JUst what we need:

Morning Greg,

I'm sure you'll be shocked that I don't agree with some of your points in your admittedly well thought out & written post.

LsFarm wrote:the problem with national health care systems is that everyone needs to pay for it.. everyone.. there can no longer be a welfare class that has 6-10 children per mother, with 6-10 different fathers none of which work.

Most of the countries above us on the WHO (World Health Org.) list do, in fact, have social welfare systems for the poor, some to a pretty high extent, per capita.

LsFarm wrote:I suggest that those 36 countries that rank higher than ours are small countries with a more closely knit society where health care is known to be a great privalege, not an expectation by the non working.

All the more reason that a large, rich country like ours should rank much higher (if not tops) on the list!

LsFarm wrote:With a national health care system, I'd be paying my taxes, and for myself and how many others??? right now I pay for myself, only.

You already are paying for many more than yourself & your family through the extremely high health insurance premiums you already pay. (Then add in the profit you are paying to private HMO's & the additional property/local taxes it costs you to provides service for the poor & my argument is that a well managed system of full health care coverage (like the Congress, Military & WH already have) would actually save you money. Whatever one's views, it is pretty obvious that a national health care system is something that the next President (regardless of Party) & next Congress will be implementing. It is very high on the "Wish List" of the American voter.

LsFarm wrote:This just isn't the way I want to live,, taxed to death literally.. taxed into an early grave..

We already are taxed/Fee'd to death Greg, through federal, state or local taxes AND the horrendous premiums we are forced pay to private insurance companies, allot of which goes to pay huge profits to both the insurance & uncompetitive Pharmaceutical Industry.

But I don't pay very high premiums.. only about 50% more than the 'bargain' that my Canadian friends pay.. and I get a hell of a lot more for my money... I'm not paying for the welfare generattions via my health insurance,, I'm paying it through my taxes.. which are all together too high.. but much less than Canada or most developed socialist countries..

And the problem is that this 'big rich nation' would have an even bigger, more expensive support system [government] for a national health system.. NOTHING the government does is effecient.. a for profit organization will always be more efficient.. like we have now.. just look at ANY government program.. around 10% of the cost is returned to the taxpayer or out of the system.. pretty shamefull.



Greg L

LsFarm wrote:NOTHING the government does is effecient.. a for profit organization will always be more efficient..

More efficient, yes. More expensive YES. (Big business is very "efficient" at getting money from your pocket to theirs! Thank goodness, the government is not as good at this. At least with the government (us taxpayer) in control, we can fire the leeches or just not reelect them.

As an airline pilot, I'm sure you have a great health insurance plan. Problem is, the guy who paints your house or fixes your plumbing is not as fortunate. What do we do with these, hard working Americans with families? (One of my son-in-laws is a self-employed roofer & can get no insurance that is affordable. Luckily, my daughter also works & her company does have a small health insurance plan which is really not great.)
It is a major problem Greg & not one with a simple answer.

Expensive??? take a look at ANY government program.. it cost 10x what a private enterprise could do the same operation for.

And actually my healthcare at my low-cost airline is the worst in the airline industry.. but still much better than any national health service that our governmenc could come up with..



Greg L

The problem with a nationalized health plan is not the insurance but the high cost of medicine and doctors care. Until those cost are reigned in we can't pay for it period. Also, at what point are taxes too high. If you are paying 50% of you income to the government, Fed, state and some local, then we are doing nothing more than working for the company store or share cropping. I don't buy that and never will. You of all people living in MA must remember the Boston Tea party.

nice conversation . Health insurance companys are in bussinss for one thing. to make money , they could give rats ass about us. accualy they have a 20% denial for new claims. if they didn't , they could not make a profit. must be 10 hospitals in La county that are closing because of no money for operating the hospital. soon that will be across America. Great Britan has the best goverment controled health care system around. it sarted in the 40's and is still great today. USA should be using there system for an example. the doctors , specialist and nurse's all make great money , they even do house calls.

VTSkeeter wrote:You of all people living in MA must remember the Boston Tea party.

Hey watch it buddy!

The Boston Tea Party happened at least three years before I was born!!

