That was a nice read Outlaw, thank you for supplying the link, Arizona is really concerned for their children and that's a good thing. Although I see they are anticipating a decline in the revenue off the cigarettes as there becomes fewer and fewer smokers.

As for us we don't have a state income tax, I believe there are 1 or 2 other states that don't have state income tax, I thought perhaps Arizona was one of them. What this means everything is much higher then everybody else, such as gas, etc. Our cigarettes and alcohol just went up this year, I think $7 sounds about right for a pack here too. And we don't vote on anything, they just tell us such and such is now going up.

As for Welfare, oh my, how that's been abused over the years, it's to the point where it just became down right disgusting. Although I feel there has been a real shake down with Welfare. But you and I know people somehow do manage to slide through the cracks, the only thing one can do is keep closing the gaps.

LOL@Giselle! I stand corrected! As I was talking to my husband about the 52 states in the US, what he wanted to know was when we added on the extra two states and what states are they? I know we have 50 states in this country. Do you suppose I could get away with this and blame it all on reading so much material on health care reform????

Found this very interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uW1T3icgNJ8

Personally, I cannot believe anyone would want to trust profit-motivated business to manage their care.

Originally Posted by edgray

Found this very interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uW1T3icgNJ8

Keith Olbermann is not news. Thats no different watching Bill O'Reilly. Neither is anything but propaganda.

Originally Posted by edgray

Personally, I cannot believe anyone would want to trust profit-motivated business to manage their care.

Don't kid yourself about a perceived lack of motive behind Government.

Originally Posted by Outlaws

Keith Olbermann is not news. Thats no different watching Bill O'Reilly. Neither is anything but propaganda.

Don't kid yourself about a perceived lack of motive behind Government.

No you're right. Olbermann isn't news, he gives editorial comment on the news and current affairs. I think there's a huge difference between him and Billo. Billo is called on his claims constantly, which at times border on the paranoid and ridiculous, whist Olbermann is not and readily admits on the rare occassions that he's wrong or has misinterpreted an issue.

Did you watch the clip? I just thought it highlighted some interesting points, whether you agree with Olbermann or not, there's no doubt it shows the motives of HMOs - which is profit, not care.

I'm not sure what government motives you might be referring to though. Wow, you guys must really distrust your govt. You would seriously trust a profit-driven corporation, who's only care in the world is to make the shareholders and investors more money, with your healthcare? It's in their best interest to give you as little care as possible to maximise their income. The govt wouldn't have that same stipulation, or at least they don't in other countries.

Originally Posted by edgray

No you're right. Olbermann isn't news, he gives editorial comment on the news and current affairs. I think there's a huge difference between him and Billo. Billo is called on his claims constantly, which at times border on the paranoid and ridiculous, whist Olbermann is not and readily admits on the rare occassions that he's wrong or has misinterpreted an issue.

I don't agree with that. I believe the left calls O'Reilly out on his claims more than the right, but that doesn't make him less full of ****.

Originally Posted by edgray

Did you watch the clip?

No, and nor would I if it was Bill O'Reilly. They are both so blatantly biased I cannot stomach it over 30 seconds.

Originally Posted by edgray

I just thought it highlighted some interesting points, whether you agree with Olbermann or not, there's no doubt it shows the motives of HMOs - which is profit, not care.

And it probably did, but it is 100% propaganda. Him and the other douche bag will twist everything to suit their case.

Originally Posted by edgray

I'm not sure what government motives you might be referring to though.

The ones where just as a CEO is in his position to make him self and the company as much money as possible, government is inherently made of people who want nothing more than power and control.

Originally Posted by edgray

Wow, you guys must really distrust your govt. You would seriously trust a profit-driven corporation, who's only care in the world is to make the shareholders and investors more money, with your healthcare?

I don't trust either of them, but look at it this way....

If a corporation screws me, I am supposed to be able to take my money else where, or, in the event of gross conduct, go to the government and address the issue. If the government runs it, who do you go to?

However, that isn't saying our current system is perfect; it is currently backed by corrupt politicians...the same ones we are seemingly laying the ground work for giving total control to. Like many issues, we are trying to fix problem in the wrong order.

Originally Posted by edgray

It's in their best interest to give you as little care as possible to maximise their income.

Well that might be true to a great extent, but it is also true that nothing in this world has ever provided greater quality to the masses than competition. Those pushign for "reform" are currently not pushing for single provider, but its a farce to accept their end goal as otherwise.

Originally Posted by edgray

The govt wouldn't have that same stipulation, or at least they don't in other countries.

But they do...our laws are so often the subject of whoever had the most money to donate. This situation is no different. Not to mention that the government here is know for red tape and offering cookie cutter service. If you want cookie cutter health care, then that is your right support it. But there will be no "interest" to provide better care. At least with private companies, they have an "interest" in staying in business.

