Health care reform discussion continues...
#1
Moderator
Thread Starter
Health care reform discussion continues...
continued from http://forum.dvdtalk.com/politics-wo...insurance.html
#2
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Health care reform discussion continues...
Originally Posted by Dr Mabuse
But it's the fact that most every other major nation on earth has wonderful health care systems going with the government playing a role. They curtail the profiteering of corrupt health care companies, and deliver excellent care.
The US system, left to corporations, spends magnitudes more money than any nation on earth to make corrupt billionaires richer, and has the worst care of any major nation.
The US system, left to corporations, spends magnitudes more money than any nation on earth to make corrupt billionaires richer, and has the worst care of any major nation.
2) I think that most would agree with you that costs are out of control and that abuses are at times horrendous. Government oversight in specific areas seems like it could be much more workable. There is a big difference between oversight and anything being proposed.
After all this discussion, one thing I'm glad about in all this is that certain abuses and problems are being brought to light. The good thing about that is that it is highly likely that health care providers are not immune to this press. Companies in the past have been shown to address public concerns like "being green" in great ways. I look forward to our more people-friendly healthcare companies who go out of their way to prove that they are not guilty of the abuses being brought up. Of course, as long as the costs are so high, it could be hard to drive rates down too far. So maybe in the wake of this crisis, some good will (PR) will be extended in that department as well. The people need to demand it.
People will feel good about switching to a "clean" provider... even if it costs the same. Heck the good feelingness might even improve their health.

#3
DVD Talk God
Re: Health care reform discussion continues...
Originally Posted by Dr Mabuse
But it's the fact that most every other major nation on earth has wonderful health care systems going with the government playing a role. They curtail the profiteering of corrupt health care companies, and deliver excellent care.
#4
DVD Talk God
Re: Health care reform discussion continues...
Originally Posted by Dr Mabuse
I remember they pulled Bush's strings during the whole 'order cheaper drugs form Canada' thing. Remember that? Bush himself, as well as many congressman and senators came out saying drugs from Canada were not like drugs form the US, they might be poisonous.
That's power.
We're past regulation.
That's power.
We're past regulation.
That's power.
#5
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 75 clicks above the Do Lung bridge...
Posts: 18,946
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Re: Health care reform discussion continues...

They stopped Clinton's attempt in it's tracks. So again, simple facts show that they can stop a "takeover"(though you probably don't realize it, you are parroting one of the tenets of the propaganda there). If you somehow forget that about the Clinton plan, then I guess the hypothetical you pose above might make some sense. That was only ~15 years ago kvr... are you slipping?
They are stopping this current health reform bill with the "takeover", "government bureaucrat between you and your doctor", etc propaganda campaign. Polls are showing the stuff is working. Ignorant, weak minded Americans who really know almost nothing about the facts of US health care are easily swayed by the powerful putting out propaganda.
It's already hopeless this session. Obama is facing that fact and hoping for it by the end of the year now. I won't be surprised if the mostly ignorant American public yet again embraces the bullshit of billionaires and stays with the current corrupt system that kills so many for corrupt profiteering.
#6
DVD Talk God
Re: Health care reform discussion continues...
I will embrace it. 
I want to live as free as possible, making as many of my own decisions as possible. Government does not support that.

I want to live as free as possible, making as many of my own decisions as possible. Government does not support that.
#8
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 75 clicks above the Do Lung bridge...
Posts: 18,946
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Re: Health care reform discussion continues...
People wealthy enough to do that, travel for care, don't need to, they can pay for healthcare out of pocket. Though Americans who can do travel for specialists, just like those who come here do, it's mostly for highly specialized care. The same kind of highly specialized care that many Americans are denied by either having NO insurance, or having that treatment denied by their insurance company. OOPS we're not supposed ot mention that. That millions are denied that care right here in America, the BEST health care in the world. Or they lose their life's savings and have to sell their house to pay for it themselves.
Healthy examples
Plenty of countries get healthcare right.
By Jonathan Cohn
July 5, 2009
“I DON’T WANT America to begin rationing care to their citizens in the way these other countries do.”
That was Arizona Senator Jon Kyl, speaking last month about healthcare reform. But it could have been virtually any other Republican, not to mention any number of sympathetic interest groups, because that’s the party line for many who oppose healthcare reform. If President Obama and his supporters get their way, this argument goes, healthcare in America will start to look like healthcare overseas. Yes, maybe everybody will have insurance. But people will have to wait in long lines. And when they are done waiting in line, the care won’t be very good.