Devil5052 wrote:
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

I point this out, not to denigrate our country (as some will undoubtedly accuse me of doing) but because I love my country & simply feel that we need to rethink our priorities when it comes to what we spend our tax dollars on.

I've been to 20 of the 36 higher ranked countries. If I had a choice on where to live out of the top 36 countries taking health care and everything else into consideration....I still choose USA...and the USA's supposed broken health care. (There is one that I have not been to that interests me but I don't believe everything I am told or read so I would have to visit first)

I don't understand all the comments about the efficiency of the "socialized" medicine of the military. Are those comments made directly about the active duty members or does it pertain to those members AND their families?

The thing I didn't like about military medical while actively serving was I never had one doctor. Every time I went to medical it was someone different unless it was a follow-up (I am not including Corpsmen into this statement). Example....Had my appendix rupture out at sea...(long strange story...I was fortunate that my immune system attacked it)...I didn't see an actual doctor until 10 days later and then they did a good thing by waiting another 6 weeks before operating...That is one case where I saw one individual doctor several times (5 or 6 times) BUT the surgeon I met for 5 minutes max and never saw him again (he didn't even come to recovery to see how I was doing). During the 6 week wait, I actually had to give a doctor a piece of my mind because he didn't believe what I was telling him, he didn't look at my record.

For only 2 years out of 14, my wife and children were in what was called family practice...during those 2 years they had Dr. S. as their sole family practitioner. That was the best medical care they ever had. Those days are long gone. (Family Practice we had to sign up for and there was a wait to get in and you never know when/if your family Doctor transfers)

For active duty members it is not too bad but it is the military and it is not perfect. And if anyone ever tells you that rank doesn't have its privileges when it comes to medical care in the military...tell them to get in line to kiss BugsyR's ass. By the way, when your dependents call for appointments, the person taking their info knows the rank of the active duty member (not that I believe in most conspiracies but sometimes things would be said that would make me scratch my head).

My father-in-law is retired from Mack Trucks, I'd take his health care over my military retiree health care any day. Hell, at one time my In-Laws thought I got paid "over time" while I was at sea. They thought this because they just didn't know anything about the military. Being that they didn't know anything about the military, they were very shocked when we compared notes about Mack Trucks vs. Military retiree health care. They thought my family's health care was free.

If this "socialized" medicine that America supposedly wants is mirrored after military "socialized" medicine...
I vote NO...
...unless they do some serious improving because I want better health care....Last year's medical bills for the family were a bit high for me and all I really had done was a couple appointments for the kids (they got sick a couple times that we couldn't kick with OTC stuff), both needed physicals for dumbass reasons, that new vaccination for teenage girls wasn't cheap (as a matter of fact, it wasn't covered at all...can ya believe that?...a vaccination that wasn't covered by a health insurance?), and my Nuclear Stress test wasn't cheap either.

Not to mention the fact that Dental isn't free at all and if anyone thinks that a tooth ache that leads to a root canal because of an infection in the canal not caused by tooth decay is not a medical condition...get in line to kiss BugsyR's ass....take a number.......(If I could have traded that tooth ache pain for ruptured appendix pain instead...I would have...holy crap that sucked....). Now I am saving up to cover the price of a crown...just a few hundred more needed.

What does all this mean?....educate yourself about the military's health care before using it as an example to socialize America's health care...please. The supposed "socialized" military medicine is no where near 100% efficient and hasn't been for years.

As for Congress...I didn't know that our lawmakers have "socialized" medicine. Does this mean that our Senators and Representatives can walk into any medical establishment and receive care without paying that establishment? Or does this statement mean that their health insurance is paid in full by their employers (us, the U.S. taxpayers)? The reason why I ask is that there are still private companies that cover their employees health care.

As for the White House...is there any country on earth that forces their leader to pay out of his own pocket for health care?

One last comment...have you ever seen the movie "Born on the Fourth of July". I've seen it once. Couldn't and won't watch it again because of personal reasons. The scene when Tom Cruise is receiving medical attention in the Veteran Hospital I guess I can use as a good example to protest the following quote from this thread...

"This system has worked fine for our Armed Forces, Congress & White House for over 200 years..."

Devil5052 wrote:

VTSkeeter wrote:You of all people living in MA must remember the Boston Tea party.

Hey watch it buddy!

