue

      1. Marquis profile image59
        Marquisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        It will happen in the U.S.

        They will roll back the filthy Socialist healthcare. You can keep that filth in Europe and Canada.

        1. Josak profile image58
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You keep telling yourself that tongue

        2. John Holden profile image59
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          It isn't actually socialist health care, it just isn't capitalist.

          1. 85
            Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            3.6 rounded to the nearest whole number is 4.  Obamacare rounded to the nearest system is socialism.

            1. John Holden profile image59
              John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              If that is the case why are so many private insurance companies involved?

              1. 85
                Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                My point was just what Josak said, believe it or not.  Obamacare might not be complete socialism.  It's certainly a mix of socialism and capitalism.  It leans towards socialism.

            2. Josak profile image58
              Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Nope there is such a thing as third way mixed economies. Plenty of them in fact.

              1. 85
                Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                . . .so you're saying that our government is now more of a mixed government, part capitalist and part socialist?  If so, do you believe that much, but not all, of this transition occur during this administration?

                1. bn9900 profile image88
                  bn9900posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  It is more leftist government now, with Obama pushing his socialist agenda and then campaigning instead of being a real president.  We haven't had one of those for a while.  Yes we pay taxes for socialist type services police fire and the like, but when the government starts taking away our rights, like the right to bare arms, government is getting to big.  We need to impeach Obama.

                  1. Marquis profile image59
                    Marquisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Got that right. I will be so happy when this lout is out of office. He and his ungodly agenda can crawl underneath a rock.

    2. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      And that of course never happens in the capitalist USA!

  10. 85
    Education Answerposted 3 years ago

    I agree.  America took a large step to the left in the last election.  Our country, more than ever, is about big government that provides services that we used to provide for ourselves.  It's just an observation.  What do you think?

    1. Cody Hodge5 profile image84
      Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I think that the United States is evolving as it should.

      1. 85
        Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        It certainly evolves.  Whether or not it is evolving "as it should" is certainly up for debate.

        1. Cody Hodge5 profile image84
          Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          At least from a "how does government handle equality for all" standpoint. Hopefully, 50 years from now there won't be as much of an issue when it comes to "diversity" or the same rights for everyone under the law.

          1. 85
            Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I disagree.  I believe you are spewing political correctness.

            1. Cody Hodge5 profile image84
              Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Disagree in what way? For example, say homosexuals were granted the same right to marry....

              Would you disagree because you don't think its equality for all.

              Or

              Would you disagree because you think that homosexuals are "changing the definition of what a family is" and trying to gain special rights?

              1. 85
                Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I believe that, in many cases, the left feels that special legislation must be enacted to protect certain groups of people, as if, the current legislation isn't enough.  If anybody is hurt or killed, there are laws.  We don't need to have special laws that say that one group of people deserves more protection than another.  That's not equality.  Hate crimes?  Aren't all violent crimes hate crimes, regardless of who the victim is?

                We do not need to have affirmative action.  That discriminates against people because of the color of their skin. 

                That's what I'm talking about.

                1. Cody Hodge5 profile image84
                  Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Alright, I can understand that viewpoint.

                  Think about this though....if you or your family has just gone through a violent and life-altering event, or has faced discrimination because of their looks or sexual orientation, wouldn't you want to do something to make sure that it doesn't happen again?

                  1. 85
                    Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Absolutely!  Current laws address this.  New laws, intended to offer additional protection for the few, are not necessary.  Killing, hurting, or discriminating against somebody, for any reason, should have dire consequences.  We shouldn't say that somebody will have greater consequences if they kill somebody because they are a sexist, racist, or a homophobe.  We should simply say that murder or harm, of any person, is wrong and will have significant consequences.

      2. Marquis profile image59
        Marquisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The person in question thinks the U.S. is evolving? So people getting on welfare and waiting in long lines to see an over-worked doctor in Obama-Gondwanaland  is evolving?

        What planet did YOU come from?

        1. Cody Hodge5 profile image84
          Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Haha, I love the personal attacks....it means that you have absolutely no debating skills and you most likely believe everything you hear on Fox.

          Outstanding.

          1. Marquis profile image59
            Marquisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Like the one you gave me on another blog?

            Now, will you tell me what planet you are from again?

            1. Cody Hodge5 profile image84
              Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              No, I attacked your posts, not you. Big difference.

          2. 85
            Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            CodyHodge5,

            You consistently blame Fox and other conservative outlets.  That seems to be your go-to statement.  In case you hadn't heard, the media is typically liberal.  Does it really bother you this much that we have a few places where liberal views aren't prevalent?

            1. Cody Hodge5 profile image84
              Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              See, this is what I don't like.

              You make this accusation without any context at all.

              I don't just spew venom because you quote conservative sources. Typically, I refute your statements because you can't quote a conservative source merely giving a conservative opinion and state it as fact.

              Believe me, I don't think you're stupid nor do I believe that conservatives should just go away. However, when people keep saying things like Obama is socialist, the left likes welfare and the left loves the nanny state....it's not true at all and the sources offered as evidence tend to be flawed or just spouting talking points. That's not proof that anything that the author is claiming is true.

              1. 85
                Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                On numerous occasions, I have watched your posts discount any source that could be conservative. 


                I do not believe that democrats are socialists.  I believe our president is not a democrat but a socialist.  I believe our president was re-elected, because he purchased many votes with entitlements and welfare.  I am providing absolutely no sources for this information, so we're good now?

              2. 85
                Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I agree with parts of what you say.  It's also not proof that just because it was on Fox it's not true or that it has a conservative bias.

      3. websinha profile image60
        websinhaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Deleted

        1. 85
          Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Just say no to socialism.

          Let's all send more money to our Enron of a government.  That makes sense.  It's done such a great job with our money so far.  Let's send more!

          1. Cody Hodge5 profile image84
            Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            We don't live in a socialist state.

