What Medical Care Has Come To

Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Location
Northern California
I just received the e-mail below from a member of my family.
The case is real!

The Affordable Care Act is REAL!

All prayers will be appreciated!

MaryJean


HI
Katie just left, she has cancer again. starting last week she could not pee, went to the Dr. and he drained her and then a cat scan and found a lump at the top of her vagina where the Dr. sewed her closed, and the lump was also against her bladder, he also took a contrasting ex ray but that was of no help. called her Dr. in Seattle and was told to be up there yesterday to be admitted to the hospital.
Obamacare will not o.k. the surgery because surgery needs to be 30 days apart so she has to wait 30 days to have this second fast growing cancer removed. the Dr wanted to do 3 more contrasting I. V. arm, stomach and drink Obamacare said no and the /Dr. called and argued and the next day they agreed to the test. the growth is the size of a baseball and has already invaded her vagina walls and now they want to do a brain test to see if it has spread to her brain. It seems the brain is where the cancer from the stomach/overall cancer heads for.

the surgeon told her that he will be on the phone as long as the Obamacare office is open to get the o.k. so in the mean time she is wearing a catheter and go's for blood work twice a day and if there is any change [ they are also watching for kidney damage ]. a temporary surgery date is Tuesday if all the o.k.s come in.

now on top of everything else Obamacare will not give her estrogen meds. Obamacare is sure great. tell your friends

I am going to go have a rum and coke. maybe a double.
Pat
 
I just received the e-mail below from a member of my family.
The case is real!

The Affordable Care Act is REAL!

All prayers will be appreciated!

MaryJean


HI
Katie just left, she has cancer again. starting last week she could not pee, went to the Dr. and he drained her and then a cat scan and found a lump at the top of her vagina where the Dr. sewed her closed, and the lump was also against her bladder, he also took a contrasting ex ray but that was of no help. called her Dr. in Seattle and was told to be up there yesterday to be admitted to the hospital.
Obamacare will not o.k. the surgery because surgery needs to be 30 days apart so she has to wait 30 days to have this second fast growing cancer removed. the Dr wanted to do 3 more contrasting I. V. arm, stomach and drink Obamacare said no and the /Dr. called and argued and the next day they agreed to the test. the growth is the size of a baseball and has already invaded her vagina walls and now they want to do a brain test to see if it has spread to her brain. It seems the brain is where the cancer from the stomach/overall cancer heads for.

the surgeon told her that he will be on the phone as long as the Obamacare office is open to get the o.k. so in the mean time she is wearing a catheter and go's for blood work twice a day and if there is any change [ they are also watching for kidney damage ]. a temporary surgery date is Tuesday if all the o.k.s come in.

now on top of everything else Obamacare will not give her estrogen meds. Obamacare is sure great. tell your friends

I am going to go have a rum and coke. maybe a double.
Pat

Sounds rather like the NHS over here. Clinical need taking second place to financial targets. Hospitals have been known to leave their operating theatres idle because they have managed to beat the expected number of operations in the financial year, but instead of being rewarded for this performance, they are told to sit idle till the start of the new financial year, whereas they could be lowering the waiting lists for surgery.

We also have the "postcode lottery" where you can live in one place and get a more effective treatment that preserves quality of life, whereas live elsewhere, and the cost of treatment is considered too great to justify where it can only increase quality and length of life, rather than offer a chance of a cure.

Seems that this Obamacare has also fallen foul of financial considerations taking priority over clinical need. One could face the same problems with private medical insurance, they too will seek to minimise the costs, rather than maximise the quality of life.
 
SCARY

It is not only "greedy" but mean spirited as well.

Sold to us as "Affordable"---"Better than the Junk Policies that we had purchased ourselves" etc. etc.

This lady is not even "old and dispensable"---she is a young mother with two small children!-----But they truly DON'T CARE!

MaryJean
 
Sounds rather like the NHS over here. Clinical need taking second place to financial targets. Hospitals have been known to leave their operating theatres idle because they have managed to beat the expected number of operations in the financial year, but instead of being rewarded for this performance, they are told to sit idle till the start of the new financial year, whereas they could be lowering the waiting lists for surgery.

We also have the "postcode lottery" where you can live in one place and get a more effective treatment that preserves quality of life, whereas live elsewhere, and the cost of treatment is considered too great to justify where it can only increase quality and length of life, rather than offer a chance of a cure.

Seems that this Obamacare has also fallen foul of financial considerations taking priority over clinical need. One could face the same problems with private medical insurance, they too will seek to minimise the costs, rather than maximise the quality of life.
"Obamacare", properly called Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is not like the NHS. It is not a state run healthcare system. The essence of the law is that individuals not covered by their employer's health insurance or by programmes like Medicare and Medicaid have to buy health insurance and insurers have to provide insurance at the same price regardless of the applicant's pre-existing conditions. The decision not to authorise the operation was not taken by any government agency, but by the health insurer and this is nothing new, in particular, HMOs (
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
) have always had a reputation for trying to keep costs down at the patients' expense. The point is that the claim "Obamacare will not OK the surgery" is false, it is probably spread deliberately by Republicans.
 
"Obamacare", properly called Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is not like the NHS. It is not a state run healthcare system. The essence of the law is that individuals not covered by their employer's health insurance or by programmes like Medicare and Medicaid have to buy health insurance and insurers have to provide insurance at the same price regardless of the applicant's pre-existing conditions. The decision not to authorise the operation was not taken by any government agency, but by the health insurer and this is nothing new, in particular, HMOs (
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
) have always had a reputation for trying to keep costs down at the patients' expense. The point is that the claim "Obamacare will not OK the surgery" is false, it is probably spread deliberately by Republicans.

Very well said GM.

I'm always appalled by how easily US citizens are brainwashed by the political party they follow almost blindly.

It's part of the reason the USA is slipping behind many countries and why it's so hard to get stuff done. Just about every political view I read from US members, and from other sources, is extreme right or extreme left....and it's killing America IMO.
 
Very well said GM.

I'm always appalled by how easily US citizens are brainwashed by the political party they follow almost blindly.

It's part of the reason the USA is slipping behind many countries and why it's so hard to get stuff done. Just about every political view I read from US members, and from other sources, is extreme right or extreme left....and it's killing America IMO.

after holding up the world since ww2 it is getting a little burdensome and one might take the time to hoist its nuts as it still
carries on

don't think the constitution is faulty its not , and we have to put up with our corrupt politics as well as the rest of the world
but we never waiver'd in the face of a foe also the new york stock market rules the world

PS and if it wasen't for the Boston tea party there would still be a debtors prison
 
Last edited:
after holding up the world since ww2 it is getting a little burdensome and one might take the time to hoist its nuts as it still
carries on

don't think the constitution is faulty its not , and we have to put up with our corrupt politics as well as the rest of the world
but we never waiver'd in the face of a foe also the new york stock market rules the world

PS and if it wasen't for the Boston tea party there would still be a debtors prison

Let's not get into the world wars rocky.

