A place for me to pour out my rants without clogging the inboxes of my friends and family. Also a place to give info on myself and Mary, our family news and events.
One more falsehood from the Obama Cadre:
“47 million are uninsured”; such ridiculously overblown statements seem a hallmark of this particular Democrat-controlled government.
I guess their philosophy is, "the bigger the fish story, the more people will be inclined to believe it".
Actually, though, it’s closer to 17 million, and some say even less than that. Many of those are younger, healthier people, simply opting out of health insurance for the present, orthose  who are eligible for government coverage, but have not applied.
Now, from a moral standpoint, I can understand how health care could be perceived as a “right”; and I really could agree with that sentiment. Everyone should have access to quality health care. However, just because one has a right to something doesn’t make it practical.
Where would the money for this huge boondoggle come from? No one who supports this policy seems forthcoming with this answer; we should take Nike's advice, and "just do it". Aren't we in debt deep enough, already? The CBO says this, along with Obama's other policies, would increase the debt by nearly $9 trillion.
Many of these same people outraged when Bush increased the debt by a mere $3 trillion, much in post-9/11 defense spending.
As many examples I’ve found have shown, Socializing health care does little to improve overall quality. In fact, quality declines.
Why do so many Canadians come here, if they’re able? Why, for example, didn’t Ted Kennedy go to Canada, Europe--or even Cuba--for treatment, if Socialized medicine is so much better?
According to an article I read here, a man in England removed thirteen of his own teeth, because he couldn’t get in to see a dentist.
Upon further investigation, I've come to understand that it’s apparently so difficult to do so, that “do-it-yourself” kits are actually sold to Brits in extreme need of dental care. (Any Brits reading this: is this true?)
When/if we start seeing those at KMart or Wal-Mart, we’ll know we’re sunk.
In Canada, local lotteries are regularly held to get on lists for medical care.
In London hospitals, babies are born in operating rooms, hallways, even elevators, because there aren’t enough rooms; and with the present system in place, there's simply no incentive to add more rooms, either. And therein lies the overall, inherent problems with Socialized health care. It crushes incentive.
Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security; all are horribly mismanaged messes, hobbling along on fading fumes. Has government ever made anything more efficient, and less wasteful?
Obama flacks are now presenting the Veteran's Administration as a prime example of a government-run health care system.
Wasn’t it just a couple years ago, that everyone--especially the liberal Lefties (who, as a group, normally couldn’t care less about veterans)--was up in arms, over the VA? It was “inefficiently-run”, hospitals were rundown and in disrepair; they were understaffed, underfunded, using substandard equipment.
But then, that was a different President, wasn't it? Just like those $3 trillion buckeroos.
Now that government-funded, one-payer health care is being pushed, the VA's been repackaged as a shining beacon among government programs, as if such a thing actually existed.
More recently, we’ve had the ‘Cash for Clunkers’ program; and now, I understand that ‘Cash for Refrigerators’ is coming soon to a nightmarish bureaucracy near you.
“Where’s all this cash coming from?” one might ask.
Apparently nowhere; many car dealerships are still awaiting their “Cash for Clunkers” money, which was guaranteed to come within 10 days of the transaction.
The “transparent” Obama Administration loves convoluted, overly-wordy, foggy legislation.
The average piece of legislation is around 10-20 pages. The worthless, pork-stuffed stimulus bill was 1,073 pages long; the health care bill, 1,017 pages.
What other political chicanery is buried in there? Despite so many pages overflowing with vague wording, it’s perfectly clear there's something more to this. Maybe something sinister.
It probably takes a way with words, however, when you’re shifting billions in pork funds to groups like ACORN, while simultaneously attempting to completely reshape the American Republic into something the Fouinding Fathers never intended. The United States Constitution is pretty wordy itself, after all.
“Free”, unlimited health care, along with “Cap and Trade”, the Stimulus program(s?), and everything else, would bankrupt America and collapse our economy, finally and completely.
But then, maybe that’s the plan.