Typically the people making these arguments are basing their analysis on one of two countries, Canada and England, where such descriptions hold at least some truth. Although the people in both countries receive pretty good healthcare - their citizens do better than Americans in many important respects - they are also subjected to longer waits for specialty care and tighter limits on some advanced treatments.
But no serious politician is talking about recreating either the British or the Canadian system here. The British have truly “socialized medicine,” in which the government directly employs most doctors. The Canadians have one of the world’s most centralized “single-payer” systems, in which the government insures everybody directly and private insurance has virtually no role. A better understanding for how universal healthcare might work in America would come from other countries - countries whose insurance architecture and medical cultures more closely resemble the framework we’d likely create here.
Last year, I had the opportunity to spend time researching two of these countries: France and the Netherlands. Neither country gets the attention that Canada and England do. That might be because English isn’t their language. Or it might be because they don’t fit the negative stereotypes of life in countries where government is more directly involved in medical care.
Over the course of a month, I spoke to just about everybody I could find who might know something about these healthcare systems: Elected officials, industry leaders, scholars - plus, of course, doctors and patients. And sure enough, I heard some complaints. Dutch doctors, for example, thought they had too much paperwork. French public health experts thought patients with chronic disease weren’t getting the kind of sustained, coordinated medical care that they needed.
But in the course of a few dozen lengthy interviews, not once did I encounter an interview subject who wanted to trade places with an American. And it was easy enough to see why. People in these countries were getting precisely what most Americans say they want: Timely, quality care. Physicians felt free to practice medicine the way they wanted; companies got to concentrate on their lines of business, rather than develop expertise in managing health benefits. But, in contrast with the US, everybody had insurance. The papers weren’t filled with stories of people going bankrupt or skipping medical care because they couldn’t afford to pay their bills. And they did all this while paying substantially less, overall, than we do.
The Dutch and the French organize their healthcare differently. In the Netherlands, people buy health insurance from competing private carriers; in France, people get basic insurance from nonprofit sickness funds that effectively operate as extensions of the state, then have the option to purchase supplemental insurance on their own. (It’s as if everybody is enrolled in Medicare.) But in both countries virtually all people have insurance that covers virtually all legitimate medical services. In both countries, the government is heavily involved in regulating prices and setting national budgets. And, in both countries, people pay for health insurance through a combination of private payments and what are, by American standards, substantial taxes.
You could be forgiven for assuming, as Kyl and his allies suggest, that so much government control leads to Soviet-style rationing, with people waiting in long lines and clawing their way through mind-numbing bureaucracies every time they have a sore throat. But, in general, both the Dutch and French appear to have easy access to basic medical care - easier access, in fact, than is the American norm.
In both the Netherlands and France, most people have long-standing relationships with their primary care doctors. And when they need to see these doctors, they do so without delay or hassle. In a 2008 survey of adults with chronic disease conducted by the Commonwealth Fund - a foundation which financed my own research abroad - 60 percent of Dutch patients and 42 percent of French patients could get same-day appointments. The figure in the US was just 26 percent.
The contrast with after-hours care is even more striking. If you live in either Amsterdam or Paris, and get sick after your family physician has gone home, a phone call will typically get you an immediate medical consultation - or even, if necessary, a house call. And if you need the sort of attention available only at a formal medical facility, you can get that, too - without the long waits typical in US emergency rooms.
This is particularly true in the Netherlands, thanks to a nationwide network of urgent care centers the government and medical societies have put in place. Not only do these centers provide easily accessible care for people who use them; they leave hospital emergency rooms free to concentrate on the truly serious cases. Tellingly, a Dutch physician I met complained to me that waiting times in her emergency room had been getting “too long” lately. “Too long,” she went on to tell me, meant two or three hours. When I told her about documented cases of people waiting a day, or even days, for treatment in some American emergency rooms, she thought I was joking. (In a 2007 Commonwealth Fund survey, just 9 percent of Dutch patients reported waiting more than two hours for care in an ER, compared to 31 percent of Americans.)
Dutch and French patients do wait longer than Americans for specialty care; around a quarter of respondents to the Commonwealth Fund survey reported waiting more than two months to see a specialist, compared to virtually no Americans. But Dutch and French patients were far less likely to avoid seeing a specialist altogether - or forgoing other sorts of medical care - because they couldn’t afford it. And there’s precious little evidence that the waits for specialty care led to less effective care.
