outlw6669 :
Perhaps you should stop drinking the Beck/Limbaugh kool-aid and learn something about the real world before posting your drivel
You obviously have no idea how universal health care works and are showing pure ignorance by making posts like this.
I've never even listened to Rush Limbaugh, and there is no Beck kool-aid, he just provides statistics, quotes, and facts. What you do with those things is up to you. You're the one drinking the Gibson/Sawyer kool-aid, and maybe even the Obama/Pelosi kool-aid. You obviously have no idea how universal health care works. I said
I have heard of several cases, and I wasn't talking about on a radio show. I heard from friends and peers who had lived in Canada or still live there. Universal healthcare, in both Britain and Canada, has created enormous waiting lines because of too many people and not enough facilities/money. If you think universal healthcare is so wonderful, then why don't you try it out in Britain/Canada first? I know the polls say Canadians like their healthcare. That's partly because the people who have really bad experiences with the system move out of the country. If you'd been paying attention, Canada's population has stayed within a few ten thousand people of the same number for several decades. The population isn't growing because people leave that country more than people leave Mexico.
Before I delve into what is wrong with the Canadian and British systems, let us take a look at the healthcare that has been practiced in Massachusetts for a while now, and is similar to universal healthcare:
- Only 26% of people in Massachusetts believe the reform has been a success. 37% believe it has been a failure
- 21% say it's more affordable now. 27% say it's less affordable now. When you look into the demographics, 29% of the poor say that the healthcare reforms have made healthcare less affordable, to 27% who say it's more affordable. The only group who has a positive answer to that question saying that overall it's been more affordable are people who make over $100,000 per year. Everyone else says the exact opposite, that either it's right close to equal or it's made it less affordable.
- 10 big percent of people have found that it's increased the quality of the healthcare. The problem with that, 29% say it has made the quality worse. 32% of people with children say it has gotten worse, 5% better. People making less than $20,000 a year are split: 26% saying it got worse, 25% better. 39% of people making over $100,000 a year have found it to be worse than the previous system.
Now let's examine the bill going through Congress:
- It will add $1,000,000,000,000 to our debt. That's not the cost, that's the unfunded cost, which means the bill costs much more than that. $1 Trillion. Think about it.
- 58% of the bill's effects will serve to move people from their current insurance to a new fancy government subsidize exchange. 58%. Where does the bulk of the money go? "The federal government would subsidize the purchase of health insurance through those exchanges for individuals and families with incomes between 150% and 500% of the federal poverty level. These subsidies would represent the greatest single component of the proposal's cost."
So let's now see what this really means. Take a family of four. If you make between $33,000 and $110,000 a year, the government is going to pay for some of your healthcare insurance and it will be on a sliding scale. A lot of Republicans will say, "Oh, the Democrats want to pay for your health insurance up to $110,000 a year," but that's not true. There is no limit. It's based on family size. For example, you are going to be paying for octomom's health insurance even if octomom pulls in $203,000. You will be paying for octomom's family. As long as Jon and Kate plus 8 remain Jon and Kate plus 8, you are on the hook even if they make over $220,000. But wait, there's more. What about all of the people that make less than $33,000 a year? They are not covered! "Expanded eligibility for the Medicaid program may be added at a later date. A significant expansion of Medicaid would have an effect both on the federal budget and on the extent of insurance coverage." Translation: This trillions of dollars of debt thing, everybody's worked up about a trillion, it's only dealing with the people who are relatively well off. It's not even accounting for a major expansion of Medicaid, which is coming. Unless you think Barack Obama is going to sign a healthcare plan that helps the wealthy and not the poor.
So how are we paying for the part that
is going to be paid for? Three sources: 1. Increases in tax revenues stemming from the decline in employment based coverage. 2. Payments of
penalties by uninsured individuals. 3. Reductions in outlays for Medicaid and CHIP.
What's this about penalties? The uninsured are paying for the other uninsured. The "evil rich people" are not footing the bill. Most people who do not sign up for the universal healthcare will pay penalties that will pay for the plan in part. "The proposal will also impose a financial cost on most people who do not obtain insurance, the size of which would be set by the secretary of the treasury."
Now, if that sounds like the worst part, it isn't. The one way they get more money to pay for free healthcare is by reclaiming the tax breaks you are currently getting on insurance. That was number one. The way it works now is your company gets a tax break if they give you insurance. This is not going to hurt people's insurance that they already have. You got good insurance at work? Don't worry about it; you're not going to but since they are projecting that so many people are going to be getting rid of their workplace insurance, the money's not going to be tax free anymore. The CBO also
assumes that companies will basically give you all the money that they used to spend on healthcare as additional wages. So in other words, you don't get healthcare, the company says, "Well, I ain't supplying it anymore; get it from the government." The government is just assuming once they finish taxing the rich and the businesses in other areas that they are just going to take that money that they had been spending on healthcare and just give it to you. They just, "I don't know what I'm going to do with that extra five grand. What do I do with it? I'll just give it to John," who's now getting his free healthcare benefit from the government. Why would a company invest that in the company? Why would the company take that money and try to offset some of the extra costs that the company has incurred in other areas because of taxes? So all of the money that the company has saved from giving their healthcare to the government is now going to be taxed. We don't live in magical fairy land, your boss isn't going to give you the extra cash.
