I've seen you Grandma - ur pretty hot considering your age. I'll take that kiss.

sadly, while it is amazing, it is not very surprising how corrupt american health care is.

http://www.wimp.com/pharmaceuticalindustry/

I spoke earlier about people's misguided fears of health care rationing and beurocrats standing in the way between people who need care and doctors.

Here is a woman at a town hall meeting with Pres. Obama who explains exactly the situation i was speaking on before.

Doom Criers like to get everyone concerned about how bad it will be in the distant future when beurocrats decide who lives and dies. That happens right now.

Free enterprise and self-regulating markets be damned. People are denied health care every day in this country.

http://www.wimp.com/obamahealth/

JulianTheApostate wrote:Like the rest of you, I'm a big supporter of universal health care. It's much more humane, and it provides bigger benefits at less cost.

Now I'm discouraged by the political debate. I'm afraid that the Democrats will screw things up yet again and not make it happen.

JULIAN....... I agree with you on the country needing some kind of universal healthcare. The problem with Obama care is that there are too many hands in the pot and because of that there are too many loopholes in the system. It also provides that every citizen in this country, regardless of whether they are unemployed and have been denied unemployment and people who lost their homes and are literally living on the streets, has to be, in the most forceful way, on the Universal health care plan. Right now on paper it may seem that there are bigger benefits at less cost but, ask yourself if you want the government telling you what procedures are covered or not and what doctors you can and cannot go to. And honestly, I know in my case because I am 100% disabled and I don't want ObamaCare telling me what specialists i can see and being privy to my private health records. I just know that Obama care is such a long document that there are way too many loopholes in it.
People are excited about this plan but think about all the money that has been spent for health care in this entire country when the most important thing the president should be working on is finding jobs for so many people who are unemployed and all the wars overseas. Obama care might work with another president who didn't have so much on their plate, but our dear president, has only been in office for close to two years and there are way more important issues than spending all the time and money that Obama and whoever is in his regime again with helping people gain employment and in trying to find ways to help our men/women overseas. Right now, that is where our money should be spent.

ask yourself if you want the government telling you what procedures are covered or not and what doctors you can and cannot go to. And honestly, I know in my case because I am 100% disabled and I don't want ObamaCare telling me what specialists i can see and being privy to my private health records.

Could you give us some examples of these loop holes? I am actually interested to see some specific problems people have with this plan. "Numerous loopholes" just doesn't cut it for me.

What you are not recognizing is that this terrible future where bureaucrats tell you whether or not you get coverage for a procedure, whether or not you can go to certain specialists... that is EXACTLY what our current health care system is. Only instead of a government who's job it is to get you health care, we have an insurance employee who's sole purpose is to stamp "DENIED" on as many claims as they can get away with.

I just know that Obama care is such a long document that there are way too many loopholes in it.

So your citique of the health care bill is that it is too long to possibly know what is in it? This is a talking point.
One thousand pages or so. Teenagers are handling that number pretty well every time a harry potter book comes out. And they howl in the streets when the smallest detail is omitted or altered.

People are excited about this plan but think about all the money that has been spent for health care in this entire country when the most important thing the president should be working on is finding jobs for so many people who are unemployed and all the wars overseas.

I would much, much rather have a president who is concerned with the welfare of his own people. One who ensues that employers are able to afford hiring people because they don't have to carry the burden of exorbitant health premiums themselves. One who is more concerned with keeping our people alive, than killing people from other countries.

If only that money which has been diverted to the endless dunes of the middle east had been invested in our country...

How about investing in engineering start ups? How about making the US the leader in automotive design again? what about putting a clean burning green automobile engine on the market, made with US hands in US factories? What about putting that money into our school system, so that we do not continually rank 30th in education? What about making the US a country of young inventors, scientists, engineers, and technicians, rather than beer-swilling nascar fans? Do you not think we would be better off if we had done ANY of these things rather than squander our wealth, our prestige, our neighbors good will, and the priceless lives and dreams of our soldiers on foolish wars of aggression?

phillies4evr wrote:

JulianTheApostate wrote:Like the rest of you, I'm a big supporter of universal health care. It's much more humane, and it provides bigger benefits at less cost.

