Former Top Canadian Dr. Brian Day: Obamacare Will Bring Rationed Care & Skyrocketing

belme1201 said:
The "partisan hacks" on the other side would like nothing better than no bill at all. The evidence is there in the history of the past 15 years. What do they care what happens as long as the government continues to pay for their healthcare and the healthcare industry contunues making "contributions" to them?
George Will mentioned Nixon today, he also pointed out how inexpensive healthcare was then, so, apparently, there was no great pressure to change the system then and noone could anticipate the costs skyrocketing as they have.
You want to ask me "again" a question I don't recall being asked, however, even if I did understand the question, I don't understand the relevence of illegal abortion with the topic.
Paraphrasing you, "putting this on the solid faith that the 'for-profit healthcare industry' will be forever altruistic is IMO just retarded". The evidence is in the fact that the entire system is up for discussion today based on the questionable results of the past in a private system. The fact that some already have their insurance paid by third parties and have not had to experience being turned loose into the system is probably the reason for any, valid or invalid, controversy at all.
Regarding your point about the WWII Japanese and, to a lesser extent, Germans, and our conduct toward Native Americans, I would like to point out that, in addition to slavery and Jim Crow, all of the above were deemed Constitutional, a result of the document maybe you and certainly almost all of the others of your political persuasion, and their voices, contend is heresy to consider subject to interprative change, even if necessitated by time and progress. The country's policies toward Native Americans had already begun at the time of those same Founding Fathers that wrote the Constitution, that and slavery were, apparently, not problems in their minds. Is it an example of the foibles of government? Sure, but in this instance, isn't it a case of having your cake and eating it too when placing it in context with the healthcare issue?
Click to expand...
LOL> That they were "deemed" constitutional doesn't make it better or give us any reason to trust the government. You make my argument for me.

Thanks.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Just once, I want one of these opponents of single payer system health care to stand in front of a MSM camera and say, "Here's the deal, I've got mine and I don't give a shit about anyone else.....but somebody better be there to put food in the supermarkets, clean my streets, keep that coffee shop open, etc., whenever I need them. And if even SUSPECT that any of my tax dollars are going to help out anyone else, they'll be hell to pay."

Then at least we'll all know where we stand with each other.
Click to expand...
apple0154 said:
That reminded of this article. I'd give appropriate credit but I don't know who the author is.


Joe Republican

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards.

With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.

All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too.

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union.

If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

It is noon time and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe also forgets that his in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he attended a state funded university.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the tax-payer funded roads.
He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day.

Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."
Click to expand...

:hand::woot:
 
Last edited:
Damocles said:
LOL> That they were "deemed" constitutional doesn't make it better or give us any reason to trust the government. You make my argument for me.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

You're quite welcome.
I am in agreement with the examples you gave of governmental misdeeds, but, conversely, you have given no reasons to support the trustworthiness or altruism of the private sector which carries the additional albatross of adding profits to the cost of healthcare. Thanks in return.
You made no mention of my point regarding using both sides of the same coin for one's political positions. In this case, the good guys are the bad guys and their governing document is bad but it's good, or is it the reverse?
 
Last edited:
belme1201 said:
You're quite welcome.
I am in agreement with the examples you gave of governmental misdeeds, but, conversely, you have given no reasons to support the trustworthiness or altruism of the private sector which carries the additional albatross of adding profits to the cost of healthcare. Thanks in return.
You made no mention of my point regarding using both sides of the same coin for one's political positions. In this case, the good guys are the bad guys and their governing document is bad but it's good, or is it the reverse?
Click to expand...
Again, the private sector cannot exempt itself from lawsuit and other means of direct action by the consumer, the government does and did in this very bill that we so consistently discuss (but will not likely even resemble what is finally voted on.)

My point is, there are more courses of action left to you if the private sector does you wrong than the government will allow if they do. Shoot, it takes almost an act of God to even open a business on a Reservation. Those few that were able to get past the massive red tape do well, but it was the same story for them when they were under the government thumb. This government isn't beneficent, it is not something to be trusted, and it exempts itself from lawsuits and punishment and other tools that could be used by the consumer to extract some portion of punishment for those that do wrongly.
 
Damocles said:
Again, the private sector cannot exempt itself from lawsuit and other means of direct action by the consumer, the government does and did in this very bill that we so consistently discuss (but will not likely even resemble what is finally voted on.)

My point is, there are more courses of action left to you if the private sector does you wrong than the government will allow if they do. Shoot, it takes almost an act of God to even open a business on a Reservation. Those few that were able to get past the massive red tape do well, but it was the same story for them when they were under the government thumb. This government isn't beneficent, it is not something to be trusted, and it exempts itself from lawsuits and punishment and other tools that could be used by the consumer to extract some portion of punishment for those that do wrongly.
Click to expand...

I agree that the lack of legal recourse is disturbing.

But what's the trade-off? Would the need for legal recourse be as great? I'm not saying the gov't can be trusted, but many of the problems w/ the current system come from valuing profit over life. It's not extreme to say that, by the time an individual can work something through the legal system in a dispute, they could easily be dead, or much worse off as far as their health goes.