            Your work is done smile

            1. 85
              Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I didn't say we live in a socialist state.  I said that this one aspect of our government is socialized, and I do not believe that our government manages any program efficiently.  I also said that people need to take responsibility for their own decisions.  Thus, our healthcare program won't be blamed for an American lifestyle, poor diet and a lack of exercise.  That's what I said.

              As for my work being finished, I'll stop when Obamacare is abolished.  As it looks now, that won't ever happen.

              Again, we're going to send more money to a government that is less fiscally responsible than Enron.  That makes a lot of sense.  When was the last time our government didn't owe money, Andrew Jackson?  Yeah, I really trust our government to responsibly oversee another massive entitlement program.  It has done such a great job in the past. . .

              1. John Holden profile image59
                John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I'm at a loss as to how you can claim to have the best healthcare in the world and yet freely admit that your people are so unhealthy!

                1. Zelkiiro profile image84
                  Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I will give him this one point: Being fat isn't exactly something a doctor can fix--maybe temporarily with a gastric bypass or liposuction, but sometimes fat people will just forever be fat.

                  1. John Holden profile image59
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    But healthcare is a little more involved than "what the doctor can fix".

                2. 85
                  Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I'll liken this to a classroom.  Let's say you have a truly great teacher who has a horrible student, a student who doesn't come to school, abuses drugs, has an attitude, and really hates school.  Is it the teacher's, student's, or school's fault if the student fails? I believe it is the student's fault, perhaps the parents' too, but not the system's.  You are blaming America's bad lifestyle choices on our doctors, hospitals, and healthcare system.  I say it's really the people who are at fault, not our system.

                  The same argument is often made about our banking crisis.  So many people want to blame George Bush, politicians, and the banks.  That's fine.  They own a lot of the blame.  When, however, do we also blame our citizens for getting in over their heads, for taking loans that were too much?

                3. HowardBThiname profile image90
                  HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  John, American's are unhealthy because they have choices and more opportunities to choose unhealthy foods. That has nothing to do with healthcare. Who in their right mind would want to live in a nation that dictated what (or how much) a person could eat? Here in the US, the biggest problem for those living in poverty - is obesity. Even our poor have more than your average citizen has.

                  You might like the collective mentality that takes care of you from cradle to grave, but we prefer freedom. If that means making poor diet choices, so be it.

                  Our medical care is still better than any in the rest of the industry world.

                  1. John Holden profile image59
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Having choices and choosing unhealthy food is as much about healthcare as washing properly or avoiding dangerous places.

                    Obesity is becoming a problem for those living in poverty not because of plenty but because cheap food is heavily laden with fat and sugar.

                    Good health care does not impinge on freedom, it strengthens it, how can anybody in poor health be considered more free than somebody in good health?

                    Your health care is not available equally to all either. Sure, if you have lots of money you can probably buy the best healthcare in the world but without all that money you don't stand a chance.

                    Take off your blinkers, throw off this idea that anything the US does is by definition the best in the world and really look around you.

                    And what on earth has the "collective mentality" got to do with anything? Unless of course it is the collective mentality that says "le't be fit and healthy".

                  2. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I think John is the one who has said Americans are obese because our healthcare isn't good enough... someone needs to tell the entire medical profession that obesity is caused by expensive doctors, as opposed to, I don't know, fatty foods and what not.

                4. Marquis profile image59
                  Marquisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  England is the fattest nation in Europe. So shut your trap.

                  1. Josak profile image58
                    Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    America is the fattest in the world... so...

    2. Marquis profile image59
      Marquisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Actually, the seeds of this type came about during the 1970s when the New Left infiltrated all aspects of politics. It got worse when Carter came into office.

      Reagan tried to turn back the tide but the strings loosened and allowed the once powerful faggot to become a loose disorganized bundle of sticks.

      1. 85
        Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Do you think, as I do, that Carter was a conservative compared to Obama?  I know it's hard to call Carter a conservative, but when compared to Obama, I believe he is/was.  What do you think?

        1. Marquis profile image59
          Marquisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I do not know for sure. I might have to look at many things in order to judge the two.

    3. bn9900 profile image88
      bn9900posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I agree, people who like big government, just can't even bother to do anything for  themselves.  All they want are the handouts that someone else is paying for.

      1. Marquis profile image59
        Marquisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Thank you.

        And they are hypocrites too. See they love money, but not spending their own. They want everyone else (Big Government, Big Corporations+Rich) to spend theirs instead.

      2. Josak profile image58
        Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Liberals are on average 7% wealthier than conservatives (primarily because they are almost twice as likely to be college educated) so what that factually means is liberals are voting to create systems to help the poor which they pay most of, so not getting hand outs at all but quite the opposite, paying those hand outs to others.

        1. 85
          Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          How does that prove that liberals are voting that way?  Conservatives largely control our country at the state level.  Josak, you are always citing facts.  Where on earth did you find that stat?

          Where did you get your 7% and twice as educated stats?  I see differing studies when I research this topic.

          1. Josak profile image58
            Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            The 7% stat comes from "Who cares more" that book that conservatives love quoting because it shows that conservatives give more to charity.

            And according to Pew research 49% of liberals have college educations, 28% of conservatives.

            1. 85
              Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Interesting.  Thanks.

              I can find other sources that state the opposite or at least something quite different.  I'll have to get the book to see what the sources are.  As for the poll, remember that some polls showed Romney in the lead.  A poll isn't conclusive.  A book isn't conclusive.  I do appreciate, however, you elaborating on your source(s).

              1. Josak profile image58
                Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                No problem.

  11. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 3 years ago

    What are these services 'big government' is now paying for that we used to provide ourselves?
    You mean like the Minutemen in 1776 has become the military-industrial complex?
    You mean like the one-room schoolhouse has now become school districts?
    You mean paths plowed by one mule are now interstate highways?

    If you're looking for a privatized tax collection system, might I suggest suburban New Jersey?
    Ask for Tony.
    lol

    1. ftclick profile image60
      ftclickposted 3 years ago

      Well, what to expect when a politician is talking. It is not about the party. Lieing and politics go together.