Comments (Page 1)
4 Pages1 2 3  Last
on Sep 08, 2009

According to an article I read here, a man in England removed thirteen of his own teeth, because he couldn’t get in to see a dentist.
Upon further investigation, I've come to understand that it’s apparently so difficult to do so, that “do-it-yourself” kits are actually sold to Brits in extreme need of dental care. (Any Brits reading this: is this true?)

Brit here. 
1) I have never had, nor met anybody who has ever had an issue with getting to see a dentist
2) There are private dentists (the NHS dental system is largely a co-pay thing anyway) which operate insurance scheme so if he could have got insurance if he had been able to pay, if he could not pay under the UK system the US system would not have done him any better

In London hospitals, babies are born in operating rooms, hallways, even elevators, because there aren’t enough rooms; and with the present system in place, there's simply no incentive to add more rooms, either. And therein lies the overall, inherent problems with Socialized health care. It crushes incentive.

Of the five people I know who have all given birth in the last year, and the 10 in the last two (I'm of that age where my friends are all giving birth!) all have been NHS.  Not one has given birth in anything other that the delivary room, unless they needed to have it done by surgery. 
There are often cases of babies been born out side of the normal rooms but the vast majority of them happen becuase they just can't get to the room quick enough.

It also removes the incentative to over treat.


Last night I watched a program about 'The US hardest Jails'.  There was an interview with somebody jailed there becuase he killed a man when attempting to rob him, it went wrong and the victium ended up dead.  The reason for the robbery?

The perp could not get AIDS meds. 

The number of times this has happened with the NHS? 

None.

on Sep 08, 2009

There was an interview with somebody jailed there becuase he killed a man when attempting to rob him, it went wrong and the victium ended up dead. The reason for the robbery?

The perp could not get AIDS meds.

And you bought that?

on Sep 08, 2009

Last night I watched a program about 'The US hardest Jails'. There was an interview with somebody jailed there becuase he killed a man when attempting to rob him, it went wrong and the victium ended up dead. The reason for the robbery?





The perp could not get AIDS meds.





The number of times this has happened with the NHS?





None.

1) I have never had, nor met anybody who has ever had an issue with getting to see a dentist
---Basma

Good for you; now, there's what, about 60,000,000+ people in Great  Britain? That's a lot of teeth.

I don't know, but I got it from "Health care by the Numbers", posted by Draginol, which consisted of a link to the article....

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/07/state-run-health-care-by-the-numbers/

Also, there has to be some reason Brits are stereotyped for bad dental health.

Sorry, couldn't resist.    

It also removes the incentative to over treat.