I'm not proclaiming to know the answer, or which is better. The status quo isn't cutting it, though.
 
Onceler said:
I agree that the lack of legal recourse is disturbing.

But what's the trade-off? Would the need for legal recourse be as great? I'm not saying the gov't can be trusted, but many of the problems w/ the current system come from valuing profit over life. It's not extreme to say that, by the time an individual can work something through the legal system in a dispute, they could easily be dead, or much worse off as far as their health goes.

I'm not proclaiming to know the answer, or which is better. The status quo isn't cutting it, though.
Click to expand...
I believe that fiscal budgets will create many of the same issues with the government "solution" that will leave us with no recourse.

As for the "status quo" that is your straw man. I've presented at least four different options that would not involve the government taking a direct role in the insurance business (their proper role is to regulate and enforce, not to provide). There are even more sitting in the hands of the committee chair, never to see the light in the Committee because the "government option" is the sole solution that so many will accept on the other side and they believe that no political credit should go to the originators' party at all costs.
 
Onceler said:
I agree that the lack of legal recourse is disturbing.

But what's the trade-off? Would the need for legal recourse be as great? I'm not saying the gov't can be trusted, but many of the problems w/ the current system come from valuing profit over life. It's not extreme to say that, by the time an individual can work something through the legal system in a dispute, they could easily be dead, or much worse off as far as their health goes.

I'm not proclaiming to know the answer, or which is better. The status quo isn't cutting it, though.
Click to expand...

i keep hearing the left say this.....who has really advocated only teh status quo? i haven't, i don't know anyone who has....

you see, you guys don't even see your own fear mongering
 
Yurt said:
i keep hearing the left say this.....who has really advocated only teh status quo? i haven't, i don't know anyone who has....

you see, you guys don't even see your own fear mongering
Click to expand...


Past performance by a party or industry is all the evidence one can assemble to indicate the future. The fact that they don't say they want nothing does not in my estimation prove they want change in anything, but would prefer a "Waterloo" by doing nothing. In other words, there's no there there.
 
Damocles said:
Again, the private sector cannot exempt itself from lawsuit and other means of direct action by the consumer, the government does and did in this very bill that we so consistently discuss (but will not likely even resemble what is finally voted on.)

My point is, there are more courses of action left to you if the private sector does you wrong than the government will allow if they do. Shoot, it takes almost an act of God to even open a business on a Reservation. Those few that were able to get past the massive red tape do well, but it was the same story for them when they were under the government thumb. This government isn't beneficent, it is not something to be trusted, and it exempts itself from lawsuits and punishment and other tools that could be used by the consumer to extract some portion of punishment for those that do wrongly.
Click to expand...

But haven't you, in the past, wanted to limit tort actions by individuals toward the private healthcare industry? Why do individual rights to sue take on greater importance when directed toward the government as opposed to the private sector? I hold them of equal importance, although on many other matters beside those in this particular bill, the government is not subject to law suits, why the exception here?
I fail to see the "Reservation" connection, though I suspect what you mention is a result of the historic exploitation of Indians by their guests.
I can substitute the private sector into every castigation you make toward the government, and the statement would be equally true if not moreso. I presume that if the bill allowed tort action against the government and the private sector equally, you would support it?
 
belme1201 said:
But haven't you, in the past, wanted to limit tort actions by individuals toward the private healthcare industry? Why do individual rights to sue take on greater importance when directed toward the government as opposed to the private sector? I hold them of equal importance, although on many other matters beside those in this particular bill, the government is not subject to law suits, why the exception here?
I fail to see the "Reservation" connection, though I suspect what you mention is a result of the historic exploitation of Indians by their guests.
I can substitute the private sector into every castigation you make toward the government, and the statement would be equally true if not moreso. I presume that if the bill allowed tort action against the government and the private sector equally, you would support it?
Click to expand...
No, I have never suggested we limit lawsuits. That is something you are projecting onto me. However, limited recourse is better than none. And no, I do not believe that trusting in the altruism of government is a wise idea, even if they temporarily enact pro-lawsuit legislation. In fact I believe it is some of the most foolhardy idiocy I have seen in a very long time. I cannot believe that the same people that think that Bush stomped on rights would give that same government power over their health care in any way other than regulation and oversight. We cannot afford to give this kind of power to a government that has proven even today to step beyond their reasonable boundaries.

It is some of the most amazing stuff that people can forget so quickly how somebody they disagree with can overstep their authority in order to give the government that will again in the future be under that same party's power. Do you really want some future "Bush" to have this power?
 
Damocles said:
No, I have never suggested we limit lawsuits. That is something you are projecting onto me. However, limited recourse is better than none. And no, I do not believe that trusting in the altruism of government is a wise idea, even if they temporarily enact pro-lawsuit legislation. In fact I believe it is some of the most foolhardy idiocy I have seen in a very long time. I cannot believe that the same people that think that Bush stomped on rights would give that same government power over their health care in any way other than regulation and oversight. We cannot afford to give this kind of power to a government that has proven even today to step beyond their reasonable boundaries.