    2. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago

      John, if I don't lock my door, and I get robbed, should you have to help pay to replace my things?

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Waiting for an answer.

        1. John Holden profile image59
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

          I'm waiting for an answer to "if you crash your car into several others. . ."

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Just answer the question, you don't have to understand the point.

            I answered your question, try reading. If I crash my car into several others, I don't expect them to pay for it, or pay for me. If I fill my body with fats, salts, sugars, and toxins, I don't expect others to pay for fixing those problems either.

            1. John Holden profile image59
              John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              So you don't carry insurance when you drive!

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                When did I say that?

                Seriously, what goes on in your head to cause you to think I say so many things, that I very clearly do not say?

                1. John Holden profile image59
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Er, something like this -

                  "If I crash my car into several others, I don't expect them to pay for it, or pay for me."

                  1. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Nothing in there says 'I don't have car insurance', now does it?

                    1. John Holden profile image59
                      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      Except " I don't expect them to pay for it"

          2. HowardBThiname profile image90
            HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Well John, the blog you list about passports (like most of your posts) appears to be inaccurate.

            http://travel.state.gov/passport/ppi/st … s_890.html

            You also have to remember that while countries are smaller and more crowded in Europe, necessitating more passports, here in the US, we have a rather large country that we can traverse without leaving our borders. If some Americans have no interest in seeing the UK - can you really blame them? It's just a testament to how much better it is here.

            As I mentioned before - when younger, I traveled extensively. I don't so much anymore. You really have nothing that beats what we have here. Sure, you have some historical sites, but we have Native American sites that are just as fascinating, unless you're a racist.

            You gripe that our healthcare is substandard, that people shouldn't be obese, then you claim no one tells you what to eat.  LOL

            You're funny, John. Not real believable - but amusing.

            1. John Holden profile image59
              John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              The site you post seems to confirm what was said on the site I posted! How can that be wrong?
              It also has nothing to do with the size of the country, foreign travel is still foreign travel!  Those who don't travel abroad have less knowledge of other countries than those who do.

              How do you get from my comment that your healthcare is substandard to my "claim that nobody tells us what to eat" I just don't see the connection.

              And as for your comment that I'm unbelievable, it isn't me that makes unsubstantiated claims that are contradicted by all the evidence.

              1. HowardBThiname profile image90
                HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                You're "evidence" has been debunked John, and you've contradicted yourself constantly. You claim that the US being obese is one of our health problems, then you deny that you're told (or controlled) in what you eat. You refuse to understand that Americans would rather be Americans than have the little bit of nanny-services you have.

                The basic problem, John, is that you keep trying to find fault with the US, yet none of your accusations hold water. We STILL have people risking their lives to immigrate here.

                It's fun to bash the US - but as I demonstrated numerous times - it's mostly all sour grapes.

                This thread is about those who passed our new healthcare bills and their lies. See, I admit we have some liars here in the States. But, we're working on voting them out of office and replacing them with better representatives.

                You would do well to look at your own country with a critical eye.

                1. John Holden profile image59
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  On the contrary, I've debunked all the evidence that you've posted. I still don't get how you get from one of the US's health problems is being obese to us being told what to eat. There is no sense or logic in that claim.



                  Which of my accusations don't hold water? That healthcare in the US is not the best in the world? That US citizens are restricted from travelling to Cuba? Come on, tell me.
                  Oh, and there are many people who risk (and lose) their lives to immigrate here.



                  I do. You would do well to look at your own country with a critical eye and shed this "my country right or wrong" ethos.

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Are Americans too fat because they're the only ones that can typically and commonly afford to stuff that much food down their throat?

                    1. John Holden profile image59
                      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      Well anybody can afford to stuff junk down their throats. Fats and sugars are the most fattening forms of food and also the cheapest.

    3. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago

      Why are you being so rude John? Why won't you answer my question?

      1. John Holden profile image59
        John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Because I've forgotten what it was, maybe try a few less insults and try sticking to the point, allowing me to stick to the point as well.

        1. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I've stuck to the point, answered your questions. You haven't afforded me the same courtesy.

          If I leave my door unlocked, and I don't have insurance to cover it, and someone steals my stuff, should you have to pay to replace it?

          1. John Holden profile image59
            John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Note "if you don't have insurance to cover it"  as nobody in the UK does not have insurance to cover illness or accident the point is irrelevant.

            1. 0
              JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Why won't you answer my question?

              The point is relevant, but since you're too rude to descend from on high to have a real conversation, you'll never understand why.

              1. John Holden profile image59
                John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                And you accuse me of being a troll lol

                1. 0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Possibly being a troll, yes, because there are only 3 possible explanations.

                  Since you refuse to answer questions, troll is most likely... that's one of the main characteristics of a troll.

                  Will you admit that you said lack of healthcare causes obesity?

                  1. John Holden profile image59
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    OK lack of health care causes obesity. Satisfied?

                    1. 0
                      JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      Yup. I'm satisfied you have proven you have no idea how the human body works, no idea how cause and effect work, and no idea how dangerous it is to remove responsibility from a society.

              2. John Holden profile image59
                John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                No,the point is totally irrelevant because nobody is being asked to pay for somebody else's misfortune any more than your car insurers are when they pay out on your claim.

                1. 0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Let me explain.

                  If I purposefully do things that I know can cause me damage, I should take responsibility for when that damage comes.

                  If I drive without a seatbelt and get into a wreck, I should take responsibility for my broken body.
                  If I leave my house unlocked and get robbed, I should take responsibility for my lost possessions.
                  If I shove crap into my mouth every day, I should take responsibility for my poor health.

                  I know you have no concept of personal responsibility... your nanny government has brainwashed that out of you by now... but it works a lot better.