This was posted in May, as a comment on Natasha Richardson's death:

~~~"This was a test of Obamacare and it killed Natasha. Socialized medicine does not mean free National Health Care for all. It is simply HEALTHCARE RATIONING. The Canadian Doctor treating Natasha said a CT would have saved her life, but when her symptoms were entered into the Canadian cost base analysis system, it coughed out take two aspirins and call us never. An American hospital would never have let her leave without taking a peek inside her head, first."~~~

I think that made my point very well.

A local (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) neurologist who called in to a talk radio show made the point that Ms. Richardson died unnecessarily, of an injury which would've been easily diagnosed by a neurologist and treated, had she been sent into New York immediately, rather than later on.

He made the point that there are more neurologists in Los Angeles County, California, than in all the provinces of Canada. This is due--in his opinion, granted--to the incentive-crushing realities of Socialized healthcare.

He said that the later stages of her injury can mimic death, and so they perhaps just gave her the once-over, and all but pulled up the sheet and called it. Wonder how many other people get that treatment?

But see, you're used to it, so you see nothing wrong with the system; you see few flaws, because that's just the way it works. 

Think about this for minute; if she'd been making a movie in Hollywood, and had the injury, she'd still be alive. But, she was skiing in a country where they ration medical care, rather than simply administering it as needed.

Last night I watched a program about 'The US hardest Jails'. There was an interview with somebody jailed there becuase he killed a man when attempting to rob him, it went wrong and the victium ended up dead. The reason for the robbery?
The perp could not get AIDS meds.
The number of times this has happened with the NHS?
None.
---Basmas

Well, he's gettimng his meds now, isn't he? And on a one-payer system, at that! Bully for him!  I have to agree with Daiwa, here; criminals have no reason, or propensity, to lie, do they? Of course not.

I mean, to say that absolutely nothing like that has ever happened with your healthcare system.....you can say that with such complete certainty? That's a pretty broad statement, just like saying you've never met anyone who's had a problem with getting in to a dentist. You're one person; do you engage every person you meet in such discussions? I seriously doubt that.

And yes, this is a semantic argument, here, though I usually try to avoid them, since I find them silly and unfair, but I think this debate deserves a little slack.

Thank you for posting, though.

on Sep 08, 2009

Sorry; meant to hit these above, and got sidetracked:

2) There are private dentists (the NHS dental system is largely a co-pay thing anyway) which operate insurance scheme so if he could have got insurance if he had been able to pay, if he could not pay under the UK system the US system would not have done him any better
---Basmas

Well, it said he couldn't afford to get in to see a private dentist. Beyond that, I can't help ya.

 

Of the five people I know who have all given birth in the last year, and the 10 in the last two (I'm of that age where my friends are all giving birth!) all have been NHS. Not one has given birth in anything other that the delivary room, unless they needed to have it done by surgery.

There are often cases of babies been born out side of the normal rooms but the vast majority of them happen becuase they just can't get to the room quick enough.
---Basmas

Congrats to your friends on their new additions....but, even Cuba has at least one good hospital --which they show off (thanks to useful idiots like Michael Moore and Sean Penn), studiously ignoring the putrid dungeons out in the sticks; the ones with the moldy walls and the crackd foundations, and with filthy mattresses on the floor. I'm sure Britain has more than one good hospital, but I'm equally sure it has its lesser examples, as well. 

These are horror stories which supposedly happened to people in your country; I don't know, I just report what I find in research.

 

 

on Sep 08, 2009

Brit here.
So that means you're both a socialist *and* an idiot.

I got it from "Health care by the Numbers", posted by Draginol, which consisted of a link to the article....

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/07/state-run-health-care-by-the-numbers/
There you have it.

Who are you going believe, someone that actually lives in Britian and has had personal experience with their healthcare system for their entire life or an American that reads a single article from a blog founded by Michelle Malkin?

Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about and you have no business intruding on our misguided opinions with your pesky facts.

[/sarcasm]

@Basmas, there are one or two folks here that do appreciate input from folks that have real life experience with a national healh plan. The problem is that they are so few and far between that all you're really doing here is wasting your breath. Just be thankful you live in a civilized country.

on Sep 08, 2009