It's a fact that the USA waited until the most opportune time for THEM to join both wars, to obtain the best advantage for THEM. It's quite possible that, if the Japs hadn't attacked Pearl, the USA would have allowed Germany to invade the UK, or at least come to terms with Hitler and allow him to control Europe.

If the USA were REALLY about "protecting the free world and democracy" and "never waivering in the face of a foe", then they would have joined France and Britain in declaring war on Germany on September 1, 1939. The fact that they waited over 3 years to get involved cost many many thousands of lives that could well have been saved.

Germany was quite weak on it's Western border with France etc for the first year or so of WW2, as Hitler was amassing his troops in the East and using them to quell the Poles and the other occupied lands. In fact, if the French under their withered old generals had decided to attack Hitler in 1939/40 instead of waiting for him to do so, it could be argued that Hitler would have been defeated and, with the addition of British and Commonwealth troops, could have meant that France was never invaded and Dunkirk would never had happened.

So, if the French and British could arguably defeat Hitlers forces in 1939/40, imagine what would have happened had the US decided to join the Allies in 1939. It's even possible that the holocaust may have been avoided....at least on the scale that it developed into after 1942.

Rocky, let's not hear about how everyone owes the USA over WW2. In my view, they were complicit in the unnecessary deaths of tens or even hundreds of thousands of people and troops. If there was more benefit in the US making a seperate peace with Germany and/or Japan, then they would have made it....regardless of the moral considerations and the status of their "free world allies".

Ok, enough now, as I'm derailing. Sorry.
 
Let's not get into the world wars rocky.

It's a fact that the USA waited until the most opportune time for THEM to join both wars, to obtain the best advantage for THEM. It's quite possible that, if the Japs hadn't attacked Pearl, the USA would have allowed Germany to invade the UK, or at least come to terms with Hitler and allow him to control Europe.

If the USA were REALLY about "protecting the free world and democracy" and "never waivering in the face of a foe", then they would have joined France and Britain in declaring war on Germany on September 1, 1939. The fact that they waited over 3 years to get involved cost many many thousands of lives that could well have been saved.

Germany was quite weak on it's Western border with France etc for the first year or so of WW2, as Hitler was amassing his troops in the East and using them to quell the Poles and the other occupied lands. In fact, if the French under their withered old generals had decided to attack Hitler in 1939/40 instead of waiting for him to do so, it could be argued that Hitler would have been defeated and, with the addition of British and Commonwealth troops, could have meant that France was never invaded and Dunkirk would never had happened.

So, if the French and British could arguably defeat Hitlers forces in 1939/40, imagine what would have happened had the US decided to join the Allies in 1939. It's even possible that the holocaust may have been avoided....at least on the scale that it developed into after 1942.

Rocky, let's not hear about how everyone owes the USA over WW2. In my view, they were complicit in the unnecessary deaths of tens or even hundreds of thousands of people and troops. If there was more benefit in the US making a seperate peace with Germany and/or Japan, then they would have made it....regardless of the moral considerations and the status of their "free world allies".

Ok, enough now, as I'm derailing. Sorry.

nifty do yourself a favor and get a tinfoil hat . your talking like a saloon baffoon
 
nifty do yourself a favor and get a tinfoil hat . your talking like a saloon baffoon

I'm really disappointed you've resorted to playground name calling rocky.

If you didn't have any kind of counter-argument, and you obviously don't, then why not just NOT post? Nobody else, including me, has personally insulted anyone in this thread, so I don't see the need for your reply.

If you're offended by history, then there's nothing I can do about that. Sorry.
 
If the USA were REALLY about "protecting the free world and democracy" and "never waivering in the face of a foe", then they would have joined France and Britain in declaring war on Germany on September 1, 1939.

That's NOT what the USA was all about. Policing the world and playing Superpower came much later. Pre-WW1 USA and what they became after WW2 are two completely different animals.
 
I'm really disappointed you've resorted to playground name calling rocky.

If you didn't have any kind of counter-argument, and you obviously don't, then why not just NOT post? Nobody else, including me, has personally insulted anyone in this thread, so I don't see the need for your reply.

If you're offended by history, then there's nothing I can do about that. Sorry.

you don't present anything worth countering except for a caveat to my fellow members especial from the states :rolleyes:
 
Well, Nifty, yes you did insult some folks on here. Me for one, although I'm not sure you really meant to.

It gets tiresome to have my country dumped on at every turn. It's kinda like I can talk about my relatives, but nobody else can.

I was absolutely not meaning to personally insult anyone.

How anyone can take personal offence at historical facts from 70+ years ago....well I just don't know.

I totally understand loving ones country and patriotism, but it shouldn't come hand in hand with selective memory or blindness....and it quite often does.

I apologize if I offended you Annie.

Balthazar.....we can debate exactly when the USA decided every country should be a democracy, but the fact remains that they sat on their hands pretty much for 3 years and watched peoples of their own creed and blood die when they needn't have.

The USA was by far the strongest country in the world post WW2, because Europe and Asia had been almost razed by long years of war and the USA was almost entirely intact. If the USA had come to the defence of Poland and France and the UK in 1939, it's quite possible that Britain would have retained most of her empire, and been a major trading competitor....which the USA didn't want.

IMO, what the USA did (or didn't do as it was) during 1939-1941wasnt much different to what the Red Army did when they reached Warsaw.
 
"Obamacare", properly called Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is not like the NHS. It is not a state run healthcare system. The essence of the law is that individuals not covered by their employer's health insurance or by programmes like Medicare and Medicaid have to buy health insurance and insurers have to provide insurance at the same price regardless of the applicant's pre-existing conditions. The decision not to authorise the operation was not taken by any government agency, but by the health insurer and this is nothing new, in particular, HMOs (
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
) have always had a reputation for trying to keep costs down at the patients' expense. The point is that the claim "Obamacare will not OK the surgery" is false, it is probably spread deliberately by Republicans.

there we go. Game over. :thumbsup:
 
I was absolutely not meaning to personally insult anyone.

How anyone can take personal offence at historical facts from 70+ years ago....well I just don't know.

I totally understand loving ones country and patriotism, but it shouldn't come hand in hand with selective memory or blindness....and it quite often does.

I apologize if I offended you Annie.

Balthazar.....we can debate exactly when the USA decided every country should be a democracy, but the fact remains that they sat on their hands pretty much for 3 years and watched peoples of their own creed and blood die when they needn't have.

The USA was by far the strongest country in the world post WW2, because Europe and Asia had been almost razed by long years of war and the USA was almost entirely intact. If the USA had come to the defence of Poland and France and the UK in 1939, it's quite possible that Britain would have retained most of her empire, and been a major trading competitor....which the USA didn't want.