                  Think about the story of the students in a class, who all get to share a grade. At first, all the students try their best, and the average grade is a B. The students that personally got As then decide that it's not worth trying so hard, if they do A-level work but only get a B. The next test, the average score is a C+. More students decide it's not worth trying harder than the kids who screw around, if they all get the same score, so they stop trying. Next thing you know, the entire class fails. That's why personal responsibility is important. You can't just lump everyone together. You can't have everyone be a winner, no matter what. You can't give everyone the same results regardless of the inputs.

                  1. John Holden profile image59
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    It still doesn't make your healthcare good though does it?



                    If you think people dying of treatable illnesses is good then bully for you. I don't share your sentiments.



                    What on earth does any of that have to do with healthcare? Do you really think people will try sky diving without a parachute just because the NHS won't charge them the earth for fixing them up?

                    1. 0
                      JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      1 - I can have great healthcare and still eat poorly.

                      2 - If people want to kill themselves, I don't care. I honestly don't. Like I've said, I love freedom. If someone else wants to use his freedom to give himself cancer, he can go right on ahead. If he wants to, and prepared for it, he can try and treat it too. I don't care. Let me do what I want with my body, I'll let you do what you want with yours.

                      3 - It has everything to do with healthcare. If people had to pay more for insurance because they smoke, drink, and eat crap, that is an incentive to do better. Besides, it's closer to 'fair and equal' to have someone who makes themself high-risk pay more for insurance. People never learn responsibility without being given responsibility.

    4. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago

      I don't understand why people have to be so blatantly dishonest... how can any person sit there and claim they didn't say what is recorded for all time in black and white?

    5. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago

      Now the real question, John, is:

      Why did you make such a big fuss earlier, denying that you said lack of healthcare causes obesity?

      Are you now saying that I caused your viral infection by not giving you the cure?

      1. John Holden profile image59
        John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Is somebody who eats badly, smokes, drinks and takes no exercise practising good healthcare?

        Remember, healthcare does not begin and end with your doctor.

        1. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          If by healthcare you aren't referring to professional medical services, then why does anyone need health insurance? Just practice healthcare at home.

          o.O

          Besides, even if you want to call a diet 'healthcare', it's not lack of healthcare that causes obesity. Obesity is caused by eating more calories than you use. Period.

          1. John Holden profile image59
            John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            So eating more calories than you use isn't unhealthy!

            1. 0
              JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              It is unhealthy, and it causes obesity. Glad you finally understand.

              That has nothing to do with healthcare. It has to do with responsibility. You can't force people to eat healthy by forcing everyone to pay for health insurance.

              1. John Holden profile image59
                John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                So bad health has nothing to do with healthcare!

                This argument has become totally pointless. You go on believing that you have the best healthcare in the world despite all evidence to the contrary.

                Goodnight.

                1. 0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Lol, goodnight. It's been fun talking to someone who denies reality, then accepts it, then denies it again.

                  Have fun living in your world where healthcare causes obesity, and not caloric intake.

                  1. John Holden profile image59
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Lack of healthcare, not healthcare, or do you still insist that eating plays no part in healthcare!

    6. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago

      I understand John. I really do. You think that people need the government to give everyone healthcare, and to teach everyone to eat healthy, because people can't be trusted to feed themselves properly. That's why you want healthcare, for everyone, that goes beyond the doctor. You want big brother to hold everybody's hands and guide them through their meals so they don't make themselves fat.

      I get it. I love freedom more.

      1. John Holden profile image59
        John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Bull sh!t, how on earth did you get there?

        The government gives us nothing, we buy our healthcare, just not through profit making companies.

        I have much more freedom than you, I won't be bankrupted by major illness.

        1. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Lol, deny it, but that's your motivation. it's very apparent.

          You buy your own healthcare from birth?

          Do you get discounts for a healthier lifestyle?

          Why would I be bankrupted by a major illness?

          I have more freedom than you, for a few months, because I have the choice whether or not I want to pay for insurance. You don't. No choice = no freedom.

        2. bn9900 profile image88
          bn9900posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Holden Where do you "buy" you healthcare from? The government?  You pay taxes, so in essence you are paying for every ones healthcare. Here in this country, there are still some of us that do not want the government to be telling us what to do.  Glad you live in a country that will tell you how to live because we don't like people who like big government here.

          1. Josak profile image58
            Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Weird... I thought Obama won the last two elections tongue

            Yes some of us care enough about others to not want them to die from treatable illnesses, that is called compassion, you should try it out sometime.

            1. 85
              Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              The POTUS did win both elections, but strangely enough, he didn't carry all of the votes.  Some of us, almost half, are unhappy with the direction we are going.  Even more are unhappy with parts or all of Obamacare.  Go figure.  It's as if not everybody wants socialized healthcare. . .

              Compassion?  Here we go with the typical liberal statements.  If calling us uncompassionate doesn't work, try calling us racists.  If that doesn't work, please consult the playbook.  I'm not sure if George Bush or the sequester comes next.  I'm not privy to the playbook.

              1. Josak profile image58
                Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                He said "we don't like" as though he was speaking for all Americans rather than a minority of Americans.

                Typically it's George Bush tongue

                But really deflect all you like, preventing public healthcare cost tens of thousands of lives a year. Not an opinion, not an accusation, just a fact.

                1. 85
                  Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Deflection?  Are you really trying to deflect by saying I am deflecting?  You literally claim that the Right is not compassionate when you have nothing left to say?  Josak, it’s so disappointing.  You usually cite facts, but now it’s the typical desperate, emotional rhetoric we hear so often from the Left.  Okay, we lack compassion, George Bush is a conservative, the sequester is our fault, conservatives are racists, Fox News misreports, and we just need more education. . .yada….yada….yada.  You’re playing the liberal playbook.  Aren’t you a socialist?  You should at least play that playbook.  Here, I’ll get you started.  We are all imperialistic capitalists who have waged war against all of humanity while failing to take care of our own society.  I don’t know, but I think it’s a start.