So then, Mumbles; you're perfectly okay with simply handing your personal medical care over to the Great, Blind Bureaucracy? A system that will, ultimately, give more more import to saving the life of a 25-year-old, than to a 75-year-old.

That's all well and good, until you're the 75-year-old.

And here I was, giving you so much more credit than that. Silly me, huh?

Geesh.

on Sep 08, 2009

So then, Mumbles; you okay with simply handing your personal medical care over to the Great Bureaucracy? A system that will, ultimately, give more more import to saving the life of a 25-year-old, than to a 75-year-old.
Yep.

That's all well and good, until you're the 75-year-old.
I'm 57 now. I would expect that even in our country today a 25 year old needing the same transplant that I needed would be higher on the list assuming all other things being equal. That's only natural.

If you think cost benefit analysis aren't already being performed at your health insurance company then you're deluded. Read the following Washington Post article

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/07/AR2009090702455.html

BTW which of us is closer to 75 and should therefore be more concerned?

on Sep 08, 2009

the Great, Blind Bureaucracy
Actually this is a nice phrase and probably relatively accurate. However although the Great, Blind Bureaucracy is undoubtedly both inefficient and indifferent, at least they aren't financially motivated to want you to die like the health insurance industry is. I'll take the former over the latter any day.

on Sep 08, 2009

they aren't financially motivated to want you to die like the health insurance industry is

That's open to debate.  You could argue just the opposite - that the absence of premiums would provide a bigger motivation to 'want you to die' since you're nothing but an expense.  The insurers have at least some incentive to keep the income stream going - can't collect premiums from the dead.

on Sep 08, 2009

@Basmas, there are one or two folks here that do appreciate input from folks that have real life experience with a national healh plan. The problem is that they are so few and far between that all you're really doing here is wasting your breath. Just be thankful you live in a civilized country.

For someone who professes nothing but scornful disdain for JU, not to mention anyone who disagrees with you, you sure spend a lot of time complaining about wasting your breath here.

on Sep 08, 2009

I'm 57 now. I would expect that even in our country today a 25 year old needing the same transplant that I needed would be higher on the list assuming all other things being equal. That's only natural.
---Mumbles

Isn't liberalism supposed to be the Great Cosmic Storehouse of Compassion for all?

Survival of the fittest, eh? I thought we'd long ago evolved out of the jungle, into higher levels of being and understanding. Or that's the way it's professed, at least until you folks need it mean something else. 

Man! 57! Most people, after reaching "a certain age" attain a certain level of wisdom and common sense. But I guess some don't, though, do they?

If you think cost benefit analysis aren't already being performed at your health insurance company then you're deluded. Read the following Washington Post article
---Mumbles

So....when the government increases taxes to do it, it's okay, but private insurance companies are evil, heartless and cruel profiteers?

And while I'm at it, we should utterly disregard an article on "a blog founded by Michelle Malkin", but conversely, should simply swallow whole, something from one of the most liberal papers in the country? Yeah....that's fair.

BTW which of us is closer to 75 and should therefore be more concerned?
---Mumbles

See, now, that's the difference here, Mumbles; I AM concerned for you, and that's one reason why I question this whole one-payer health care thing. You could give a shit less about me. I'm just another number, and you're good with that. Cold intellect really should be tempered with wisdom and emotion, and vice-versa.

I'm going to tell you straight out right now, Mumbles: you want to come and discuss, please do so. Welcome.

However, if you're just going to toss your smug, self-satisfied little turds at we, the Great Unwashed, just get the f**k out now, and take it somewhere else. Okay?

on Sep 08, 2009

However, if you're just going to toss your smug, self-satisfied little turds at we, the Great Unwashed, just get the f**k out now, and take it somewhere else. Okay?

on Sep 08, 2009

For someone who professes nothing but scornful disdain for JU, not to mention anyone who disagrees with you, you sure spend a lot of time complaining about wasting your breath here.
Actually, I'm just slumming. I come "here" rarely and it's even rarer that I'll actually respond in a JU specific thread. I typically frequent the GalCiv2 site and so usually only see posts in forums accessible from "there" such as the Off-topic and Personal Computing forums. Most of the GalCiv2 specific forums are not visible "here" and virtually none of the JU specific forums are visible “there”.

But given all the cross-posting that occurs among Stardock's 755+ forums spread over 12 separate sites it’s sometimes difficult to really know where "here" actually is.

I made an exception in this case to provide fair warning to someone that was obviously unfamiliar with the prevailing opinions “here”.