On the contrary, the data suggests that while American healthcare is particularly good at treating some diseases, it’s not as good at treating others. (In some studies, the US did pretty well on cardiovascular care, not so well on diabetes, for example.) Overall, the US actually fares poorly on measures like “potential years of lives lost” - statistics compiled by specialists in an effort to measure how well healthcare systems perform. In a 2003 ranking of 20 advanced countries, the US finished 16th when it came to “mortality amenable to healthcare,” another statistic that strives to capture the impact of a health system. The Dutch were 11th and the French were fifth. These statistics are necessarily crude; diet, culture, and many other factors inevitably affect the results. But, taken together, they make it awfully hard to argue that care in these countries is somehow inferior. If anything, the opposite would seem to be true.
Critics of health reform frequently point to cancer as proof that American healthcare really is superior. And, it’s true, the US has, overall, the world’s highest five-year survival rate for cancer. But that’s partly a product of the unparalleled amount of government-funded research in the US - something healthcare reform would not diminish. Besides, it’s not as if the gap is as large or meaningful as reform critics frequently suggest. France (like a few other European countries) has survival rates that are generally close and, for some cancers, higher. Much of the remaining difference reflects differences in treatment patterns that have nothing to do with insurance arrangements and everything to do with idiosyncratic medical cultures. This is particularly true of prostate cancer, where a staggeringly high survival rate in the US seems to be largely a product of aggressive US treatment - treatment that physicians in other countries, and increasingly many specialists here, consider unnecessary and sometimes harmful.
None of this is to say that either the Dutch or French systems are perfect. Far from it. In both countries, healthcare costs are rising faster than either the public - or the country’s business interests - would like. And each country has undertaken reforms in an effort to address these problems. The French have started to introduce some of the managed care techniques familiar to Americans, like charging patients extra if they see specialists without a referral, while developing more evidence-based treatment guidelines in the hope that it will reduce the use of unnecessary but expensive treatments. The Dutch overhauled their insurance arrangements a few years ago, to introduce more market competition and reward healthcare providers - that is, doctors and hospitals - who get good results.
But cost is the one area in which France and the Netherlands are a lot like Canada and England: They all devote significantly less of their economy to healthcare than we do. The French spend around 11 percent of their gross domestic product on healthcare, the Dutch around 10. In the US, we spend around 16 percent. And, unlike in the US, the burden for paying this is distributed across society - to both individuals and businesses - in an even, predictable way.
Of course, reforming health insurance in the US isn’t going to turn this country into France or the Netherlands overnight, any more than it would turn the US into Britain and Canada. The truth is that the changes now under consideration in Washington are relatively modest, by international standards. But insofar as countries abroad give us an idea of what could happen, eventually, if we change our health insurance arrangements, the experience of people in Amsterdam and Paris surely matters as much as - if not more than - those in Montreal and London. In those countries, government intervention has created a health system in which people seem to have the best of all worlds: convenience, quality, and affordability. There’s no reason to think the same thing couldn’t happen here.
Jonathan Cohn is a senior editor of The New Republic, where he writes a blog called “The Treatment.” He is also the author of “Sick: The Untold Story of America’s Health Care Crisis - and the People Who Pay the Price (HarperCollins, 2007).
© Copyright 2009 Globe Newspaper Company.
Plenty of countries get healthcare right.
By Jonathan Cohn
July 5, 2009
“I DON’T WANT America to begin rationing care to their citizens in the way these other countries do.”
That was Arizona Senator Jon Kyl, speaking last month about healthcare reform. But it could have been virtually any other Republican, not to mention any number of sympathetic interest groups, because that’s the party line for many who oppose healthcare reform. If President Obama and his supporters get their way, this argument goes, healthcare in America will start to look like healthcare overseas. Yes, maybe everybody will have insurance. But people will have to wait in long lines. And when they are done waiting in line, the care won’t be very good.
Typically the people making these arguments are basing their analysis on one of two countries, Canada and England, where such descriptions hold at least some truth. Although the people in both countries receive pretty good healthcare - their citizens do better than Americans in many important respects - they are also subjected to longer waits for specialty care and tighter limits on some advanced treatments.
But no serious politician is talking about recreating either the British or the Canadian system here. The British have truly “socialized medicine,” in which the government directly employs most doctors. The Canadians have one of the world’s most centralized “single-payer” systems, in which the government insures everybody directly and private insurance has virtually no role. A better understanding for how universal healthcare might work in America would come from other countries - countries whose insurance architecture and medical cultures more closely resemble the framework we’d likely create here.