                  Seriously, all we are saying is that not all of the blame should go to our healthcare system.  People are responsible for some of our health failures that they bring upon themselves.  Josak, I know you’re interested in facts, and I know that you have to agree with this.  It makes sense.  Don’t you at least find it amusing that some conservatives aren’t blaming the government for this?  At what point should a patient be responsible for his/her own actions?  Is a cocaine-addicted, alcoholic, who smokes six packs of cigarettes, and consumes greasy hamburgers night and day NOT responsible for his/her actions if a doctor has repeatedly attempted to secure rehabilitation, treatment, and nutritional help for that patient?  This is an extreme example, but you have to admit that sometimes it’s the patient’s fault for irresponsible behavior.

                  1. Josak profile image58
                    Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I am neither deflecting nor avoiding the facts, yes I do love a factual debate and this is simple fact, at least 45 000 people die every year from not having coverage (before Obamacare) supporting that demonstrates the opposite of compassion. Stop trying to get around that and face it as the fact it is.

                    I am indeed a socialist, you may want to look up what that means though because the playbook you quoted to get me started was the rather different communist playbook.

                    BTW it's the sequester's fault tongue

                    1. 85
                      Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      Okay, this is the Josak I've come to know.  Glad to have you back.

                      Our lack of interest in Obamacare comes from an interest in freedom not from being uncompassionate.  We believe everybody should have access to healthcare, just not socialized healthcare.  Now, it's time for you to start citing facts to prove that more people would be better off if we had Obamacare.  Again, you'll be missing the point.  Freedom isn't perfect, but that's what many of us want.  Now, I know what your next statement will be. . . .you have the "freedom" of opting out of Obamacare.  Obamacare is changing everything.  Even if you had/have the option to opt out, healthcare in general has changed or will change, and you can't opt out of some of the taxes.  Thus, healthcare will cost more for those who opt out, and I believe, for many other people too.  Okay, start citing sources to show how much cheaper it will be.

                      LOL

                      WE = Many of those people who do not like Obamacare = Millions of people

                    2. 85
                      Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      Josak,

                      You never answered the question(s).  Here's the post again, and I'll paraphrase the question:

                      Don't people have some responsibility to take care of themselves? 


                      Seriously, all we are saying is that not all of the blame should go to our healthcare system.  People are responsible for some of our health failures that they bring upon themselves.  Josak, I know you’re interested in facts, and I know that you have to agree with this.  It makes sense.  Don’t you at least find it amusing that some conservatives aren’t blaming the government for this?  At what point should a patient be responsible for his/her own actions?  Is a cocaine-addicted, alcoholic, who smokes six packs of cigarettes, and consumes greasy hamburgers night and day NOT responsible for his/her actions if a doctor has repeatedly attempted to secure rehabilitation, treatment, and nutritional help for that patient?  This is an extreme example, but you have to admit that sometimes it’s the patient’s fault for irresponsible behavior.

                2. bn9900 profile image88
                  bn9900posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Sorry Josak, but the MAJORITY of Americans don't want to pay for the Lazy Liberal.  I hate the thought of having to pay more because someone else caused their illness.  The only reason Obama was elected twice was because the first time if you didn't you were labeled a Racist, which I was, I was also called a traitor because I didn't vote for the guy from my home town. But the second time, he made all the promises and the gulable voters ate it right up, the dems also faked the voting results since tey knew if a Republican got in it was bye bye obamacare...but what they didn't figue was that they signed the death warrant for the USA...Look at North Korea.

                  1. Cody Hodge5 profile image84
                    Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Dems faked the results?

                    You're really worried about North Korea? You realize that China would raise hell if N. Korea got out of line and started something with a country they need to stay economically viable.

                    Lazy liberal?

                    And you wonder why the average conservative isn't taken seriously anymore...

                    1. Marquis profile image59
                      Marquisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      Why are you so worried about it? Conservatives do not care what you think.

                  2. Josak profile image58
                    Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Then the MAJORITY of Americans would not have voted for it, twice, excuses for that are just incredibly weak and as already noted by Cody, obliterate any credibility you might have had.

                  3. John Holden profile image59
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Healthcare in the UK costs about 9% of GDP and covers everybody equally.
                    Healthcare costs the USA about 16% of GDP and doesn't cover everybody equally.

                    1. bn9900 profile image88
                      bn9900posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      Cody, more dead people voted Dem this past two elections than in the last 3 combined, and lets not forget double votes.  So if that isn't rigged I don't know what is. Yes have you ever seen a true liberal work harder than he had to?  No, liberals think like this. Work for myself and expect the government to care for everyone else, and who pays for the government? The people who work enough to pay taxes.  I don't have any credibility? At least I don't take my views from MSNBC, which is exactly where you got yours from, in everyone of your posts, MSNBC and CNN I love your liberal talking points however. I don't watch TV so don't bother blaming FOX NEWS for my opinion. I was only pointing out Obama's most recent mess up when referring to North Korea  Go ahead and believe all these lies from the Dems, be my guest, but the Dems are doing more damage than anything else as they have split this country in two, and people such as yourself,  and Josek are gobbling it up.
                      Josak for pete sake read my reply to Cody, it was rigged so it only LOOKED like the majority wanted him in office again.

                      Healthcare in the UK covers  62,641,000 in 2011 while there are 311,591,917 population in the US so of course a larger percentage of our GDP would be for healthcare.  The UK NHS started in 1948 right at the baby boom so they had at least 60 years to stockpile cash to pay before everything.  We on the other hand are wanting to pa for EVERYBODY  now when the first and second wave of Baby boomers are already receiving care?  It may sound good on the surface, buy the Quality of care will plumet as costs skyrocket, you just wait and see, and for those who voted Obama in again are the ones to blame for this healthcare debacle.

          2. John Holden profile image59
            John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            My government does not tell me what to do, it might advise but I'm free to ignore that advice if I wish to.
            How come if you don't like big government you have such a huge government?

            1. bn9900 profile image88
              bn9900posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Because people who don't want to work want to be pampered, that's why.