Originally Posted by Outlaws

I don't agree with that. I believe the left calls O'Reilly out on his claims more than the right, but that doesn't make him less full of ****.

What do you think he's lying here? He's simply presenting facts and adding editorial comment, albeit with a leftist slant.

No, and nor would I if it was Bill O'Reilly. They are both so blatantly biased I cannot stomach it over 30 seconds.

Well there's no denying that Olbermann leans to the left, but he is often critical of the govt and the president, unlike Billo, who wouldn't hear a bad word said against Bush and his cronies or their dirty deeds...

And it probably did, but it is 100% propaganda. Him and the other douche bag will twist everything to suit their case.

Fair point. But that doesn't negate it completely. Olbermann certainly focusses on facts a lot more than Billo...

The ones where just as a CEO is in his position to make him self and the company as much money as possible, government is inherently made of people who want nothing more than power and control.

Yes I am inclined to agree with both those statements, but how would that affect healthcare? I mean, it will be the doctors doing the treating, not the politicians.

I don't trust either of them, but look at it this way....

If a corporation screws me, I am supposed to be able to take my money elsewhere, or, in the event of gross conduct, go to the government and address the issue. If the government runs it, who do you go to?

Exactly how would you go to the govt for gross misconduct of an HMO? You'd get a lawyer and sue. Much the same if the govt health system does the same.

However, that isn't saying our current system is perfect; it is currently backed by corrupt politicians...the same ones we are seemingly laying the ground work for giving total control to. Like many issues, we are trying to fix problem in the wrong order.

The thing about the American system is that the care is second-to-none. The hospitals are modern, the staff highly trained (That's why so many foreign medical professionals train in the US) but the problem is with the HMOs. They're the ones that corrupt the politicians. They're the ones that deny treatment. Politicians, however corrupt, wouldn't be able to deny care, as in a govt system those decisions would lie with the doctors.

Well that might be true to a great extent, but it is also true that nothing in this world has ever provided greater quality to the masses than competition. Those pushign for "reform" are currently not pushing for single provider, but its a farce to accept their end goal as otherwise.

I have to disagree with this. In the UK, for example, we're had many great national services privatised and watched them fall to pieces. The trains are a great example. When they were a nationalised service they ran on time and even if a station only served a handful of people, they were still available. Privatisation has increased fares to the point of insanity, they're always behind schedule, smaller stations have had to close. Sure, there are a few lines with great trains on, modern and far superior than the old services, but these cost and are few and far between. Competition has the effect of raising the standard for the rich at the cost of the poor. The quality is raised for those who can afford it, and everyone else is left with the lowest quality possible. That's the benefit of govt run schemes, they have to be fair and equal to all, private companies just have to make a profit, they're under no obligation whatsoever.

As for a single provider, I don't think there's a single country that doesn't offer a private option. The US is a free market, and the govt wouldn't be able to stop private companies offering their healthcare packages. Furthermore, I'm sure they would really have to change their tactics to win customers if facing a much cheaper govt option.

But they do...our laws are so often the subject of whoever had the most money to donate. This situation is no different. Not to mention that the government here is know for red tape and offering cookie cutter service. If you want cookie cutter health care, then that is your right support it. But there will be no "interest" to provide better care. At least with private companies, they have an "interest" in staying in business.

But the private companies, between them, have a monopoly. The Insurance market, be it health or house or car, is based on making money. At the moment there is no alternative but to use an HMO, and as such, they can do whatever they want - and what they do is provide less care. In a govt funded scheme, the doctors will make the decisions, not those concerned with making profit. One would hope that doctors, judging by their very choice of profession, care. This coupled with the freedom to treat people without worrying if insurance will cover the bill, would leave doctors free to treat people based on their need.

US politicians already enjoy this kind of service. It's about time the US population did too.

I do not know what you mean by HMO being forced and the only choice, I have a PPO.

Also, if you think doctors will decide what the best care is for you, you missed out a few months back...I will look it up later for you to see if it passed. It was some stuff that if I recall was tied into the bail out I think, or at least done around the same time. Basically it was to force a computerized database accessible by all doctors to make treatment easier.
But, and there is always a but...they included blanket statements about how it will also be able to make sure doctors do not perform/prescribe/etc anything that is not normal,unusual or special; or risk consequences for such action.

That right there is the government telling your doctor what is best. They are not even in charge yet.

Originally Posted by edgray

What do you think he's lying here? He's simply presenting facts and adding editorial comment, albeit with a leftist slant.

Like I said....propaganda. Propaganda is showing the positives of only one side, and/or showing only the negatives of another side, for the sake of swaying opinions. Propaganda.

But the private companies, between them, have a monopoly.

You could say that of every industry.