The Boston Tea Party happened at least three years before I was born!!

That's a good one!

BugsyR wrote:I've been to 20 of the 36 higher ranked countries. If I had a choice on where to live out of the top 36 countries taking health care and everything else into consideration....I still choose USA...and the USA's supposed broken health care.

Come on Mike....That's a tactic right out of Karle Rove's handbook! Show me where I said I'd rather live in another country?
What I am saying is that I love my country & want to see it's health care system improved & made available to all legal residents. (Being rated just above Slovenia & Cuba is just not where we should be)
If that's unpatriotic, so be it.



I never claimed that the military (or government wide for that matter) health care system is "perfect" & beyond improvement. What I am saying is that it sure beats the hell out of no health care at all, which is all my hardworking, fifth generation American, taxpaying son-in-law can afford.
I feel that my lifetime of government service gives me as much right as your service in the Navy does you, to express my opinion without having to defend my patriotism.


....."have you ever seen the movie "Born on the Fourth of July".".....

Never saw it

The problem I see with the U.S. healthcare system is it's employer based. That worked very well for my dad's generation when you went to work for a company and you spent your life with them. That no longer is true of the workplace. One of the side effects of this new mobility is people wind up without medical insurance. I'll give you my example. I worked for the same company for about 20 years. I went out on disability in 97. After 3 months I was no longer insured. I could've used the COBRA benefit and paid for insurance myself. The price, 650/month. At the time I was collecting 1400/month from a disability insurance policy that I paid for. My injury was service related so I could go to the VA but it still left my wife and 3 kids without insurance. The biggest problem I see is if you are still working and wind up with a long term problem you're left with no alternative. I couldn't get an individual policy to cover my family because of my pre-existing condition. My wife and I worked out our own solution and everything came out OK. Of course I can't retire until I'm about 71 now but I got through my 'situation'.

I'm not a proponent of government controlled healthcare but I sure am a proponent of the government mandating to the insurance companies that they MUST sell a product to everyone. The government made this same mandate (no fault) for auto insurance. Everyone is covered and auto insurance companies didn't go bankrupt providing it.

There are countless Americans losing everything they have worked their lives for because of long term medical problems. Medical bills are the biggest factor in bankruptcies in this country. This is a serious problem that needs to be addressed yesterday.
Just my opinion.

I didn't read the whole thread but I would just add that I wouldn't put too much stock into what you read in the papers. I would wait for the debates and then form an opinion. I really don't want to pay more in taxes but I really don't want another George BUsh clone for 4 more years either.

Repeat after me: McCain is not G. Bush,, McCain is not G. Bush.. McCain is NOT G. Bush.

In spite of what the media whould like you to believe.

Greg L.

billw wrote:Just my opinion.

And a damn good one!

billw wrote:I'm not a proponent of government controlled healthcare but I sure am a proponent of the government mandating to the insurance companies that they MUST sell a product to everyone. The government made this same mandate (no fault) for auto insurance. Everyone is covered and auto insurance companies didn't go bankrupt providing it.

I don't have my "heart set" on a large government bureaucracy either & I could go along with your idea of a mandate with the obvious government oversight that would be needed......What is obvious to me is that the "Leave it to private enterprise" & "Government should have no roll" attitude of the past just doesn't work.
We need a system that is affordable & available to all taxpayers & not just a few privileged or "connected" few.

LsFarm wrote:Repeat after me: McCain is not G. Bush,, McCain is not G. Bush.. McCain is NOT G. Bush.

In spite of what the media whould like you to believe.

Greg L.

I just can't find a difference Greg, on any major issue.....foreign or domestic & that's not the media's doing.....It's John McCain himself. (at least the 2008 version of John McCain)
Please enlighten me?....Where does John McCain differ from GW Bush?
(& don't you admit that a McCain Presidency would keep many/most of the same people who presently work for & advise GW Bush?)




Here are a few guesses:



McCain' Presidency / Obama's Presidency




Sec. of State : Condoleza Rice (same) / Joe Biden

Sec of Defense : Gates (same) / Collen Powell

Sec of Treasury : Phil Graham (called us all "whiners") / Ben Cardin

Atty General : Mukasi (same) / Sheldon Whitehouse (former US Atty)