It is some of the most amazing stuff that people can forget so quickly how somebody they disagree with can overstep their authority in order to give the government that will again in the future be under that same party's power. Do you really want some future "Bush" to have this power?
Click to expand...

You make a valid point, however, that's democracy. We give governments the power to go to war which is, IMO, the greatest power they can hold. Being in charge of medical coverage sort of pales in comparison.

On a few occasions I've contemplated what might have happened if the Iraqi invasion had gone well. Imagine if, say, two years after the invasion Iraq has settled down. Few or no insurgents. Would we have gone into Syria and Iran? Would the USSR and the US be aiming missiles at each other across the Afghan/Uzbekistan/Tajikistan borders? What would Borat think?

Maybe we should all be thankful for the Iraqi mess? Maybe it saved the world from ultimate disaster?
 
froggie said:
Tort reform and practice standards are too biggies that is true, and they do need to be controlled.

Medicaid is better than nothing, but needs to be retooled, also.

To qualify for Medicaid you have to get rid of all your assets, or have limited assets, correct? or have I been misinformed? I don't see anything human about making someone poorer than they already are.
Click to expand...

I don't, either. In any case, what about people who were hard-working, productive mortgage holders who lost their jobs in the recession? Granted you can't live the same lifestyle when jobless, but paying all the regular bills plus COBRA on unemployment insurance is impossible.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
More biased Rightie nonsense.

And you try to support your lie with an op-ed piece?
Click to expand...

...and as usual, one giving false info. Below is a link to a .pdf copy of the actual booklet and there's absolutely zero, zilch, nada in it about euthanasia.

On Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace hosted former Bush administration aide Jim Towey to discuss his recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, "The Death Book for Veterans," and in doing so promoted numerous distortions about an end-of-life educational booklet used by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). In addition to forwarding the smear that the booklet is a "death book," Wallace promoted Towey's distortion that the booklet encourages veterans to "pull the plug" -- it doesn't; Wallace and Towey both claimed that the Bush administration suspended use of the booklet -- it didn't; and Wallace claimed that a VHA document requires doctors to direct veterans to the booklet -- it doesn't.

http://www.ethics.va.gov/YLYC/YLYC_First_edition_20001001.pdf
 
christiefan915 said:
...and as usual, one giving false info. Below is a link to a .pdf copy of the actual booklet and there's absolutely zero, zilch, nada in it about euthanasia.

On Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace hosted former Bush administration aide Jim Towey to discuss his recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, "The Death Book for Veterans," and in doing so promoted numerous distortions about an end-of-life educational booklet used by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). In addition to forwarding the smear that the booklet is a "death book," Wallace promoted Towey's distortion that the booklet encourages veterans to "pull the plug" -- it doesn't; Wallace and Towey both claimed that the Bush administration suspended use of the booklet -- it didn't; and Wallace claimed that a VHA document requires doctors to direct veterans to the booklet -- it doesn't.

http://www.ethics.va.gov/YLYC/YLYC_First_edition_20001001.pdf
Click to expand...

Look at page 21 and tell me that this isn't a table to help you figure out if your life is worth living. *shrug*
 
Southern Man said:
Look at page 21 and tell me that this isn't a table to help you figure out if your life is worth living. *shrug*
Click to expand...

I read the entire manual before posting it. Even if a person feels that life isn't worth living because of terminal disease, etc., there's nothing directing someone to pull the plug unless it's authorized under a living will.
 
christiefan915 said:
I posted a link to the .pdf manual and there's nothing about euthanasia in it.

http://www.ethics.va.gov/YLYC/YLYC_F...n_20001001.pdf
Click to expand...
here is what the gov. rep has to say:

But Tammy Duckworth, an injured veteran who is the assistant secretary for the Department of Veterans Affairs, said the manual is still under revision -- as stated in a disclaimer on the official Web site -- and has not officially been "reinstated."

She said it was one of many options for injured veterans, calling it "simply a tool."

"This ultimately is about the ... health care for veterans," Duckworth said.

Though Duckworth said the document has not been fully vetted, an official directive from July tells VA health practitioners to refer veterans to the document. Duckworth questioned whether that directive had been authorized at the highest levels.

Towey said the questions posed by the guide embed the suggestion that veterans who are suffering may want to choose death.

One section titled, "What Makes Your Life Worth Living?," offers a checklist of scenarios -- the person filling out the form is asked to rate whether life would be worth living under each of them.

"I am a severe financial burden on my family," says one of them. "My situation causes severe emotional burden for my family," says another.

Click here to read the "Your Life, Your Choices" guide.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/23/sen-specter-calls-hearings-end-life-care-guide-veterans/
 
christiefan915 said:
I read the entire manual before posting it. Even if a person feels that life isn't worth living because of terminal disease, etc., there's nothing directing someone to pull the plug unless it's authorized under a living will.
Click to expand...
What's the purpose of asking someone that question?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top