Now I'm discouraged by the political debate. I'm afraid that the Democrats will screw things up yet again and not make it happen.

JULIAN....... I agree with you on the country needing some kind of universal healthcare. The problem with Obama care is that there are too many hands in the pot and because of that there are too many loopholes in the system. It also provides that every citizen in this country, regardless of whether they are unemployed and have been denied unemployment and people who lost their homes and are literally living on the streets, has to be, in the most forceful way, on the Universal health care plan. Right now on paper it may seem that there are bigger benefits at less cost but, ask yourself if you want the government telling you what procedures are covered or not and what doctors you can and cannot go to. And honestly, I know in my case because I am 100% disabled and I don't want ObamaCare telling me what specialists i can see and being privy to my private health records. I just know that Obama care is such a long document that there are way too many loopholes in it.
People are excited about this plan but think about all the money that has been spent for health care in this entire country when the most important thing the president should be working on is finding jobs for so many people who are unemployed and all the wars overseas. Obama care might work with another president who didn't have so much on their plate, but our dear president, has only been in office for close to two years and there are way more important issues than spending all the time and money that Obama and whoever is in his regime again with helping people gain employment and in trying to find ways to help our men/women overseas. Right now, that is where our money should be spent.

You may find this article interesting as background reading. It discusses Canada, but the issues in the piece transfer directly to the health care debate in the US.


http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editoria ... t-it-to-be

Looking at the history of the efforts to reform health-care on the insurance side, we see about 60 years of diddling by presidents and Congress. To overcome all the resistance and get something of a bill, of course we would get one that's imperfect. The system of employer-based health insurance for active workers was a historical accident and doesn't make a lot of sense. Protests from the Republican side that this bill isn't the "right" way to reform health-care weren't credible to begin with. If the bill had been defeated, those protesting voices would be silent on health-care reform by now.

The greatest danger to the bill that passed is that the public will conclude that it isn't doing enough to contain insurance costs, and they will support dismantling it. But the main reason that the bill indeed probably will not lower costs is that the issue of price was avoided during negotiations on the legislation. There was little appetite to address the biggest problem with our system, which is that we pay (usually the insurance companies pay) much more per unit of service than do people in other rich nations. We have no way of bringing pressure to bear on providers of medical services and goods, except in the case of Medicare. A single-payer option would have helped to force providers to contain costs. So, ironically, if the public concludes that the reform bill has failed to lower costs, and blames this on socialism, the real reason for the failure will be that the reform law wasn't socialistic enough. The government needs to have the power to force providers to contain costs.

The insurance companies have usually been made out to be the baddies, but they can't do much about what medical providers charge them.

An article on this topic from the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03394.html

please read and learn the truth from rasmussen polls!!!!!!!

October 25, 2010


A majority of voters continue to favor repeal of the new national health care law, and the number who sees this outcome as likely has reached a new high.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 53% of Likely U.S. voters favor repeal of the health care law, including 43% who Strongly Favor repeal. Forty-two percent (42%) oppose repeal of the bill, with 32% who are Strongly Opposed. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Since Democrats in Congress passed the law in late March, support for repeal has ranged from a low of 53% to a high of 63%.

But now 46% of voters say it is at least somewhat likely the law will be repealed, up six points from earlier this month and the highest level measured since tracking of the question began in April. Still, that includes just 13% who say it’s Very Likely the law will be repealed.

Forty-five percent (45%) say it is not very likely the law will repealed, showing no change from earlier this month.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on October 22-23, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Forty-three percent (43%) of voters say repeal of the bill would be good for the economy, showing little change over the past two months. Thirty-four percent (34%) say repeal of the law would be bad for the economy, while another 16% say it would have no impact.

