Universal Health Care Reform in the United States

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

19th August 2009, 00:52
anthonyvop

Lets hear it for the Great Government British Universal Healthcare system!!!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ambulance.html

Then there is the Canadian model:

http://www.vancouversun.com/story_pr...878506&sponsor

WhooooooHooooooo......ObamaCare!!!!
19th August 2009, 01:45
Drew

Starter, what I mean is that he needs to clear things up. Rumours like that sure aren't going to help him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

Lets hear it for the Great Government British Universal Healthcare system!!!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ambulance.html

It's funny how you highlight the case of one person unable to get healthcare, but yet don't consider 40-50 million people in your own country as anything special or anything to worry about. Funny that.
19th August 2009, 02:53
Malbec

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starter

The US patent system is based or greed, or at least the desire for a good gain from one's efforts. That's why it's set up this way. The purpose is to incentify people to use their ingenuity to find better ways/things. Knowing that many efforts will fail. The failure rate for proposed new drugs far exceeds the ones which come to market - the cost of that wasted effort must also be factored into the cost of those that do succeed. Why spend the time, effort, and frustration unless there is a payoff at the end?

Although you call it the US patent system, it is in fact global with a few notable exceptions like India. I've just had a look at the average patent length in the US, its about 10 years (20 from the inception of the drug but obviously trials etc take around a decade). In the NHS its also 10 although in other countries the period may well be shorter. It therefore doesn't explain why drugs are cheaper for the UK. Most countries seem happy to protect the patent for 20 years after the application is accepted as is the international treaty agreed norm.

The US healthcare system shouldn't be there to subsidise pharm companies, it should be there to deliver healthcare to US citizens. I know thats not what you're saying but again strong reform in this area would give quick savings. Problem is of course that those pharm companies have serious clout.
19th August 2009, 03:10
Rollo

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

How many more do you want? Can you link to the HHS report?

You don't need to. The LAW is sufficient:
http://www.ssa.gov/history/reg1.html
No member, officer, or employee of the Board, except as authorized by this regulation or otherwise expressly authorized by the Board, shall produce or disclose to any person or before any tribunal, directly or indirectly, whether in response to a subpoena or otherwise, any record (including any file, letter, application, claim, return, report, or other paper or document) or any information acquired therefrom or otherwise officially acquired, pertaining to any person.

The law itself prevents the official generation of reports unless consent is given to the Department by the individual in question. Since anyone reporting to the Department does so via the instrument of their SSN, they can't very well give consent for an official report to be generated without it.

An "illegal" person is simply unknown to the department, and if they're unknown then they can't very be included in the statistics can they?
There are known knowns; there are things the Department knows they know. They also know there are known unknowns; that is to say they know there are some things they do not know. But you are asking to provide details of unknown unknowns.
19th August 2009, 04:34
Mark in Oshawa

I must commend Dylan, Chuck, Starter and Rollo, for by reading their postings that they put in while I was at work, They gave a great debate of the merits of all the options, and what the proponents of what Obama is proposing haven't done is this sort of dialogue. All the politicians in favour of it do is say it wont be that bad. THAT isn't a debate, that is saying "Trust me". No one trusts politico's of either stripe with that sort of reassurance; and Obama's administration is out emailing its oppenents with their talking points. No violation of privacy there eh??? Not much....not far off Nixon's "Enemies" List.

If I was an American I would be very cautious about government involvement in the health sector, but woudln't be against it. Dylan's points in particular has given me the impression that the NHS is the best comprimise, but I am adamently sure that the US isn't going to get the NHS, they are going to get a mishmash of all the plans, with Canadian style exclusive care. In short a nightmare.

The only reason Canada's system works as well as it does because the R and D in the profit driven US system has brought in advances that we all need; AND the Canadian people have done their best to pay for a system that in the 1960's sounded like a very fair idea. For a decade or two it almost worked that way, but it is now starting to strain. In the end, I suspect within 2 decades we will be similar to the French or British model......and maybe with the right steps, with prudent protection for the private citizen, the US will be as well.
19th August 2009, 06:14
Mark in Oshawa

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starter

Want to bet? Anything said by Robert "Pork for my State" Byrd is open to suspicion.

The SAME Robert Byrd who was a paid up member in good standing once upon a time in the KKK. If there is any other proof you need for the blindness of the US media to the faults of Democratic party stalwarts, this is it. A Republican is crucified if they even look at a white sheet the wrong way, Byrd has always had a free pass.

The fact he has just about every road, bridge and building named after him in WV says to me he is great at digging into pork. THAT is essentially the WRONG kind of pol to have on side writing legislation on healthcare reform.
19th August 2009, 12:29
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drew

Starter, what I mean is that he needs to clear things up. Rumours like that sure aren't going to help him.

It's funny how you highlight the case of one person unable to get healthcare, but yet don't consider 40-50 million people in your own country as anything special or anything to worry about. Funny that.

Again, that number is BS. And even if you choose to believe it isn't, it is against the law for any emergency room in the States to turn anyone away if they are in need of care.

I can not stress this point enough, especially sence people seem to want to ignore it. It is illegal for anyone in need of care to be turned away from an emergency room.

I would say that a woman in labor, is most definately in need of care, wouldn't you?
19th August 2009, 12:34
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rollo

You don't need to. The LAW is sufficient:
http://www.ssa.gov/history/reg1.html
No member, officer, or employee of the Board, except as authorized by this regulation or otherwise expressly authorized by the Board, shall produce or disclose to any person or before any tribunal, directly or indirectly, whether in response to a subpoena or otherwise, any record (including any file, letter, application, claim, return, report, or other paper or document) or any information acquired therefrom or otherwise officially acquired, pertaining to any person.

The law itself prevents the official generation of reports unless consent is given to the Department by the individual in question. Since anyone reporting to the Department does so via the instrument of their SSN, they can't very well give consent for an official report to be generated without it.

An "illegal" person is simply unknown to the department, and if they're unknown then they can't very be included in the statistics can they?
There are known knowns; there are things the Department knows they know. They also know there are known unknowns; that is to say they know there are some things they do not know. But you are asking to provide details of unknown unknowns.

So there are no illegals that have SSN's? And since the law says they can't report people without SSN's, I'm sure no one would like to exaggerate would they?

Again I can't find this HHS report that you and the estemed Sen. Byrd are refering to. Can you post a link? Everything that I have seen says that that 50 million number includes 9-10 million illegals at least.
19th August 2009, 12:38
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

The SAME Robert Byrd who was a paid up member in good standing once upon a time in the KKK.

He wasn't just a member in good standing, he was the "Exalted Cyclops". A fact that for some reason the media likes to forget. I suppose because he's not from the "racist" Republican party. That idea is so laughable I don't even know where to begin. But now we're off topic, sorry.
19th August 2009, 14:17
Drew

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

Again, that number is BS. And even if you choose to believe it isn't, it is against the law for any emergency room in the States to turn anyone away if they are in need of care.

I can not stress this point enough, especially sence people seem to want to ignore it. It is illegal for anyone in need of care to be turned away from an emergency room.

I would say that a woman in labor, is most definately in need of care, wouldn't you?

Well say the figures are actually half of that, 20 -25 million, is that still not alot?!

What would happen to a woman like this in America then? Imagine she has no insurance, lived across the road and phone up for an ambulance. What would happen, would she have been taken care of and then left with a massive bill afterwards?

Btw she wasn't refused care as such, just refused an ambulance.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page