Last year, I had the opportunity to spend time researching two of these countries: France and the Netherlands. Neither country gets the attention that Canada and England do. That might be because English isn’t their language. Or it might be because they don’t fit the negative stereotypes of life in countries where government is more directly involved in medical care.
Over the course of a month, I spoke to just about everybody I could find who might know something about these healthcare systems: Elected officials, industry leaders, scholars - plus, of course, doctors and patients. And sure enough, I heard some complaints. Dutch doctors, for example, thought they had too much paperwork. French public health experts thought patients with chronic disease weren’t getting the kind of sustained, coordinated medical care that they needed.
But in the course of a few dozen lengthy interviews, not once did I encounter an interview subject who wanted to trade places with an American. And it was easy enough to see why. People in these countries were getting precisely what most Americans say they want: Timely, quality care. Physicians felt free to practice medicine the way they wanted; companies got to concentrate on their lines of business, rather than develop expertise in managing health benefits. But, in contrast with the US, everybody had insurance. The papers weren’t filled with stories of people going bankrupt or skipping medical care because they couldn’t afford to pay their bills. And they did all this while paying substantially less, overall, than we do.
The Dutch and the French organize their healthcare differently. In the Netherlands, people buy health insurance from competing private carriers; in France, people get basic insurance from nonprofit sickness funds that effectively operate as extensions of the state, then have the option to purchase supplemental insurance on their own. (It’s as if everybody is enrolled in Medicare.) But in both countries virtually all people have insurance that covers virtually all legitimate medical services. In both countries, the government is heavily involved in regulating prices and setting national budgets. And, in both countries, people pay for health insurance through a combination of private payments and what are, by American standards, substantial taxes.
You could be forgiven for assuming, as Kyl and his allies suggest, that so much government control leads to Soviet-style rationing, with people waiting in long lines and clawing their way through mind-numbing bureaucracies every time they have a sore throat. But, in general, both the Dutch and French appear to have easy access to basic medical care - easier access, in fact, than is the American norm.
In both the Netherlands and France, most people have long-standing relationships with their primary care doctors. And when they need to see these doctors, they do so without delay or hassle. In a 2008 survey of adults with chronic disease conducted by the Commonwealth Fund - a foundation which financed my own research abroad - 60 percent of Dutch patients and 42 percent of French patients could get same-day appointments. The figure in the US was just 26 percent.
The contrast with after-hours care is even more striking. If you live in either Amsterdam or Paris, and get sick after your family physician has gone home, a phone call will typically get you an immediate medical consultation - or even, if necessary, a house call. And if you need the sort of attention available only at a formal medical facility, you can get that, too - without the long waits typical in US emergency rooms.
This is particularly true in the Netherlands, thanks to a nationwide network of urgent care centers the government and medical societies have put in place. Not only do these centers provide easily accessible care for people who use them; they leave hospital emergency rooms free to concentrate on the truly serious cases. Tellingly, a Dutch physician I met complained to me that waiting times in her emergency room had been getting “too long” lately. “Too long,” she went on to tell me, meant two or three hours. When I told her about documented cases of people waiting a day, or even days, for treatment in some American emergency rooms, she thought I was joking. (In a 2007 Commonwealth Fund survey, just 9 percent of Dutch patients reported waiting more than two hours for care in an ER, compared to 31 percent of Americans.)
Dutch and French patients do wait longer than Americans for specialty care; around a quarter of respondents to the Commonwealth Fund survey reported waiting more than two months to see a specialist, compared to virtually no Americans. But Dutch and French patients were far less likely to avoid seeing a specialist altogether - or forgoing other sorts of medical care - because they couldn’t afford it. And there’s precious little evidence that the waits for specialty care led to less effective care.
On the contrary, the data suggests that while American healthcare is particularly good at treating some diseases, it’s not as good at treating others. (In some studies, the US did pretty well on cardiovascular care, not so well on diabetes, for example.) Overall, the US actually fares poorly on measures like “potential years of lives lost” - statistics compiled by specialists in an effort to measure how well healthcare systems perform. In a 2003 ranking of 20 advanced countries, the US finished 16th when it came to “mortality amenable to healthcare,” another statistic that strives to capture the impact of a health system. The Dutch were 11th and the French were fifth. These statistics are necessarily crude; diet, culture, and many other factors inevitably affect the results. But, taken together, they make it awfully hard to argue that care in these countries is somehow inferior. If anything, the opposite would seem to be true.