BTW my last thread was not posted from "here" it was posted from "there". This is the first time I've been "here" in at least 6 months.

However, if you're just going to toss your smug, self-satisfied little turds at we, the Great Unwashed, just get the f**k out now, and take it somewhere else. Okay?
You'd think you'd get tired of simply agreeing with each other over "here" and might actually appreciate having someone to argue with on occasion, but apparently not. How boring.

Don't work yourself into a tizzy or get your panties in a bunch, I have no intention of spending any appreciable time "here", like I said above I'm just slumming, seeing how the other half lives. One dose is usually sufficient for months if not years.

If you feel like arguing then post your drivel where I can see it and if I feel like bothering perhaps I may respond. Otherwise you can spin your little right wing fantasy worlds in safety "here" where everyone is right wing or even righter wing and there's no one to throw stones at your illusions.

Have a nice day. 

on Sep 08, 2009

You'd think you'd get tired of simply agreeing with each other over "here" and might actually appreciate having someone to argue with on occasion, but apparently not. How boring.

Don't work yourself into a tizzy or get your panties in a bunch, I have no intention of spending any appreciable time "here", like I said above I'm just slumming, seeing how the other half lives. One dose is usually sufficient for months if not years.

If you feel like arguing then post your drivel where I can see it and if I feel like bothering perhaps I may respond. Otherwise you can spin your little right wing fantasy worlds in safety "here" where everyone is right wing or even righter wing and there's no one to throw stones at your illusions.

Have a nice day.
--Mumbles

Well, as I said, you want to discuss, please do so. I enjoy back-and-forth.

What I do not enjoy is a typically smug, arrogant liberal pissing on us from his own, personal Olympus. Especially a liberal who very often has no real, substantive answers, but only takes disdainful pot-shots at those with whom he disagrees. Either hang out, chat and be nice, or hit the bricks.

If hitting the bricks is your choice, don't come back.

on Sep 08, 2009

who very often has no real, substantive answers, but only takes disdainful pot-shots at those with whom he disagrees
It's not substantive to suggest that someone living in the country might know a bit more about their own healthcare system than someone that doesn't?

It's not substantive to suggest that an article posted on a blog founded by an infamous right wingnut may have ulterior motives?

It's not substantive to post a link to an article about how health insurance companies give bonuses to employee's who find reasons to deny claims and to terminate coverage for people at the moment of their greatest need when the topic is denial of care?

Sure the article is from a newspaper that is known to be liberal leaning but it's an actual report *not* an opinion piece and it still is an actual newspaper that validates its sources and not just a fiction of the internet.

It's not substantive to suggest that a for profit insurance company has a vested interest in having its high cost subscribers die whereas a public bureaucrat gets paid the same whether you live or die and so perhaps may be indifferent but is certainly not financially incented?

who very often has no real, substantive answers, but only takes disdainful pot-shots at those with whom he disagrees
Take a look in the mirror and see if you can honestly say you aren't taking "disdainful pot-shots" at me simply because I disagree with you. If you can do that without cracking a smile then you're either a real estate agent or you should be.

If hitting the bricks is your choice, don't come back.
Oooo, I'm real scared.

You call me intolerant, disdainful and whatever else under the sun, but you and your buddies are no less intolerant, disdainful, etc., etc., etc.. You just don't notice it because you hang out at a site that's to the right of Ann Coulter where someone like McCain would be held in disdain because he's too far to the left.

Try it the other way around sometime and go to a liberal site and see how you are treated when you have 10 to 20 folks jumping down your throat for every word out of your mouth and every argument you make with multiple points and carefully documented links is simply ignored or intentionally misconstrued or one sentence out of a ten paragraph post that took an hour to write is taken out of context and twisted beyond recognition.

Is it any wonder there are no liberals here. Perhaps there are one or two at most but for one they're not really very liberal and for two they must have a serious masochistic streak to take all the abuse that's heaped on anyone here that’s to the left of Ann Coulter.

You can blacklist me if that makes you happy, it really doesn't bother me. Like I said I come here so very infrequently that it matters naught to me.

However as far as me not coming back, that's not up to you. If and when Brad wants me gone I'm sure I'll be gone before I even notice it, but until he does I’ll come back here anytime I goddamn please.

4 Pages1 2 3  Last