    7. varaka1 profile image60
      varaka1posted 3 years ago

      25,000 people are dying because of hunger everyday. We are lucky that we are not one of them. But are we sensible enough to understand their pain of dying because of hunger? We have to focus only how everyone of us can solve the problem or atleast could be part of the solution. So let's sign it that we would never waste food because it is like rising the problem of "World Hunger". If organizations like "World Food Program" helping people to provide meals for them then its our role to donate them and not waste food at our side.
      http://indianonlineview.blogspot.in/201 … -food.html

    8. varaka1 profile image60
      varaka1posted 3 years ago
    9. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 3 years ago

      BTW Howard, I remembered another reason why more people from the US don't go to Cuba, your government wont allow them to!

      If our government tried to pull a stunt like that you can be sure that the banned country would have a huge influx of Britains straight away, people with no desire to visit would suddenly develop a pressing need to visit!

      1. HowardBThiname profile image90
        HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Where'd you hear that, John? The US doesn't forbid Americans from visiting Cuba. It suggests that we don't - but that's it.  You must be getting pretty desperate to feel the need to make up so much.

        http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_t … _1097.html

        Seriously John. I think you've got a bad case of sour grapes. Since you don't live here - you're intent on making up all sorts of falsehoods to make it sound like this is a bad place.

        I have news for you, John, I wouldn't trade places with you. Not by a long shot. You keep your govt.-controlled life and I'll keep my ability to live free. We've got you guys beat hands down, John. You still haven't thanked us for saving your behinds during (and after) WWII.

        I think I'm getting a pretty good idea of what you're all about. You don't like that we have so much, when you have so little. My best advice is...emigrate. Get out of there, John. Go West. It's a whole new world.

        1. John Holden profile image59
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          From your posted website -

          "ENTRY / EXIT REQUIREMENTS, TRAVEL TRANSACTION LIMITATIONS: The Cuban Assets Control Regulations are enforced by the U.S. Department of the Treasury and affect all U.S. citizens and permanent residents wherever they are located, all people and organizations physically located in the United States, and all branches and subsidiaries of U.S. organizations throughout the world. The regulations require that persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction be licensed in order to engage in any travel-related transactions pursuant to travel to, from, and within Cuba, or that the transactions in question be exempt from licensing requirements. Transactions related to tourist travel are not licensable. This restriction includes tourist travel to Cuba from or through a third country such as Mexico or Canada. U.S. law enforcement authorities enforce these regulations at U.S. airports and pre-clearance facilities in third countries. Travelers who fail to comply with Department of the Treasury regulations could face civil penalties and criminal prosecution upon return to the United States."

          And where on Earth do you get the idea that my government controls my life?
          You, as a culture, have nothing I want.

      2. Marquis profile image59
        Marquisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Why would anybody want to go to Cuba?

        1. bn9900 profile image88
          bn9900posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Historical Steam locomotives still used I every day service

          1. Josak profile image58
            Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Yeah it's so bad that half of the number of people that come to the whole USA for treatment go to that tiny Caribbean island for healthcare.

            1. Marquis profile image59
              Marquisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              The only people I know that go to Cuba are U.S military.

              1. Josak profile image58
                Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Did I say "people that Marquis knows go to Cuba" some how I don't think so.

                1. Marquis profile image59
                  Marquisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I never said that you did. And like I said before, the only people that I know that go to Cuba are U.S Military.

            2. 85
              Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Please provide statistical proof and a credible source.  I am highly skeptical of this statement.

              1. HowardBThiname profile image90
                HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I am also skeptical of this claim.

                1. John Holden profile image59
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You also claimed that Americans weren't restricted from visiting Cuba, even though you posted evidence that they actually are!

              2. 85
                Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Josak, were you able to find a source to back your statement?  I'm curious about this statistic.

                Here was your claim:

                "Yeah it's so bad that half of the number of people that come to the whole USA for treatment go to that tiny Caribbean island for healthcare."

                1. Josak profile image58
                  Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Will you accept a Wikipedia link?

                  If not just follow the sources on Wikipedia.

                  20 000 traveling to Cuba yearly for medical care in 2006 growing 6% yearly. Puts estimates current at about 27 000.

                  60 000-80 000 to the US in 2008 and shrinking.
                  http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2 … l-tourism/
                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_tourism#Cuba
                  http://www.imtj.com/articles/2011/new-s … ics-30089/


                  Sorry didn't see your post the first time.

                  1. 85
                    Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Thanks.

                    A lot of people go to other countries for healthcare because of cost.  Many of these nations have good healthcare.  Few are going to these countries, because they have the best healthcare.  You won't find many, if any, countries with socialized healthcare that are considered among the best.  Many would suggest that people go to other countries because socialized healthcare is superior.  I contend that it is in fact, not better, but it is sometimes cheaper. 

                    Five of the top 10 medical colleges in the world are in America.  America is the medical inovator, second to none.

                    The Huffington Post is quite liberal.  A recent article from this site made it clear that America leads the world in medical advances.  "While there are many opinions about our nation's health care system (particularly in Washington), there's one overwhelming area of consensus -- the United States leads the world in medical innovation."

                    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kenneth-t … 07796.html

                    It seems that, much like inventions and technology, we are the pioneers of medical advancements.  Then, other countries come in, take what we invented, and recreate it at a cheaper cost.  Ultimately, one of the reasons we pay more for medicine is because we are paying for these advances, the same ones other countries assume at a fraction of the cost.  Then, people claim these countries are the medical leaders of the world.  It's not true.  Many of these nations do a good job of providing average medical care.  They are not often leading countries when it comes to the best medical care.

                    1. Josak profile image58
                      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      Pretty hilariously wrong, socialized medicine countries make up ALL of the WHO top 20 recommended healthcare nations. They do provide better care they have better statistics to prove it. I have already shown you things like maternal mortality rates in other threads so that is patently false.

                      It IS true that the US has an excellent medical development industry, it is after all en mass the wealthiest country on earth so this is not unexpected, however the nation PROFITS from that, it does not cost us nor is selling it to other nations a favor the world owes us it's something we are paid market value for.