Critics of health reform frequently point to cancer as proof that American healthcare really is superior. And, it’s true, the US has, overall, the world’s highest five-year survival rate for cancer. But that’s partly a product of the unparalleled amount of government-funded research in the US - something healthcare reform would not diminish. Besides, it’s not as if the gap is as large or meaningful as reform critics frequently suggest. France (like a few other European countries) has survival rates that are generally close and, for some cancers, higher. Much of the remaining difference reflects differences in treatment patterns that have nothing to do with insurance arrangements and everything to do with idiosyncratic medical cultures. This is particularly true of prostate cancer, where a staggeringly high survival rate in the US seems to be largely a product of aggressive US treatment - treatment that physicians in other countries, and increasingly many specialists here, consider unnecessary and sometimes harmful.
None of this is to say that either the Dutch or French systems are perfect. Far from it. In both countries, healthcare costs are rising faster than either the public - or the country’s business interests - would like. And each country has undertaken reforms in an effort to address these problems. The French have started to introduce some of the managed care techniques familiar to Americans, like charging patients extra if they see specialists without a referral, while developing more evidence-based treatment guidelines in the hope that it will reduce the use of unnecessary but expensive treatments. The Dutch overhauled their insurance arrangements a few years ago, to introduce more market competition and reward healthcare providers - that is, doctors and hospitals - who get good results.
But cost is the one area in which France and the Netherlands are a lot like Canada and England: They all devote significantly less of their economy to healthcare than we do. The French spend around 11 percent of their gross domestic product on healthcare, the Dutch around 10. In the US, we spend around 16 percent. And, unlike in the US, the burden for paying this is distributed across society - to both individuals and businesses - in an even, predictable way.
Of course, reforming health insurance in the US isn’t going to turn this country into France or the Netherlands overnight, any more than it would turn the US into Britain and Canada. The truth is that the changes now under consideration in Washington are relatively modest, by international standards. But insofar as countries abroad give us an idea of what could happen, eventually, if we change our health insurance arrangements, the experience of people in Amsterdam and Paris surely matters as much as - if not more than - those in Montreal and London. In those countries, government intervention has created a health system in which people seem to have the best of all worlds: convenience, quality, and affordability. There’s no reason to think the same thing couldn’t happen here.
Jonathan Cohn is a senior editor of The New Republic, where he writes a blog called “The Treatment.” He is also the author of “Sick: The Untold Story of America’s Health Care Crisis - and the People Who Pay the Price (HarperCollins, 2007).
© Copyright 2009 Globe Newspaper Company.
None of them want to change places with Americans and lose everything they've worked for to pay to save their life.
You know Obama set this site up to give people a place to tell some of their stories. People who are insured, as several put forth in this thread that means they have the 'BEST damned health care in the WORLD!'.
Some of the stories are interesting to read. Kvr you put forth the 'hard work' thing as divine, you might read how thousands of those who worked hard lost everything, including their lives, here in the 'best health care in the world' system.

#9
DVD Talk God
Re: Health care reform discussion continues...
Fine, put in a Pakistan type program where the government offers nothing but catastrophic coverage. But NooOOOOoooo, that isn't what they want. They want it all. They have no interest in going for something good, they want to go for something that gives them the most power over everything.
Don't tell me that there is only one side of propaganda on this subject, because there isn't. And The Obama is not looking for an unobtrusive solution that is best for the most free nation on the planet. He has a bill so large and cumbersome he hasn't read all of it. At a press conference he didn't know about the provision that would fine people $2,500 per year if they don't get insurance "voluntarily."
So why not set up just catastrophic coverage, since that is the real issue that sends people to the poor house, destroys families, etc?
Don't tell me that there is only one side of propaganda on this subject, because there isn't. And The Obama is not looking for an unobtrusive solution that is best for the most free nation on the planet. He has a bill so large and cumbersome he hasn't read all of it. At a press conference he didn't know about the provision that would fine people $2,500 per year if they don't get insurance "voluntarily."
So why not set up just catastrophic coverage, since that is the real issue that sends people to the poor house, destroys families, etc?
#11
DVD Talk God
Re: Health care reform discussion continues...
#12
DVD Talk God
Re: Health care reform discussion continues...
So, followers of The Obama, why not do this? Depending on the particulars, I probably wouldn't oppose this.
#13
DVD Talk God
Re: Health care reform discussion continues...