Just 26% think repeal of the law will lead to the creation of more jobs, down four points from early October and the lowest level measured since April. Thirty-nine percent (39%) disagree and say repeal of the bill will not lead to increased job creation. However, 36% are not sure.

Sixty-five percent (65%) of Republicans expect the health care law to be repealed, as do 47% of voters not affiliated with either major political party. Only 30% of Democrats believe the law is likely to be repealed.

Overall, 37% say the health care plan passed by Congress in March will be good for the country, the lowest level of confidence found this month. Fifty-three percent (53%) say the law will be bad for the country.

Recent polling shows that only 43% of all Likely Voters say someone who voted for the health care law deserves to be reelected. Fifty percent (50%) oppose their reelection.

Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free) or follow us on Twitter or Facebook. Let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.

Survey Toplines and Crosstabs and are available to Platinum Members only.
ShareThis

Rasmussen Reports is an electronic media company specializing in the collection, publication and distribution of public opinion polling information. We poll on a variety of topics in the fields of politics, business and lifestyle, updating our site’s content on a news cycle throughout the day, everyday.

Rasmussen Reports Platinum Members get an all-access pass to polling news, analysis and insight not available to the general public.

Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade. To learn more about our methodology, click here.

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on October 22-23, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters
October 22-23, 2010

Date


Favor


Oppose

Oct 22-23


53%


42%

Oct 16-17


55%


40%

Oct 8-9


55%


39%

Oct 2-3


50%


44%

Sep 24-25


57%


35%

Sep 18-19


61%


33%

Sep 10-11


53%


38%

Sep 4-5


56%


38%

Aug 27-28


58%


36%

Aug 21-22


56%


40%

Aug 13-14


60%


36%

Aug 7-8


55%


38%

Jul 30-31


59%


38%

Jul 24-25


58%


37%

Jul 16-17


56%


38%

Jul 10-11


53%


42%

Jul 1


60%


36%

Jun 25-26


52%


40%

Jun 19-20


55%


40%

Jun 11-12


58%


36%

Jun 5-6


58%


35%

May 28-29


60%


36%

May 22-23


63%


32%

May 14-15


56%


39%

May 10


56%


37%

Apr 30-May 1


54%


39%

Apr 24-25


58%


38%

Apr 16-17


56%


41%

Apr 10-11


58%


38%

Apr 2-3


54%


42%

Mar 27-28


54%


42%

Mar 23-24


55%


42%
TOP STORIES
©2010 Rasmussen Reports, LLC

What does that have to do with anything?
Those are just statistics on whether people think it ought to be repealed.
It does nothing to address their familiarity with the bill. The party of NO has simply been broadcasting a steady stream of non-sense, espoused by the two crazies you sited, in fact, about death panels and other plainly made-up boogie men.

Where are these loop holes you are talking about?
Lets see some real concerns here, instead of chicken little action.

johnson1010 wrote:What does that have to do with anything?
Those are just statistics on whether people think it ought to be repealed.
It does nothing to address their familiarity with the bill. The party of NO has simply been broadcasting a steady stream of non-sense, espoused by the two crazies you sited, in fact, about death panels and other plainly made-up boogie men.

Where are these loop holes you are talking about?
Lets see some real concerns here, instead of chicken little action.

just face it, no one knows the familiarity of the healthcare bill. if you do, then you must work for some government agency because not one American knows what is in that bill! I understand it is hundreds and hundreds of pages. The only thing that was made clear was the fact that everyone HAD to be covered by this plan. I don't mean to argue but these are the facts. some people, such as yourself, just think we are going to be handed his health care plan. Just answer this one question; when you get healthcare through a provider such as Blue Cross and Blue Shield, don't they send you a booklet with what is covered and what is not covered? I haven't seen any booklets like that with Obama care have you???