                      According to international studies the only thing we do notably well (second best in the world) is cancer treatment as we have had lots of investment in that area, every other area of care (such as diabetes care, amputation care, infectious disease treatment etc.) we perform significantly worse than socialized care first world nations.

                      Oh in case you don't understand the difference, medical development is not part of medical treatment, our care being expensive has nothing to do with our medical development.

                  2. Marquis profile image59
                    Marquisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    27,000 people is not everybody -

                    Cuba has had cuts in their pitiful healthcare system. Sanitary conditions are also low for a pitiful COMMUNIST nation like Cuba. You even have to bring your own food, blankets and fans while you are paying a visit to the nearest emergency room.

                    In American hospitals, we have air conditioning and good food is provided. Why would anyone want to endure the torture of such a lackluster visit to a poorly paid doctor in Cuba? Not to mention poorly ran facilities?

                    You can go there and receive your healthcare if you like. I am pretty sure once regular people in America sees what is really going on, they will say "screw that."

                    1. Josak profile image58
                      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      As noted about half the number of people who come to the entire huge US which has plenty of land borders you can just drive across go to a tiny Caribbean island which is naturally much poorer and harder to get to, they must be doing something right, the market does not lie.

                      Cuba equals or surpasses all survival rates that are equally measured with the US except for cancer treatment.

                      P.S. Except for the poorest rural areas you do not ring your own food, fans, blankets or anything of the sort and foreigners don't go to the furthest rural reaches for care.

        2. Zelkiiro profile image84
          Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You're right. I have no idea why anyone would ever want to go to a tropical paradise.

          1. HowardBThiname profile image90
            HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            We're still talking about Cuba, right?

    10. 85
      Education Answerposted 3 years ago

      Numerous economists, including several notable Nobel laureates, have argued about how inefficient government is; our government certainly proves that.  Our Congress is filled with ineptitude and inefficiencies that would never be tolerated in the "real" world.  No business or household could operate like our government does, yet we are discussing the very real likelihood of allowing this same inept, inefficient government to take over another massive entitlement.  This makes absolutely no sense.  I do not trust Congress to manage my healthcare any better than they have managed our economy and debt problems. 

      "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results."  Let's throw more money at Congress.  Maybe Congress will be more responsible and effecient with the next trillion dollars. . .  Don't count on it.


      http://studentfundingnews.com/2013/01/c … fficiency/

      1. Josak profile image58
        Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Unfortunately all the available data presents that results are better and cheaper under government management. Do we need to work on how inefficient and corrupt our government is? Absolutely, but we can't have 45 000 people dying (at the very least) yearly while we do so due to lack of insurance.

        1. 85
          Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          All of the data suggests this?  I guess any economist who disagrees is wrong?  Some of these guys were Nobel laureates, but I guess your data is better than their lifetime achievements within their field of expertise. . .

          Yeah, so let's funnel more money into a system that is already so inefficient that it makes Enron look like a model business.   I mean, sure our government can't even function without borrowing and printing mass sums of money, but it'll somehow become more efficient with the next trillion dollars.

          1. Josak profile image58
            Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            #1 Am sure I can find just as many if not more Nobel laureate's willing to attest the opposite.
            #2 We are talking about healthcare specifically not economics in general.

            Other governments are just as bad as ours and manage it, their results are better on this issue, I would agree with some of those economists that government does need serious restructuring to take on more economic roles but on this issue either way it is still better than the alternative.

            I am a socialist but if tomorrow everyone wanted to hand control of the mining sector to the public I would oppose it on the grounds that our government would need a complete clean slate etc. but on this sort of issue other similar (and worse) governments have proved more than sufficient.

            1. 85
              Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Thanks for the laugh.  Separating the government takeover of a trillion-dollar industry from the economy or from any economic system is like trying to separate the fruit from the jelly; they're one and the same.

              You want to socialize healthcare, because you believe that the government will spend your money more efficiently than you will.  When has our government ever accomplished that?

              France is the shining example for all socialists who wish to emulate that kind of healthcare system.  Unfortunately, France's healthcare system has never once, since its latest version's inception in 1989, been able to pay for itself.  In fact, it loses billions each year.  That's not because it has a lack of tax revenues; workers pay 21% of their entire income for health insurance, with only a little over half of that being covered by their employer.  What a bargain, and while America spends only 8.4% of its GDP on healthcare, France spends a staggering 11% of its entire GDP on this great deal (insert sarcasm).    Even then, they have to carry their own separate insurance to cover the 23-30% of costs not covered under France's system and not discussed when socialists, like yourself, talk about how much healthcare costs in France. France now has co-pays, another added cost of healthcare that socialists never seem to mention when they talk about how great socialized medicine is.  They had to add this though, because their healthcare system was too far in debt.  Finally, you have the economy.  French business leaders have long complained that they are not hiring as many people, because they can't afford additional healthcare costs.  That means fewer people are employed, revenue diminishes, and greater government assistance is necessary.  Yeah, socialized healthcare sounds great!  Best of all, we get to have our exceedingly efficient government administer this wonderful system.  I'm sure we're going to have the best healthcare in the world, and it won't cost more than a quarter of your entire income.  It's a bargain!

              1. John Holden profile image59
                John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                8.4%!  Where did you drag that number up from? America spends a world beating 17.6% of GDP on health care.

                1. psycheskinner profile image79
                  psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Indeed.  All the figures show US is top of the world on health costs.

                2. 85
                  Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Yep.  Good catch.  That's your expenditure, in the UK.  Check the rest of the stats, however, and you'll find they are accurate.  Look, I'm willing to own and correct any factual errors I make.  I just want all the facts.  Some people who love Obamacare and socialized medicine never provide some of these very real statistics.  They simply talk about how great the care is and fail to mention the cost or the problems associated with socialized healthcare.  France's health system isn't as great and cost effective as it is being portrayed.