#14
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Formerly known as "orangecrush18" - still legal though
Posts: 13,844
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Re: Health care reform discussion continues...
I'll keep posting them because they are still a good example:
http://www.healthbeatblog.org/2008/0...h-care-in.html
spoilerized for size (I did some bolding though):
There are some very good points about the ages of population and growth of GDP, but overall they provide a very good example of what works.
http://www.healthbeatblog.org/2008/0...h-care-in.html
spoilerized for size (I did some bolding though):
Spoiler:
#15
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Formerly known as "orangecrush18" - still legal though
Posts: 13,844
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Re: Health care reform discussion continues...
I'll keep posting them because they are still a good example:
http://www.healthbeatblog.org/2008/0...h-care-in.html
spoilerized for size (I did some bolding though):
There are some very good points about the ages of population and growth of GDP, but overall they provide a very good example of what works.
http://www.healthbeatblog.org/2008/0...h-care-in.html
spoilerized for size (I did some bolding though):
Spoiler:
Last edited by orangecrush; 07-21-09 at 02:12 PM.
#17
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Formerly known as "orangecrush18" - still legal though
Posts: 13,844
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Re: Health care reform discussion continues...
I agree. But I also think "best care" is a bit of a misnomer. Plenty of people get so-so care in this country and think it is the best. A lot of us think that other countries level of care is crap. I think for the most part if you get a run of the mill disease or common aliment, you get just as good of care in many other countries. If you get the rare crap, you are generally better off here.
#19
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 75 clicks above the Do Lung bridge...
Posts: 18,946
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Re: Health care reform discussion continues...
I still haven't seen anyone put forth why they have such a quasi-religious faith in greedy billionaires who are bilking the US into ruin.
It'll be funny for someone to actually try to put that into words. Someone give it a shot.
The model we have now is a 100% failure. No doubt, no question, no possibility of any other outcome. Under this system the US goes broke in 2-3 decades.
That's not very far off.
It'll be funny for someone to actually try to put that into words. Someone give it a shot.
The model we have now is a 100% failure. No doubt, no question, no possibility of any other outcome. Under this system the US goes broke in 2-3 decades.
That's not very far off.
#20
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Formerly known as "orangecrush18" - still legal though
Posts: 13,844
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Re: Health care reform discussion continues...
I still haven't seen anyone put forth why they have such a quasi-religious faith in greedy billionaires who are bilking the US into ruin.
It'll be funny for someone to actually try to put that into words. Someone give it a shot.
The model we have now is a 100% failure. No doubt, no question, no possibility of any other outcome. Under this system the US goes broke in 2-3 decades.
That's not very far off.
It'll be funny for someone to actually try to put that into words. Someone give it a shot.
The model we have now is a 100% failure. No doubt, no question, no possibility of any other outcome. Under this system the US goes broke in 2-3 decades.
That's not very far off.
#21
DVD Talk God
Re: Health care reform discussion continues...
It'll be funny for someone to actually try to put that into words. Someone give it a shot.
The model we have now is a 100% failure. No doubt, no question, no possibility of any other outcome. Under this system the US goes broke in 2-3 decades.
That's not very far off.
That's not very far off.
#23
DVD Talk God
Re: Health care reform discussion continues...
I still haven't seen anyone put forth why they have such a quasi-religious faith in greedy billionaires who are bilking the US into ruin.
It'll be funny for someone to actually try to put that into words. Someone give it a shot.
The model we have now is a 100% failure. No doubt, no question, no possibility of any other outcome. Under this system the US goes broke in 2-3 decades.
That's not very far off.
It'll be funny for someone to actually try to put that into words. Someone give it a shot.
The model we have now is a 100% failure. No doubt, no question, no possibility of any other outcome. Under this system the US goes broke in 2-3 decades.
That's not very far off.
"Quasi-religious faith in greedy billionaires." That's some interesting spin. I don't see it as faith in greedy billionaires. I see it as distrust of government controlling more facets of life. I've seen this distrust from you in numerous areas.
I don't know if the current system is 100% failure. I'm doubtful - I happen to like my insurance plan. Even if it is 100% failure, some of us happen to believe that you put government in control and you'll get 110% failure.
#24
DVD Talk God
#25
DVD Talk God
Re: Health care reform discussion continues...
What's wrong with the global catastrophic coverage? Keeps people out of the poor house, etc. Solves the problems the propaganda you prefer seems to yell about. Just not enough government involvement? Doesn't cost enough?