IMO, what the USA did (or didn't do as it was) during 1939-1941wasnt much different to what the Red Army did when they reached Warsaw.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Home
Sovereignty
Genocide
Treaty
Land Rights
Black GST
Pay the Rent

Home
Rascist Australia - Genocidal Atrocities Overview
An edited version of Australia's Secret Genicide History - By: Dr Gideon Polya

... The reality is that Australia has always been a deeply racist country and continues to be involved in genocidal atrocities. However in recent decades the racism has been covered over publicly by a thin veneer of political correctness. Australia has been involved in all post 1950 US Asian wars that have been associated with Indigenous Asian excess deaths totalling 25 million – yet in politically correct racist Australia, racial vilification and genocide is scarcely even considered.

In 2008 the Rudd Labor Government said "Sorry" to Indigenous Australians for the Stolen Generations (up to 0.1 million Aboriginal children forcible removed from their mothers) – but the Aboriginal genocide continues (9,000 Indigenous Australians die avoidably each year) and the Labor Government continues to apply race-based laws to Northern Territory Aborigines who are forbidden to see, buy, sell, read, consume or transport things that all other Australians can. They have also been removed in a race-specific way from the protection of the anti-racism 1975 Racial Discrimination Act; and can be kicked out of their homes and Homelands without any legal recourse.

... Further, in assessing deaths from particular policies of invasion, occupation and dispossession one notes that deaths can be violent from bombs and bullets, or non-violent, from deprivation and deprivation-exacerbated disease. All of which are avoidable deaths.

Australian Genicide History
The below catalogue of Australian involvement in Genocide as defined by the UN Genocide Convention – and notably in British and American-imposed genocides - is given in roughly chronological order from 1788, the year of European Invasion and First Settlement, to 2008.

1. 18th -19th century Aboriginal Genocide (the Indigenous Aboriginal population dropped from about 1 million to 0.1 million in the first century after invasion in 1788).

2. Tasmanian Aboriginal Genocide (the "full-blood" Indigenous population dropped from 6,000 to zero from 1776 to 1803.

3. British Indian Genocide (post-invasion excess deaths 0.6 billion, 1757-1837; 0.5 billion, 1837-1901 under Queen Victoria; 0.4 Billion, 1901-1947.

4. European Chinese Genocide (10-100 million deaths in the European imperialism-driven Tai Ping rebellion period; Australia was involved in suppressing the Boxer rebellion).

5. Maori Genocide (Maori population dropped from 0.1-0.2 million in 1800 to 42,000 in 1893; Australia was involved in the 19th century Maori wars).

6. African Genocide (scores of million perished over 5 centuries of European slavery and colonialism; Australians participated in the Sudan War, 1881-1898).

7. Pacific Genocide (there was a catastrophic population decline due to introduced disease and slavery; thus 40,000 Fijians died from measles out of a population of 150,000 in 1876; "blackbirding" slavery was conducted by Australians in the late 19th century).

8. Boer (Afrikaaner) Genocide (1899-1902; 28,000 Afrikaaner women and children died in British concentration camps; Australians participated in the Boer War as immortalized in the movie "Breaker Morant").

9. Armenian Genocide (1.5 million killed; the Australian invasion of Gallipoli as part of an Anglo-French force in 1915 helped to precipitate this atrocity; indeed April 24 is Armenian Genocide Day and April 25 is the day of the Australia invasion in 1915 and also a sacred war dead remembrance day for Australians and New Zealanders – it is called Anzac Day after the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (ANZAC) which stormed ashore on that first Anzac Day at Gallipoli in 1915).

10. Bengali Genocide (6-7 million perished in the "forgotten" man-made Bengal Famine atrocity in Bengal and adjoining provinces in British India, 1943-1945; Australians were there and indeed the Governor of Bengal in 1944 was an Australian, R.G. Casey).

11. British post-1950 Third World Genocide (1950-2005 excess deaths in countries subject to British occupation as a major occupier in the post-war era totalled 727 million; Australia has the same Head of State as the UK and continues to be a loyal military ally of the UK in Occupied Iraq and Occupied Afghanistan).

12. US post-1950 Third World Genocide (1950-2005 excess deaths in countries subject to US occupation as a major occupier in the post-war era totalled 82 million; Australia participated in all post-1950 US Asian Wars in Korea, Indo-China, Iraq and Afghanistan with Indigenous Asian excess deaths now totalling 25 million).

13. Australian Colonial Genocide (1950-2005 excess deaths in countries subject to Australian occupation as a major occupier in the post-war era, namely Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands totalled 2.1 million).

14. 20th century Aboriginal Genocide (total excess deaths clearly of the order of 1million; 0.1 million Stolen Generations Aboriginal children forcibly removed from their Mothers in the 19th and 20th centuries; excess deaths in the 11 years of the Bush-ite Coalition Government totalled 90,000 for 1996-2007).

The following Australian genocide involvements in this catalogue of horrors are ongoing.

15. Palestinian Genocide (post-1967 excess deaths 0.3 million, post-1967 under-5 infant deaths 0.2 million and 7 million refugees; with bi-partisan agreement Australia provides diplomatic, financial and haven support for Israeli state terrorism – even when directed against tens of thousands of Australian citizens as in Lebanon in mid-2006 - and up to life imprisonment for anyone giving support to the Hamas Party that overwhelmingly won the 2006 Occupied Palestinian elections).

16. Iraqi Genocide (4 million excess deaths 1990-2008; 2 million post-invasion excess deaths, 0.6 million post-invasion under-5 infant deaths and 4.5 million refugees; Australia militarily involved since 1990 ).

17. Afghan Genocide (3-7 million post-invasion excess deaths, 2.3 million post-invasion under-5 infant and 4 million refugees; Australia involved militarily since 2001).

18. Ongoing Aboriginal Genocide (9,000 excess deaths annually; 90,000 excess deaths in the last 11 years of Bush-ite Coalition rule; see MWC News).

19. Biofuel Genocide (16 million die avoidably each year but this is increasingly biofuel-impacted as the legislatively-mandated US, UK and EU biofuel perversion forces up global food prices; Australia is a major sugar cane grower and sugar exporter with 60% of sugar going to bioethanol production worldwide; Australia has biofuel-promoting legislation and is a major canola grower, this being a major source for biodiesel; see MWC News).

20. Climate Genocide (16 million die avoidably each year already from deprivation and deprivation-exacerbated disease; Professor James Lovelock FRS says that over 6 million will perish this century die to unaddressed climate change; on a per capita basis Australia is among the very worst greenhouse gas (GHG) polluters – in terms of 2004 figures for "fossil fuel-derived annual per capita CO2 pollution" Australia is about 40 times worse than India and 160 times worse than Bangladesh if you include Australia's world number 1 coal exports; see MWC News).

Yet politically correct racist Australia steadfastly "looks the other way" and its past and present involvements in the above atrocities are overwhelmingly not reported by racist, lying, holocaust-ignoring Mainstream media nor taught in Australia's schools and universities. PC racist White Australia just cannot see the "Elephant in the room" – its continuing involvement in over 2 centuries of horrendous genocide.

Australians are trapped in an Orwellian dream - Australia will only stop doing it when it is informed that it is doing it. Please inform everyone you can.

An edited version of Australia's Secret Genicide History
By: Dr Gideon Polya BSc

Article edited by Bruce Skewes, Sub-editor of Treaty Republic

Key References:
A key reference is the book 'Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950' by Dr Gideon Polya. Other relevant books are Chalk, F. and Jonassohn, K. (1990), The History and Sociology of Genocide. Analyses and Case Studies (Yale University Press, New Haven & London); Tatz, C. (2003), With Intent to Destroy. Reflecting on Genocide (Verso, London); and Blum, W. (2006), Rogue State, A guide to the world's only superpower (Zed Books, London).
Other references:
• Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950 (G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 2007).
• Australia's secret genocide history. 'Bundoora Eucalyptus' and Black Crimes of White Australia".
• Stolen Generations. Australian Aboriginal Genocide Aboriginal Genocide.
• Racist White Australian child abuse and passive mass murder
• Australian Aboriginal Genocide
• Australian genocide. Oz ignores Aboriginal Iraqi, Afghan and Climate genocides.

Gideon Polya 'Media wirh conscience'

Login to post comments
Print
 
Balthazar.....we can debate exactly when the USA decided every country should be a democracy, but the fact remains that they sat on their hands pretty much for 3 years and watched peoples of their own creed and blood die when they needn't have.

You need to understand that pre-WW1 USA had a strong isolationist mentality (which goes in line with how and why the country was founded). WW1 was seen as an European civil war and WW2 was basically the continuation of WW1.

It didn't make any sense for them to jump in until they felt threatened.
 
You need to understand that pre-WW1 USA had a strong isolationist mentality (which goes in line with how and why the country was founded). WW1 was seen as an European civil war and WW2 was basically the continuation of WW1.

It didn't make any sense for them to jump in until they felt threatened.

I agree. I'm aware of the isolationist mentality that was popular at the time.

It doesn't change the fact, as you said, that they sat back and watched until they were dragged kicking and screaming into the war (and even that is debatable given that there was only one possible outcome from starving Japan of steel, oil, scrap metal etc). I'm not arguing about the political atmospherebat the time in the US....I'm just stating that US intervention in September 1939 could have saved countless lives....Americans included...and quite possibly avoided the holocaust.

The US did whatever was in their best interests, both politically and commercially/financially. It still does. Actually, it's a country's right to do so....it just shits me to tears when that country claims to be acting to "defend freedom" or in a humanitarian way, when the fact is that the bottom line is always the bottom line I.e. money/resources etc.

We could discuss this whole topic all night, and it could be interesting and stimulating if the personal crap were left out of it, but it probably doesn't belong in this thread, which is about healthcare.
 
it just shits me to tears when that country claims to be acting to "defend freedom" or in a humanitarian way, when the fact is that the bottom line is always the bottom line I.e. money/resources etc.


But they weren't preaching that at the time, that's what I'm trying to say here Nifty. You cannot use WW1/WW2 to prove your point.

I'm not disagreeing with you BTW, the US, just like any other country that ever existed, is acting in its perceived own best interests. Doing otherwise would not be very smart would it?

With that said, back on topic:

Obamacare is, indeed, a big joke destined to failure. It's like he took the worst of both worlds (public and private healthcare) and made something with it. US healthcare is ridiculously expensive because of the middle man taking a big cut (insurance companies) and omnipresent lawsuits.

Obamacare doesn't address these two main issues.

"Everyone will be covered!" Yeah, but who's going to pay for those who couldn't afford it before? Businesses? The insurance companies? LOL!
 
But they weren't preaching that at the time, that's what I'm trying to say here Nifty. You cannot use WW1/WW2 to prove your point.

I'm not disagreeing with you BTW, the US, just like any other country that ever existed, is acting in its perceived own best interests. Doing otherwise would not be very smart would it?

With that said, back on topic:

Obamacare is, indeed, a big joke destined to failure. It's like he took the worst of both worlds (public and private healthcare) and made something with it. US healthcare is ridiculously expensive because of the middle man taking a big cut (insurance companies) and omnipresent lawsuits.

Obamacare doesn't address these two main issues.

"Everyone will be covered!" Yeah, but who's going to pay for those who couldn't afford it before? Businesses? The insurance companies? LOL!

Are you saying politicians in ANY country actually practice what they preach?? :eek2: :D
 
The Affordable Care Act is clearly not the great solution it was marketed to be, part of the reason is because how it was picked apart before it was enacted.

For a long time the citizens have been clamoring for health care reform and past politicians here have been too terrified of insurance lobbyists to do anything. I sincerely believe President Obama is making an effort to help people and I believe his intentions are good.

To the OP, the situation cast upon your family is regrettable but you could just as easily have a family member who is benefiting greatly from the new legislation. Before the ACA there were plenty of stories of insurance companies and HMOs making all kinds of counter intuitive and downright stupid decisions and many families suffered because of it.

While it will provide little solace to families negatively affected, history has shown that major change generally hurts at first and the status quo was clearly failing many Americans.

And as far as the other banter, the United States of America may not be as great as it can be but it is still a very young Country and can still, IMO, be considered a grand experiment. As a citizen here I feel the US is the greatest Nation on our planet. I would expect many citizens of other Nations feel the same about their respective Nations and if they do not they should certainly be involved in some way of trying to improve their situations.
 
Last edited:
The problem is it's a system that allows people to be turned away from health care. That's no better than it ever was. As long as commercial insurance companies are involved people are going to continue to be turned away from coverage.

No person should ever be turned away from health care. It's barbaric.
 
Well Guys and Gals----I didn't mean to start WWIII !

All I wanted was your prayers for my young family member and her small children, who happen to have fallen victim to this new obsession started by the latest occupier of the White House and his fellow manipulators.

This lady is not the first and only victim of this new legislation. There have been several families making it known that their previously 'liked' and efficient health care was working for them! People who had been being treated for cancer etc. and now FORCED out of their original policy and into Obamacare--have lost their doctors because the doctor refuses to serve under Obomacare or has not been 'approved' by the government---and their medication (chemo etc) is being refused them, when it was working!

Are all of the horror stories exactly true or are some embellished? I can't answer that, but when I know from my own experience that this lady--when time is of essence--is refused treatment because she has just had surgery that didn't cure the cancer in the first place, simply because it hasn't been 30 days since they did it, and this delay may very well allow the cancer to spread to her brain-----this I know to be a TRUE horror story. A story of the total lack of humanitarionism in legislated medical laws.

There is no bureaucrat that knows a patient like his own doctor.

You can say all you want about those "evil" insurance companies, but there you could buy the kind of policy that you felt was needed for your family----it was your choice---here we are being TOLD what we have to have, and it is obviously inadequate for what we need.

The country was sold a bill of goods---quack medicine if you will--- and as Nancy Pelosi so famously said----"we have to pass it to know what is in it!"

Well now we know---

Again, I am sorry for starting World War III here at CM----I was only asking for your prayers for a very nice young family in trouble.

And I might add---for a world in trouble.

MaryJean
 
Well Guys and Gals----I didn't mean to start WWIII !

All I wanted was your prayers for my young family member and her small children, who happen to have fallen victim to this new obsession started by the latest occupier of the White House and his fellow manipulators.

This lady is not the first and only victim of this new legislation. There have been several families making it known that their previously 'liked' and efficient health care was working for them! People who had been being treated for cancer etc. and now FORCED out of their original policy and into Obamacare--have lost their doctors because the doctor refuses to serve under Obomacare or has not been 'approved' by the government---and their medication (chemo etc) is being refused them, when it was working!

Are all of the horror stories exactly true or are some embellished? I can't answer that, but when I know from my own experience that this lady--when time is of essence--is refused treatment because she has just had surgery that didn't cure the cancer in the first place, simply because it hasn't been 30 days since they did it, and this delay may very well allow the cancer to spread to her brain-----this I know to be a TRUE horror story. A story of the total lack of humanitarionism in legislated medical laws.

There is no bureaucrat that knows a patient like his own doctor.

You can say all you want about those "evil" insurance companies, but there you could buy the kind of policy that you felt was needed for your family----it was your choice---here we are being TOLD what we have to have, and it is obviously inadequate for what we need.

The country was sold a bill of goods---quack medicine if you will--- and as Nancy Pelosi so famously said----"we have to pass it to know what is in it!"

Well now we know---

Again, I am sorry for starting World War III here at CM----I was only asking for your prayers for a very nice young family in trouble.

And I might add---for a world in trouble.

MaryJean

That seems to be the root of the problem. If it worked, why fix it. Surely Obamacare was intended to fix what WAS broken, which was people who could not get healthcare by any other means. It happens here too, parts of the NHS that were working OK get fixed, and then break down. They "fixed" the dentists, and soon it became impossible to get dental treatment on the NHS in some areas as many dentists decided to pull out of the new "fixed" NHS regime. They then managed to make the GP (family doctor) system worse by forcing new contracts on to them, and again this drove some out altogether. Still not satisfied, they kept tinkering with the systems that moved people up the chain to hospital care, every time they tinkered, some people reported the break down of what was a working treatment plan.

If there was too much being taken by "middlemen" then surely the best fix would have been to increase competition in the market, and cut out as many middlemen as possible. Lower prices would then make private health insurance more affordable. They could then have added a safety net system to cover those conditions that are not insurable, such as birth defects and congenital diseases. Insurance companies could also be given tax breaks for covering loss making policies for the social good alongside their profitable policies for the wealthier citizens.

We have private health companies and insurers here too, but they are designed to offer a premium service for those prepared and able to pay, such as more luxurious hospitals, faster treatment of non life threatening conditions, some "cosmetic" treatments not covered by the NHS, etc. The NHS is the basic service that ensures everyone can get care for urgent medical problems.
 
Well Guys and Gals----I didn't mean to start WWIII !

All I wanted was your prayers for my young family member and her small children, who happen to have fallen victim to this new obsession started by the latest occupier of the White House and his fellow manipulators.

This lady is not the first and only victim of this new legislation. There have been several families making it known that their previously 'liked' and efficient health care was working for them! People who had been being treated for cancer etc. and now FORCED out of their original policy and into Obamacare--have lost their doctors because the doctor refuses to serve under Obomacare or has not been 'approved' by the government---and their medication (chemo etc) is being refused them, when it was working!

Are all of the horror stories exactly true or are some embellished? I can't answer that, but when I know from my own experience that this lady--when time is of essence--is refused treatment because she has just had surgery that didn't cure the cancer in the first place, simply because it hasn't been 30 days since they did it, and this delay may very well allow the cancer to spread to her brain-----this I know to be a TRUE horror story. A story of the total lack of humanitarionism in legislated medical laws.

There is no bureaucrat that knows a patient like his own doctor.

You can say all you want about those "evil" insurance companies, but there you could buy the kind of policy that you felt was needed for your family----it was your choice---here we are being TOLD what we have to have, and it is obviously inadequate for what we need.

The country was sold a bill of goods---quack medicine if you will--- and as Nancy Pelosi so famously said----"we have to pass it to know what is in it!"

Well now we know---

Again, I am sorry for starting World War III here at CM----I was only asking for your prayers for a very nice young family in trouble.

And I might add---for a world in trouble.

MaryJean

Here is an example of what I meant about political polarization that clouds what could be a reasonable argument.

What I mean is.....whilst the rest of the post might be accurate and/or reasonable (I don't know now for the reason I'm about to explain), the first few sentences contain a strong subjective opinion:

"This new obsession started by the latest occupier of the White House and his fellow manipulators"

The minute I read a statement like that....and such statements are common when US citizens talk about these kinds of topics on the net....I immediately begin viewing the rest of the information or "facts" as suspicious and most probably contorted somehow, or totally one-eyed. As a non-US person interested in US stuff, it's very frustrating as it seems everyone has either a democratic or republican agenda to push.

Bigjohn's post is actually an exception to that. Well done.

So, from reading your posts maryjean.....

1. Is Obama called each time a medical decision has to be made? Or one of his staffers?

2. Was the Obamacare legislation passed in it's original form? If not, what changes were made by the opposition?

3. Assuming that the answer to 1. is no, who IS making these decisions? Surely it's they who should be copping the flak?


4. Are more people covered for healthcare than pre-Obamacare?

5. What is the reason for the 30 day rule? Surely there is a medical reason?

I agree with skiny. Less than 100% healthcare for 100% of citizens is barbaric. IMO, the biggest problem in the US healthcare system is the HMOs...they have become way too powerful and profitable, and continually put money ahead of people to line the pockets of their investors. Perhaps when US citizens stop playing the political card, and start demanding action be taken against the REAL culprits, the system might actually become about people BEFORE profit.

The NHS IN the UK and Medicare over here might have their flaws, but I'm proud to say that I can get FREE medical treatment, including surgery and allied health and drugs, whenever I need it. I can visit a doctor or specialist whenever I need to, and go to an ER and/or call an ambulance anytime without cost. We can purchase private health insurance if we like, and get choice of hospital and doctor and quicker treatment for elective and non urgent procedures, but if we don't, we are still covered. I'll take that over any US system any day...and it's supported by all sides of politics, so it ain't going to change.
 
The system is obviously not perfect but it's a start. I'm sure there will be many changes made to it over the decades to come.

I'm not sure how people are saying it's any worse though. If you've had private health care in the past aren't you still able to buy your own insurance if you're not happy with it?
 
If you've had private health care in the past aren't you still able to buy your own insurance if you're not happy with it?

They can't keep what they had before.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


I could put hundreds of links but you get the point.

That thing is a HUGE disaster. If everyone is covered including those who can't afford it and those with pre-existing medical conditions, and no one is taking a pay cut then WHO'S GOING TO PAY?

If you force insurance companies to insure people that aren't insurable, either these companies will go bankrupt or they'll find the money elsewhere. This system cannot work as long as insurance companies are involved. Healthcare is either for-profit or it's not, it cannot be in-between.

Obamacare is a big step back, if anything. Ultimately it will be used as an example to fuel people who believe that when the government gets involved things are getting worse.
 
Thank you Balthazar!

I can see that you have a clearer vision than many people, even here in the States, but as that video shows, many of those people are receiving a huge shock when they finally see what the Obamacare rules and regulations have in store for them personally.

My late husband and I were covered under a group insurance from our employer---a very large insurance company by the way. A couple of years ago, that insurance company realized that the atmosphere under government regulations was going to make it entirely too expensive for them to continue with the coverages that they were giving us. (We did pay a portion)--They started then to make arrangements for us to get other coverage. Many glitches had to be managed even at that time so the cutoff date for our personal care was delayed and delayed. This was to our advantage because my husband was very ill and needed a great deal of hospital care. I would see statements of Tens of Thousands of dollars come to our house that were mostly paid for by this insurance. We only had to pay for the portion of our deductible and co-pay. We could not have possibly afforded that care otherwise. And NEVER was he turned down for anything--even the most expense ICU.

This coverage was continued until 6 months after he died.-----That was that big terrible bug-a-boo of a private insurance company at work!

But they saw the writing on the wall and they got out of the health care business. They now, for their retirees allow us a certain amount each year as a "Spending Account". We can apply it to a medical policy premium or spend it on medical care as we see fit. I personally use it to pay for a medical policy, that combined with Medicare and now Part D for Perscription coverage (by the way my perscriptions cost a whole lot more under Part D(government) than they did under the orginal policy), provides me with a new set of coverages. Since I am a healthy person, even at my age, I have not had to test this new plan in the light of Obamacare.

Nifty, I wonder why as someone who doesn't live in the USA, you are so interested in what takes place in our society here.

I see you complaining about the "far right propaganda"----I complain about the "far left" obsession with a 'Nanny State'.

Free enterprise of 'even the insurance companies' is by far the superior way of life.

And yes---we do have free care by the hospitals for anyone who cannot afford to pay.
Even the mothers who come over the border without a Visa get their babies birthed for free!
And they do it alot!

So Nifty----walk in our shoes before criticizing please.

Cordially,
MaryJean
 
I'm far from an expert on Obamacare. I quit paying attention to it quite some time ago.

It's a system that makes no sense to me. Why would anyone be telling you what doctor you can visit and why would any doctor be turning away patients?

What's the point in having public health insurance if it's run though private insurance companies?

And if before this system came along, everyone had access to health care, were all the stories about people not receiving it because they didn't have insurance untrue?

I remember reading a while back that before Obamacare something like 40 million Americans didn't have health insurance. Did all of these people have access to healthcare?
 
Thank you Balthazar!

I can see that you have a clearer vision than many people, even here in the States, but as that video shows, many of those people are receiving a huge shock when they finally see what the Obamacare rules and regulations have in store for them personally.

My late husband and I were covered under a group insurance from our employer---a very large insurance company by the way. A couple of years ago, that insurance company realized that the atmosphere under government regulations was going to make it entirely too expensive for them to continue with the coverages that they were giving us. (We did pay a portion)--They started then to make arrangements for us to get other coverage. Many glitches had to be managed even at that time so the cutoff date for our personal care was delayed and delayed. This was to our advantage because my husband was very ill and needed a great deal of hospital care. I would see statements of Tens of Thousands of dollars come to our house that were mostly paid for by this insurance. We only had to pay for the portion of our deductible and co-pay. We could not have possibly afforded that care otherwise. And NEVER was he turned down for anything--even the most expense ICU.

This coverage was continued until 6 months after he died.-----That was that big terrible bug-a-boo of a private insurance company at work!

But they saw the writing on the wall and they got out of the health care business. They now, for their retirees allow us a certain amount each year as a "Spending Account". We can apply it to a medical policy premium or spend it on medical care as we see fit. I personally use it to pay for a medical policy, that combined with Medicare and now Part D for Perscription coverage (by the way my perscriptions cost a whole lot more under Part D(government) than they did under the orginal policy), provides me with a new set of coverages. Since I am a healthy person, even at my age, I have not had to test this new plan in the light of Obamacare.

Nifty, I wonder why as someone who doesn't live in the USA, you are so interested in what takes place in our society here.

I see you complaining about the "far right propaganda"----I complain about the "far left" obsession with a 'Nanny State'.

Free enterprise of 'even the insurance companies' is by far the superior way of life.

And yes---we do have free care by the hospitals for anyone who cannot afford to pay.
Even the mothers who come over the border without a Visa get their babies birthed for free!
And they do it alot!

So Nifty----walk in our shoes before criticizing please.

Cordially,
MaryJean

IIRC, this forum allows for people of any country to comment about anything, provided it doesn't breach the forum rules. I'm interested in world affairs in general, not just the USA.

I do suggest you re-read my comments again, as I stated clearly that it was political polarization i.e. views of BOTH parties and their extremes, that I see as a hurdle to the USA moving forward. I only used your example because it was just that...an example. I didn't say I agreed or disagreed. I said that ANY political agenda gets in the way of an honest, meaningful debate.

IMO, a nation is judged by how it looks after it's citizens. As soon as looking after citizens becomes a profit/loss issue, then it begins to degrade and those less fortunate are left out in the cold. Just because one has a lower level of education, or is born with medical issues, or is just plain unlucky, does not, in my opinion, deserve to be treated like a second class citizen. If people with more money than they'll ever need or spend have to put in an little extra (which is a comparative pittance) to make sure the less fortunate/wealthy/healthy are looked after, then so be it. There's a big different between a "nanny" state and a humanitarian one. Some of the problem stems from what is essentially a capitalist view that "what's mine is mine, and what's yours is mostly mine" etc. It really is "survival of the fittest" in the truest sense of the word. I'm not saying communism is better...not at all...just that capitalism is a very self-centred ideal that has created a lot of the attitudes like "If you aren't wealthy like me, then tough bikkies. Be sick, die, whatever...I don't care" which seems more common these days than ever.

One does not have to be a US citizen to be interested nor have some understanding of the issues within the USA. To say otherwise is ridiculous IMO, and is just a way to deflect criticism or comment, rather than responding with facts and objective views.

I most certainly do not mean to offend you at all maryjean. I'm just so sick of hearing so many US people take a staunch republican OR staunch democratic POV, as fed by the the parties via their media control and ownership. The truth is actually somewhere in the middle, but until the majority of Americans realise that and stop believing every snippet of crud that the party machine drops in their lap, I just cannot see the USA rising back up to the universally properous and, to a point, highly moral level at which it once stood in the world.

BTW, are you able to answer those questions please?
 
What's the point in having public health insurance if it's run though private insurance companies?

It's not public health insurance. It's private health insurance with heavy regulations. Like I said earlier in the thread, its the worst of both worlds.
 
If people with more money than they'll ever need or spend have to put in an little extra (which is a comparative pittance) to make sure the less fortunate/wealthy/healthy are looked after, then so be it. There's a big different between a "nanny" state and a humanitarian one. Some of the problem stems from what is essentially a capitalist view that "what's mine is mine, and what's yours is mostly mine" etc. It really is "survival of the fittest" in the truest sense of the word. I'm not saying communism is better...not at all...just that capitalism is a very self-centred ideal that has created a lot of the attitudes like "If you aren't wealthy like me, then tough bikkies. Be sick, die, whatever...I don't care" which seems more common these days than ever.