                  Please insert 16%-17.6% for America's costs, but take the the time to reread what I wrote.  Even if America's costs are extremely high, it doesn't really make France's statistics that great.  France's system has major problems, and it is, by just about every account, a better plan than Obamacare.  Some people say we need to have healthcare like Western Europe.  Obamacare is not like healthcare in Europe.

                  Here's a recent article about the differences between Obamacare and European (French) healthcare:

                  http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/07/2 … le-system/

                  1. John Holden profile image59
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    OK, hat's off to EA.

                    But that 17.6% isn't for Obama care, it is pre Obama care.

                    I want to pick up on your comment that France's healthcare fails to pay for itself. How exactly is none profit making and free to user health care actually supposed to pay for itself?

                    1. 85
                      Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      By user health, are you talking about socialized healthcare?

                      Taxes should cover costs.  If they don't, costs need to diminish, or revenues/taxes need to increase.

                    2. HowardBThiname profile image90
                      HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      The cost of US healthcare with Obamacare - will be MUCH higher than it is now. And less affordable for many.

                  2. Josak profile image58
                    Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    So even France's pretty screwy system is cheaper AND offers universal coverage, cheaper by about a third.

                    That's without even beginning to look at the more successful socialized healthcare systems.

                    Let's take a quick look at health results based on non life style results. Maternal mortality rate per 100 000 in France: 8 , USA 21. Just over a third of ours.

                    Deaths per thousand live births on equal survival grounds: USA: 6 , France 3.4. Just over half of ours.

                    SO the example you give of a pretty bad socialized system is cheaper, universal and provides much more successful care.

                    Thank you for making our argument for us.

                    1. wilderness profile image97
                      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      Better care for childbirth, anyway.  About the cheapest of the major care set.  On the snide side, it also looks very good in the stats - countries touting their health care will be well advised to pour money into that particular part at the expense of others.

                      How long to people wait for a mammogram or a cat scan?  An MRI?  A heart or liver transplant?  How many people get transplants?  Are optional surgeries, not necessary for life, available? 

                      There are an awful lot of facets to health care (at least if no other possibilities for birthing death is looked at), and from hearsay of patients in other countries, socialized medicine isn't nearly as rosy as it's presented to be.  I, for instance, asked for cataract surgery in a short time - it was done less than 2 weeks later and I understand that kind of thing just isn't done in Europe.

                    2. 85
                      Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      I knew that was coming.  We're stuck with Obamacare, and all of your statistics represent an entirely different and arguably better system, the one we often see in Western Europe.  Using those statistics to promote Obamacare is like using Rolls Royce statistics to represent a Chevy.  They're both cars, but they are very much different.  IF we had the same plan, you could use your statistics with fidelity.  We do not have the same plan, and thus, your statistics are a stretch.

                      France's system has issues.  IF, IF, IF we had to socialize our healthcare, and I strongly do not believe we needed to do so, why didn't we look to the best systems and improve their faults?  I know some will say we did this, but whether or not we did so, we ended up with a lemon.  Obamacare isn't good policy, and it's not what they have in France, the UK, or any other country in Western Europe.

                      What are they saying in Europe?  I doubt anybody in Europe is envious of Obamacare.  I doubt anybody in Europe considers Obamacare to be a superior plan to what they already have.  I really wish we didn't have socialized healthcare; IF we have to have socialized healthcare, why can't it at least be a good plan, one that improves upon the best plans currently being used?

    11. 85
      Education Answerposted 3 years ago

      Here's my take on the whole thing:

      America has great healthcare but our costs are through the roof.  Our statistics aren't good, because a lot of Americans do not have insurance.  It's hard and wrong to force a healthier lifestyle and mandatory insurance.  Instead of socializing our system, why didn't we look at streamlining costs so people who currently can't afford insurance can get it, if they want it?  Our expensive system seems like the first place we should have looked, and a place we never really have fully explored.  Instead, we trashed the entire system in favor of Obamacare, a system that is inferior to plans that are out there and, in my opinion, to what we already have.  Do you really need to replace an entire engine when all you need is an alternator?

      1. bn9900 profile image88
        bn9900posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        You do when your a dem in the drivers seat.

    12. Tinsky profile image95
      Tinskyposted 2 years ago

      Socialised healthcare is the best and has worked wonders for us in Australia since before I was born - I am now going into my mid 40's. [Now, all we have to do is get rid of our current government who want to start charging extra per visits.]

      PS  Its not totally free.  We pay for it through our taxes. On my last tax bill it cost about $450.00 per annum ($60K salary) for both myself and one child (husband has his own tax assessment).

      1. janesix profile image59
        janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        That's almost free. How the heck is it paid for?

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Somebody else picks up the bill.  Because just as Tinsky says, it certainly isn't free.

        2. John Holden profile image59
          John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Through taxes.

    13. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 2 years ago

      We can find no evidence to support the widely believed claims from industry that lower prices in other industrialised countries do not allow companies to recover their R&D costs; so they have to charge Americans more to make up the difference and pay for these "foreign free riders." We also explain why the claims themselves contradict the economic nature of the pharmaceutical industry.

      The latest report from the UK Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme shows that drug companies in the United Kingdom invest more of their revenues from domestic sales in research and development than do companies in the US. Prices in the UK are much lower than those in the US yet profits remain robust.

      Companies in other countries also manage to recover their research and development costs, maintain high profits, and sell drugs at substantially lower prices than in the US. For example, in Canada the 35 companies that are members of the brand name industry association report that income from domestic sales is, on average, about 10 times greater than research and development costs. They have profits higher than makers of computer equipment and telecommunications carriers despite prices being about 40% lower than in the US.

      http://www.pharmamyths.net/foreign_free … _96359.htm

    14. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 2 years ago

      Just heard on the news that the UK government has spent £43 million on developing a flu treatment, Tamiflu, that proves to be no more effective than Paracetamol!

      The makers, Hoffmann-La Roche, are a Swiss company.

     
    working