You do not have health insurance.

[Dr. Zhivodka]

You should probably ask them then.

I think you make the mistake of many who believe that all you must do is to "get through to them." And then they'll see the light.

My guess is that they "stop and think" just fine. They just disagree.

Quote from Lucrum:

Maybe I'm hoping against hope that some honest answers to them from the Obamabots might make some of them stop and think.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Dr. Zhivodka:

You should probably ask them then.

I have, several times.

Maybe they don't like or are afraid of the answers.

 

[Dr. Zhivodka]

I think don't so. I think it's maybe the way you phrase it. They can see right through it and your feigned "real" questions.

Quote from Lucrum:

I have, several times.

Maybe they don't like or are afraid of the answers.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Dr. Zhivodka:

I think don't so. I think it's maybe the way you phrase it. They can see right through it and your feigned "real" questions.

How else should they be "phrased"?

1)Is it or is it not true that Obama's health care plan is similar to the one in implemented in Massachusetts? If it's not that's fine I'm just asking.

2)Is it true that the plan in Massachusetts has "failed" (somewhat subjective obviously) or is that just "anti health" care rhetoric?

3)For national health care supporters, how is it you expect the federal government to run a nation wide health care plan better than they have administered Medicare or Medicaid, not to mention SS and virtually every other federal program?

4)If it's so much "better", why is congress NOT going to participate in any national health care plan, like the rest of us?

 

[Dr. Zhivodka]

I think you know the answers to all of these questions. If not you can find them with 3 keystrokes. Just like I did.

1) there is no "obama health care plan." There are 5 disparate house bills...none of which will ever see the light of day.

2) no clue

3) ask them

4) rhetorical.


feel better now?

Quote from Lucrum:



How else should they be "phrased"?

1)Is it or is it not true that Obama's health care plan is similar to the one in implemented in Massachusetts? If it's not that's fine I'm just asking.

2)Is it true that the plan in Massachusetts has "failed" (somewhat subjective obviously) or is that just "anti health" care rhetoric?

3)For national health care supporters, how is it you expect the federal government to run a nation wide health care plan better than they have administered Medicare or Medicaid, not to mention SS and virtually every other federal program?

4)If it's so much "better", why is congress NOT going to participate in any national health care plan, like the rest of us?

 

[Aletheia]

Quote from Lucrum:

All the self proclaimed "experts" on health care here and no one wants to take a stab at a few basic straight forward questions?

Help a poor dumb conservative out will ya? Enlighten me.

Well, I'm not in a position to enlighten you, as that's a job for the enlightened lefties, but the best I can sort out slugging through the crap from both sides of the aisle is there are only 5 million people in the US who cannot get insurance due to existing illness or other like reasons. The rest are either covered through a spouse, pay out of pocket, choose not to be covered, are illegals, etc. So basically, the lefties want to throw the baby out with the bath water so to speak on a system that really only needs tweaked and not entirely dismantled and abolished as the lefties wish to do so for political gain, not our well being.

The reality is, every last person in this country, even the illegals, have access to health care as it stands. Those who don't have insurance can simply go to any hospital and seek care. They cannot be turned away. It's the costs that are out of control. Therefore, the rhetoric coming from the left that we have to do this immediately is complete hogwash. Any type of policy change of this magnitude needs to be done slowly and methodically. Changing the entire healthcare system to a government run enity is pure insanity, and wanting to do so is purely for politcal power over the people.

The fact obamacare and company are trying so hard to force this down our throats is telling. It's just one more step towards turning us into a socialist nation, which is the main agenda. That being said, socialist medicine has failed in every country that has ever tried it, and citizens from the countries that have socialized medicine come to the US for treatment. Enough said.

 

[Aletheia]

Quote from Dr. Zhivodka:

I think don't so. I think it's maybe the way you phrase it. They can see right through it and your feigned "real" questions.

LMAO!!!!!! You libtards are a laugh a minute!!!! If anyone dare question your messiah, they are either a racist, a bigot, or feigning sincerity. When backed in a corner, you PM your buddies to gang up on the nearest moderator to silence those that oppose your idiotic views. What a pathetic bunch of spineless weenie washers you and your ilk expose yourselves to be.

 

[tmarket]

Quote from Aletheia:

... Any type of policy change of this magnitude needs to be done slowly and methodically. ...

....That being said, socialist medicine has failed in every country that has ever tried it, and citizens from the countries that have socialized medicine come to the US for treatment. Enough said.

Slowly, yes, President Truman tried it and was thwarted by the AMA. The doctors didn't want any part of it. It has been debated for at least the last 50 years.

Socialized medicine hasn't worked is false. Medicine in the US works well if you have money, and works poorly if you don't. European socialized medicine worked well for the overall population as proved by their overall longevity and infant mortality.

"It works very well in Europe, by the following basic criteria: (1) the countries using it spend a much lower percent of Gross Domestic Product (basically the value of all goods and services in a country in a year) on health care than does the US, (2) they all have longer life expectancies than does the US, and (3) they all have lower infant mortality rates than does the US.

You get these horror stories about government-managed health care, but the fact of the matter is it has good results for the population."


Source(s):
World Population Data Sheet, from the Population Reference Bureau:
http://www.prb.org/Publications/Datasheets/2008/2008wpds.aspx

 

[eminitrader007]

Quote from tmarket:

Slowly, yes, President Truman tried it and was thwarted by the AMA. The doctors didn't want any part of it. It has been debated for at least the last 50 years.

Socialized medicine hasn't worked is false. Medicine in the US works well if you have money, and works poorly if you don't. European socialized medicine worked well for the overall population as proved by their overall longevity and infant mortality.

"It works very well in Europe, by the following basic criteria: (1) the countries using it spend a much lower percent of Gross Domestic Product (basically the value of all goods and services in a country in a year) on health care than does the US, (2) they all have longer life expectancies than does the US, and (3) they all have lower infant mortality rates than does the US.

You get these horror stories about government-managed health care, but the fact of the matter is it has good results for the population."


Source(s):
World Population Data Sheet, from the Population Reference Bureau:
http://www.prb.org/Publications/Datasheets/2008/2008wpds.aspx

IBD had an editorial where they mentioned that if Stephen Hawkin was in the UK, he would have been dead by now because NHS would not take care of him. In reality NHS has been taking care of him for all these years. I'm not sure where the clown that wrote it got the idea that Stephen Hawking was not being treated in the UK.

 

[trefoil]

Quote from Lucrum:



How else should they be "phrased"?

1)Is it or is it not true that Obama's health care plan is similar to the one in implemented in Massachusetts? If it's not that's fine I'm just asking.

2)Is it true that the plan in Massachusetts has "failed" (somewhat subjective obviously) or is that just "anti health" care rhetoric?

3)For national health care supporters, how is it you expect the federal government to run a nation wide health care plan better than they have administered Medicare or Medicaid, not to mention SS and virtually every other federal program?

4)If it's so much "better", why is congress NOT going to participate in any national health care plan, like the rest of us?

1 - Dunno.
2 - Dunno.
3 - Medicare is not great, but it's not terrible either. I know to you guys way over there on the right it's probably the work of the devil, but for most people it's OK, and like most things, they grumble about its limitations. Big wow.
4 - Leading and, as the good doctor said, rhetorical question.

The most important reform for most folks would be the prohibition against turning down folks with a pre-existing condition. Most folks would be in favor of this. You'll notice that this is rarely mentioned in the debate, since the opponents know this, and would rather blow smoke about dead grannies and socialism.