It may sounds weird to you, but some people believe that no one is entitled to other people's money. Saying that some need it more is irrelevant and it has nothing to do with being "self-centered". Not wanting to pay for others through taxes doesn't mean that you don't want to help others, it means that it should be done on a voluntary basis.

I live in the most heavily taxed province of Canada, and we are the less generous people when it comes to donate to various charities. That's no coincidence. I pay for my neighbors' welfare, but I don't even know his name. We have lost all sense of community because the government is taking care of it. That's what social-democracy do: desensitize people and make them losing sense of responsibilization. Back in my grandparents' days, there were almost no tax and people were taking care of each other a LOT more than what they do today. Directly helping someone in needs is what I'd call humanitarian, being forced to pay without even knowing who or why, not so much.

Today's society is more self-centered and selfish than ever and it's certainly NOT because there are not enough social programs or interventionism. I will not let someone die of hunger if I can do anything and the vast majority of people won't either. Government don't need to force us.

Also, FTR, uninsured people weren't dying on the streets in the US. By law, hospitals had to take care of them first and ask for insurances later. If they couldn't pay, hospitals were taking the loss.
 
It may sounds weird to you, but some people believe that no one is entitled to other people's money. Saying that some need it more is irrelevant and it has nothing to do with being "self-centered". Not wanting to pay for others through taxes doesn't mean that you don't want to help others, it means that it should be done on a voluntary basis.

I live in the most heavily taxed province of Canada, and we are the less generous people when it comes to donate to various charities. That's no coincidence. I pay for my neighbors' welfare, but I don't even know his name. We have lost all sense of community because the government is taking care of it. That's what social-democracy do: desensitize people and make them losing sense of responsibilization. Back in my grandparents' days, there were almost no tax and people were taking care of each other a LOT more than what they do today. Directly helping someone in needs is what I'd call humanitarian, being forced to pay without even knowing who or why, not so much.

Today's society is more self-centered and selfish than ever and it's certainly NOT because there are not enough social programs or interventionism. I will not let someone die of hunger if I can do anything and the vast majority of people won't either. Government don't need to force us.

Also, FTR, uninsured people weren't dying on the streets in the US. By law, hospitals had to take care of them first and ask for insurances later. If they couldn't pay, hospitals were taking the loss.

It's not a matter of being entitled to other people's money. It's a matter of the government working for the people and requiring money to do it. Paying more in taxes if you make more money isn't a new concept. It's a fair necessity. If everyone paid a flat rate income tax people who earn more money would be getting a bargain on the services the taxes provide and the lower income earners would starve. You can't build a civilization with doctors and lawyers. The jobs being performed by the middle and lower income workers are an indispensable part of a functioning society but the people performing these jobs simply cannot pay an equal share of the government's income and obviously their employers can't pay them a doctor's salary. The only viable solution is for people to be taxed on what they earn and what they spend.

Then the question becomes where should the money collected be spent? Should it be spent on roads if even though not every tax payer drives? Should it be spent on schools even though not every tax payer has children? Should it be spent on healthcare even though not every tax payer requires regular medical attention? I've never called the fire department in my life but the tax I pay still pays for them. I don't visit any of the local parks and if you ever see me walking on the beach you should probably assume I'm lost but I still pay for those. The city I live in has spent a fortune over the last few years putting lanes for bicycles on the streets but until someone figures out how I can drink coffee and smoke cigarettes at the same time, I'm not riding one.

Realistically tax money should be spent first on essential services. It's a matter of opinion what constitutes an essential service. Some people believe there is nothing more essential than healthcare. What kind of society would we be building if a homeless man can call the fire department if what ever the hell is in that shopping cart ignites but a struggling waitress has to pay for her own insurance to take her child to the doctor?

I'm not going to bother going back to find all the old stories about people in the US with non life threatening injuries or illnesses have been turned away from hospitals because they didn't have insurance or private insurance companies refusing to pay for essential treatments. I've read them and I'm sure anyone who wants to find them can do so just as easily.

I am just of the opinion that everyone should have to pay their share which may not be an equal share and that healthcare is an essential service that should never be refused to anyone by anyone. I pay a fairly nice chunk of taxes myself but I'm happier having it pay for someone else's chemotherapy than I am having it putting in bike lanes or covering the cost of maintaining parks and beaches.
 
It's not a matter of being entitled to other people's money. It's a matter of the government working for the people and requiring money to do it. Paying more in taxes if you make more money isn't a new concept. It's a fair necessity. If everyone paid a flat rate income tax people who earn more money would be getting a bargain on the services the taxes provide and the lower income earners would starve. You can't build a civilization with doctors and lawyers. The jobs being performed by the middle and lower income workers are an indispensable part of a functioning society but the people performing these jobs simply cannot pay an equal share of the government's income and obviously their employers can't pay them a doctor's salary. The only viable solution is for people to be taxed on what they earn and what they spend.

Then the question becomes where should the money collected be spent? Should it be spent on roads if even though not every tax payer drives? Should it be spent on schools even though not every tax payer has children? Should it be spent on healthcare even though not every tax payer requires regular medical attention? I've never called the fire department in my life but the tax I pay still pays for them. I don't visit any of the local parks and if you ever see me walking on the beach you should probably assume I'm lost but I still pay for those. The city I live in has spent a fortune over the last few years putting lanes for bicycles on the streets but until someone figures out how I can drink coffee and smoke cigarettes at the same time, I'm not riding one.

Realistically tax money should be spent first on essential services. It's a matter of opinion what constitutes an essential service. Some people believe there is nothing more essential than healthcare. What kind of society would we be building if a homeless man can call the fire department if what ever the hell is in that shopping cart ignites but a struggling waitress has to pay for her own insurance to take her child to the doctor?

I'm not going to bother going back to find all the old stories about people in the US with non life threatening injuries or illnesses have been turned away from hospitals because they didn't have insurance or private insurance companies refusing to pay for essential treatments. I've read them and I'm sure anyone who wants to find them can do so just as easily.

I am just of the opinion that everyone should have to pay their share which may not be an equal share and that healthcare is an essential service that should never be refused to anyone by anyone. I pay a fairly nice chunk of taxes myself but I'm happier having it pay for someone else's chemotherapy than I am having it putting in bike lanes or covering the cost of maintaining parks and beaches.

I really can't add anything else to that skiny.

A very well thought out and reasonable reply.

I will say one thing.....if the US did what Balt suggested was done "in the old days" (when, incidentally, there was a smaller population and far less fast food and drugs and no nuclear weapons etc which is why the taxes were lower) in the present day, I could safely predict that a large number of people WOULD die/starve/live in misery, because the idea of "me first" has become almost endemic among the first world countries. It would also be interesting to note how many of the wealthy individuals and companies would actually give to charities if the donations were not tax-deductible......
 
I am just of the opinion that everyone should have to pay their share which may not be an equal share and that healthcare is an essential service that should never be refused to anyone by anyone.

The problem is entitlement. The neighbor doesn't and shouldn't have the right to have me go to work every day to pay for his food, shelter, healthcare and other necessities. I should be free to help him or not. I'm a good person (as you are), we won't let him die I promise. All we need is getting back that lost sense of community and caring for each other.

Let me rant a little further here to explain my position...

I'm sick of social engineering. I don't think that's what we should do as a human society. We live only once, for a very short time and we should be as free as possible during that time. Life isn't fair, it never was and never will be.

If Mother Nature doesn't manage to kill the poor and the sick like she always did, she'll get us in the corner with overpopulation and various diseases. In the end, she'll win so we should stop thinking that we are better and smarter than her because she's the reason why we're here in the first place. We are primates, not ants, and we aren't the be all end all of Life on this planet!
 
Leaving to one side for the moment the opposing views on socialism vs. capitalism, surely if a flat rate of tax was applied across those liable for income taxation, the more successful/wealthy tax payers would in any case be paying more into the state coffers - perhaps far more than the cost of the government services they receive?
 
if the US did what Balt suggested was done "in the old days" (when, incidentally, there was a smaller population and far less fast food and drugs and no nuclear weapons etc which is why the taxes were lower) in the present day, I could safely predict that a large number of people WOULD die/starve/live in misery

You mean like it did for the past 250,000 years? Why do you think that we have to change that? Because you don't agree with how nature works?

Reminds me of the global warming alarmists. Oh no, the climate isn't stable! Well, it never was! Our data is less than 100 years old, no one should think that the climate will forever stay the same as it was in 1970! 10,000 years ago the whole thing was covered in ice and before that Alaska was under tropical heat. Climate isn't stable, it has changed and will change again regardless of human activities!

We think we are so important and always forget to look at the big picture, this is disconcerting.
 
You mean like it did for the past 250,000 years? Why do you think that we have to change that? Because you don't agree with how nature works?

Reminds me of the global warming alarmists. Oh no, the climate isn't stable! Well, it never was! Our data is less than 100 years old, no one should think that the climate will forever stay the same as it was in 1970! 10,000 years ago the whole thing was covered in ice and before that Alaska was under tropical heat. Climate isn't stable, it has changed and will change again regardless of human activities!

We think we are so important and always forget to look at the big picture, this is disconcerting.

By that logic, if we are at a restaurant and you get a bigger steak than I do I should be able to club you over the head and take yours and no police should intervene....that's how nature works.

We should try to change the things that we are able to change if it furthers the human endeavor. Isn't that the basis of society and civilization?
 
You mean like it did for the past 250,000 years? Why do you think that we have to change that? Because you don't agree with how nature works?

Reminds me of the global warming alarmists. Oh no, the climate isn't stable! Well, it never was! Our data is less than 100 years old, no one should think that the climate will forever stay the same as it was in 1970! 10,000 years ago the whole thing was covered in ice and before that Alaska was under tropical heat. Climate isn't stable, it has changed and will change again regardless of human activities!

We think we are so important and always forget to look at the big picture, this is disconcerting.

I wonder if you would see things the same way if it was YOU who was ill, disabled or some other category in which you place those whom "mother nature should take it's course with and let die/starve/etc". It's easy to be blaze' and say "yeah well I'm not paying for my neighbour's medical treatment/food/etc" when it's not YOU at the bottom of the food chain.

I like to think we are somewhat more civilized than when we were living in caves or mudhuts.

Bigjohn...well said again.
 
The problem is entitlement. The neighbor doesn't and shouldn't have the right to have me go to work every day to pay for his food, shelter, healthcare and other necessities. I should be free to help him or not. I'm a good person (as you are), we won't let him die I promise. All we need is getting back that lost sense of community and caring for each other.

You use the word "entitlement" a lot. You use it like it's a bad thing. People should feel entitled to have a say in where their tax money goes. You just don't agree with them but that doesn't make you any less entitled. Do you agree that children should be entitled to public education? We would save a lot of money if people had to pay the schools directly for their children's education and if they can't afford it they could be home schooled. You do understand that we're not entitled to a portion of our pay cheques? The government takes that and uses to pay for things that benefit society as a whole. Not everyone uses every service and we don't get to pick and choose which services our portion gets spent on.

Let me rant a little further here to explain my position...

I'm sick of social engineering. I don't think that's what we should do as a human society. We live only once, for a very short time and we should be as free as possible during that time. Life isn't fair, it never was and never will be.

If Mother Nature doesn't manage to kill the poor and the sick like she always did, she'll get us in the corner with overpopulation and various diseases. In the end, she'll win so we should stop thinking that we are better and smarter than her because she's the reason why we're here in the first place. We are primates, not ants, and we aren't the be all end all of Life on this planet!

I really don't think anyone believes that a public healthcare system is going to allow them to live forever. Not counting Elvis, everything that lives dies. The difference between us and every other species on the planet is that we constantly question our quality of life. That is why we moved out of caves and into houses. It's why we stopped picking berries and started planting crops. It's why we learned to ride and then drive and then fly instead of walk. We've learned some of the reasons that we get sick and we've learned ways to combat and cure much of it. Nobody including you would prefer to still be wandering around the jungle hoping you aren't stricken by some unknown disease before you're able to kill your next meal. You enjoy a quality of life that all the people before us worked to build and yet you condemn those who continue the tradition of improving the human condition. The reality is, if humans decided that fending for themselves was more beneficial you wouldn't be having this debate because you would be still be living in a grass hut guarding your meager possessions from your neighbours.

Leaving to one side for the moment the opposing views on socialism vs. capitalism, surely if a flat rate of tax was applied across those liable for income taxation, the more successful/wealthy tax payers would in any case be paying more into the state coffers - perhaps far more than the cost of the government services they receive?

That depends what the flat rate would be. Would it be based on a 28k income which would bankrupt the country or a 100k income which would put the lower income earners starving out on the street?

You mean like it did for the past 250,000 years? Why do you think that we have to change that? Because you don't agree with how nature works?

Reminds me of the global warming alarmists. Oh no, the climate isn't stable! Well, it never was! Our data is less than 100 years old, no one should think that the climate will forever stay the same as it was in 1970! 10,000 years ago the whole thing was covered in ice and before that Alaska was under tropical heat. Climate isn't stable, it has changed and will change again regardless of human activities!

We think we are so important and always forget to look at the big picture, this is disconcerting.

I agree, you do have to see the big picture but if that's all you look at you can't see the forest for the trees.
 
I believe that the basic principle of the AHA; that everyone that can afford to contribute to the system should do so, is a good plan and foundation to build on. Is the current plan perfect? No , it needs work but we have to start some where. It wont be easy, but it can be done.

A wise man once said:
We choose to do these things, not because they are easy but because they are hard.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Accredited Casinos

Read about our rating system and how it's done.
Back
Top