I am sorry to those who do not have health care, and there are some things I wouldn't mind seeing going away (no coverage for pre-existing conditions or being dropped while under coverage). ...but I am not unhappy with my coverage at all, and I am just a simple diesel tech.

Yes, it was passed with the bailout. It forms what they call a National Coordinator of Health Information Technology.

Their goal is to guide doctors in their treatment and care.

Sen. Daschle even stated doctors need to, "learn to operate less like solo practitioners."
Forgive me if this sounds biased (though I am sure I have ripped on both sides equally so far), but that statement is typical Democrat/leftist talk for, "we are going to be in charge here."

So how far this reaches is anyones guess, but one thing is for sure...

You statement here:

Politicians, however corrupt, wouldn't be able to deny care, as in a govt system those decisions would lie with the doctors.

...is false. Politicians in America, namely Presidents, are generally in charge of political appointments. You can rest assured this will be one of them. Our doctors, even if there is no reform, soon will have to start answering to them.

Again, its a sick joke to think this is about anything but control.

Originally Posted by Outlaws

I do not know what you mean by HMO being forced and the only choice, I have a PPO.

Also, if you think doctors will decide what the best care is for you, you missed out a few months back...I will look it up later for you to see if it passed. It was some stuff that if I recall was tied into the bail out I think, or at least done around the same time. Basically it was to force a computerized database accessible by all doctors to make treatment easier.
But, and there is always a but...they included blanket statements about how it will also be able to make sure doctors do not perform/prescribe/etc anything that is not normal,unusual or special; or risk consequences for such action.

I wasn't aware of PPOs, thanks for enlightening me. It all amounts to the same thing though - profit over care. Your provider decides when and where you can get treated.

Well in the UK politicians don't make healthcare decisions because they're not qualitified doctors. We have boards of doctors who decide what care is given nationally. This means that doctors cannot get given bonuses and so forth for pushing certain drugs over others. This removes the power tht the pharmaceutical industry has, which in the US, is huge. It leads to people being prescribed drugs when not necessary.

A centralised computer database of treatments is considered one of the pinnicals of the NHS in the UK, it saves time, money and keeps the standard of care high for all.

That right there is the government telling your doctor what is best. They are not even in charge yet.

It will be doctors that decide, maybe not practising ones, but you need medical training to decide on treatments. I doubt very much a senator in Washington decides how an army serviceman holds his M16, or how the FBI tackle hostage procedures, or how firemen enter a burning building, those decisions iare left to those highly skilled in that particular field. Healthcare would be the same.

Like I said....propaganda. Propaganda is showing the positives of only one side, and/or showing only the negatives of another side, for the sake of swaying opinions. Propaganda.

True. But there are very little unbiased voices in the world. And you have to try and get the facts from somewhere. Might as well be from someone who uses facts as the basis of their arguments.

You could say that of every industry.

To an extent.

I am sorry to those who do not have health care, and there are some things I wouldn't mind seeing going away (no coverage for pre-existing conditions or being dropped while under coverage). ...but I am not unhappy with my coverage at all, and I am just a simple diesel tech.

We'll all hope you never fall seriously ill then, maybe once your insurer has denied you treatment for this or that, or refused to pay because you didn't pre-approve something. Maybe then you'll reconsider.

Yes, it was passed with the bailout. It forms what they call a National Coordinator of Health Information Technology.

Their goal is to guide doctors in their treatment and care.

As mentioned above, standards are a good thing. A national coordinator would surely be a good thing? The recommendations given by these systems aren't set in stone, and I'm sure there will still be plenty of room for doctors to use their best ideas. As I mentioned, it will be trained physicians choosing the treatments, and I'm sure it will be based on likelihood of success, not profits.

Sen. Daschle even stated doctors need to, "learn to operate less like solo practitioners."

Unless you're 100% sure YOUR doctor is the smartest, most highly skilled doctor on the planet, why would that be a bad thing? Most industries have standards and they have them for a reason - it helps raise the standard by spreading the most current knowledge.

Forgive me if this sounds biased (though I am sure I have ripped on both sides equally so far), but that statement is typical Democrat/leftist talk for, "we are going to be in charge here."

I don't know about that I'm afraid. I'm not denying there is a large portion of the left wing that loves control, as there is on the right. Personally, I'm on the left, but I want my doctor to be in control, not anyone else. There is no reason why this won't be the case. A centralised database of treatments will not take responsibility away from him or her. The buck will always stop with the doctor.

So how far this reaches is anyones guess, but one thing is for sure...

You statement here:
...is false. Politicians in America, namely Presidents, are generally in charge of political appointments. You can rest assured this will be one of them. Our doctors, even if there is no reform, soon will have to start answering to them.

Again, its a sick joke to think this is about anything but control.

On medical decisions? Do you think Obama will decide what pills you're prescribed? How would he know? He's not a doctor!!! You doctor will make those decisions based on their training.