Now let's look at the British system:
The prostate cancer survival rate in Britain, for a five year survival, is 75%. In the U.S., it's virtually 100%. There are many procedures the British government just won't pay for, so people go elsewhere to receive treatment. And in the U.S., you get to choose a doctor, you get to choose the specialists. And if you are unsatisfied, you can go for better treatment elsewhere. And that's what is missing in the British system or in any state‑run system. You basically have to put up with whatever you're given. Here is a statement made by Daniel Hannan, a member of the British parliament, in response to the question, "Is there anything that shows you, anywhere in Europe that healthcare gets better for the elderly if you are in universal programs?":
Hannan: "The opposite is true. First of all I'm slight ‑‑ I'm going to slightly convolute the use of the word universal. I mean, I haven't ‑‑ I've been here a few days now and I haven't seen anybody kind of dragging their broken leg behind them down the street because they are not getting treated. So you already have universal healthcare in the sense that if you are in need of treatment, you get it, right? But no, I mean, if you look at our system, they probably reflect the values of society to some extent when I say this, but this isn't really an excuse for it. It is very good at treating children. They will make a real effort if your child is sick. They will move whatever machinery they can to get you the treatment you need. But elderly people, you know, Glenn, I could tell you horror stories of people that are left without being fed, left without having their beds changed, you know, and it's the worst situation to find yourself in because there's nothing you can do about it. You've got no opportunity for redress as the user of the system. The whole NHS is based around the idea that you are a supplicant, you are meant to be grateful for anything you get, you are meant to smile and say thank you, doctor, and if you are dissatisfied, that's too bad."
Another statement from Hannan:
"I mean, if your health system was that bad, why is the whole world knocking at the door to try and get in and use it. Look, I don't think the U.S. healthcare system is perfect, right, because nothing is perfect in this life. And it's not for us to create perfection. But you can improve your system without junking the essence of it which is that you get to choose as a consumer."
And the Canadian system? They don't cover radiated pellets, which are used to treat/cure cancer. We use them, and many people come from Canada to receive the treatment. Now, I'm borrowing this next one from the "evil hatemongering Glenn Beck."
"22‑year‑old Gary Reinbach...drank too many adult beverages and he was in dire need of a liver transplant. Okay, so he had some adult beverages. He was making a choice. Unfortunately for Gary under his universal healthcare plan, he didn't qualify for a liver donor under the strict national healthcare service rules. "We've got to be strict. We've got to be able to have enough money for those eyeless kids ‑‑ well, not eyeless. They get eyes if they are eyeless, but they get eyes and eyelids." Anyway, Gary was an alcoholic. Those bums. According to his family, he was desperately trying to get better, and a few weeks earlier he had checked into Alcoholics Anonymous. Unfortunately that wasn't proof enough for the powers that be, you know, the people that Charlie Rangel talks to in the elevator. They refused treatment for Gary and he died. He was 22 years old. 22. He had an addiction. He died. Now we can take his eyelids off of his dead body and give them to children in this grand universal healthcare scheme. I don't know about you, but I can't wait for government healthcare. All the caring, all the loving that's going on. They just want to give you healthcare coverage. That's all. It has nothing to do with power, control over people. No, no, no, no. It's about you. They love you. They loved Gary. The doctors, it's said by me, that they held him and they wept with him as he died. They just, they couldn't understand why some wouldn't let him die, why some would say, "Hey, he was 22." Okay, maybe I don't want to give him my liver, but is there anybody else out there that wants to give him liver? You know what I mean? How about a cow? Can we try to stitch in a cow liver for the guy? What do you say we give him a roll? He's 22 years old. What do you say? No? How is it that we just don't care? He started drinking when he was 13. You don't want to give him a liver? Do you know what he went through as a child? Do you know what his childhood was like? Oh, my gosh. Do you know what his parents were like? "No, I have no idea what his parents were like, either, and I don't really care." Isn't that what we're all supposed to do? We're supposed to talk like this? He had a bad childhood, and his whole childhood he laid awake at night because dust was coming from the ceiling. He didn't have any eyelids. They love you. It's about you. It's about your healthcare... unless you are the main cause of your health problem and you can't prove that you're going to get better. Like me, I'm an alcoholic. All alcoholics will tell you, once you hit recovery, you'll never, ever drink again. You're done. I could work at a ‑‑ I could be a taste tester at Jack Daniels. I could prove it today. In fact, I might. Oh, and this administration might make me want to. If you can't prove you are going to get better, well, they have to kill you. But hey, at least you didn't have to make a copay for that last hospital visit."
Our healthcare system isn't perfect, but it's a lot better than the ones used in Britain and Canada, and making ours more like theirs isn't going to solve anything.
How about the 
Seriously, read the book; at least it's not boring. :lol: Best wishes.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram