Question about Nationalized Universal Healthcare

There was recently a very lively debate about the different healthcare plans of the two candidates in the Obama and McCain "change" poll threads. And after thinking so much about healthcare policy, I had a question I would like to pose to the canncom community:

Why aren't corporate interests the ones pushing hardest for nationalized healthcare?

In the US, about 60% of Americans get healthcare insurance through their employers, with the company picking up a large part of the cost. A healthcare benefit is just something Americans expect from a "good job." It seems to me like both of the plans proposed by the two candidates build on the idea that healthcare should be provided by employers, with government programs to pick up some of the slack. For better or worse, neither one is proposing a truely "nationalized" healthcare system provided through the government and subsidized by taxpayers.

A lot of Americans are actually opposed to such a "nationalized" healthcare system, but why would corporate America be opposed to it or even just neutral about it? Why not in favor? Right now American corporations pick up a huge proportion of healthcare cost in this country as a benefit to their employees. That is a huge cost. Those coprporations compete with corporations in other countries that have nationalized healthcare and do not have this added cost. American corporations operate at a disadvantage because they pay this healthcare expense that other companies around the world do not have to pay. That added cost either gets taken off the bottom line or added to the price of goods.

Doesn't it seem like they would want to dump this cost off on the government and the taxpayers? Corporations are not shy about dumping off costs, so why not this one? I know for certain that every company I have worked for in the last 15 years has complained about the high cost of healthcare benefits and has worked to publicise the fact that the cost goes up 10% to 15% a year.

So why is it always "left-wing liberals" who want nationalized healthcare? Why isn't it corporate shareholders and CEOs pushing for nationalized healthcare so they can shed the cost and be more competitive and profitable?

After thinking about it all day, I honestly have no clue, so I wanted to throw it out for discussion.

Hey Dragon ..Well the companies that provide heath care to their workers are not that much worse of than say companies that are here in Canada say because Canadian companies do pay higher taxes up here so i dont know if Canadian companies are better off than your American companies that provide heath care.I think American companies fear a large tax increase will come if you guys get national heath care,maybe thats why they are not all gung ho for it.But if you guys get a heath care plan like us expect your taxes on things like beer and cigs and oil to go up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishman3811

I think American companies fear a large tax increase will come if you guys get national heath care,maybe thats why they are not all gung ho for it.But if you guys get a heath care plan like us expect your taxes on things like beer and cigs and oil to go up.

---

MY GOD...I agree with fishman, now this is something new.:D

A question to ya fishman; did this tax also go onto such things as cigars and wine? Seems when the 6 figure salary crowd want want to feel better about themselves they manage to tax the middle and lower class in this sort of manner while leaving thier recreational use items alone.

Have a good one!:s4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

Why aren't corporate interests the ones pushing hardest for nationalized healthcare?

---

According to what US News and World Report said and something my wife's former CEO also told me, many of them are pushing for it, especially within the last three years as insuring their workforces has gotten painfully expensive. Bird worked for a Fortune 100 company that insured something insane like 160,000 employees around the world, at least in countries where there wasn't govt-subsidized coverage. About 90,000K of its employees were in America. So it cost multi-millions to provide health coverage for that employee population. They were rich enough to cover that employee population, but the pain from doing so was bad. Per US News, big businesses for whom health care expenses have begun to eat into annual revenue and damage shareholder/dividend value were the first to come around on nationally supplemented coverage. Those sized companies are still going to have to help cover their populations, though, at great expense, and they'll pick up lots more of the tab for it from a nationalized plan, too, in taxes or corporate premiums. Nationalized care will help, though.

Pretty sure we haven't heard more about it for two reasons.
A, it hasn't been fashionable to clamor for nationalized health care from a political perspective, especially by good, right-aligned (business) loyalists. Then B, there are a lot more small businesses in the country that simply don't offer insurance at all or only offer the bare minimum or coverage that employees can buy on their own. So those businesses haven't felt that expense so bad and haven't cared one way or the other. Their employees feel the pain when they either try to get health care on their own or face a medical crisis, though.

For me, insuring my people is one of my top three expenses now. There are groups we can join to help put us into bigger insurance pools. The Texas Med Assoc offers a couple. Man, it hurts, though. Lots of physicians have stopped covering their offices entirely, which is unconscionable since they get coverage themselves and professional courtesy freebie care, at least from other doctors, and always will. It's not physician care that eats anyone alive and sends them to bankruptcy court, though. It's hospital and facility bills (like rehab facility). Some cancer bills, too, can be just as terminal as the disease itself.

If more big businesses would start squawking and lobbying for nationalized plans (they do that on the sly, generally, when they do it), Congress and the Senate would hear that loud and clear.

Thanks everyone who replied.

I wonder if it is really the fear of higher taxes or if it has more to do with the political acceptability of pushing for a nationalized industry. I can see a CEO running the numbers and deciding it would cost less to have the government handle healthcare, even if it meant higher taxes, but then having that CEO think, "But, I can't come out in favor of nationalized healthcare! What would the boys at the country club say? They'd think I'd turned commie!"

If it really is the fear of higher taxes, then I can see why they will never support it from a bottom-line point of view. But if it is actually something more political than bottom-line oriented, I would not be surprised to see shareholders begin to push for it. If it affects profitability, eventually shareholders will demand it, even if CEOs are against it politically.

I personally am not sure I am in favor of a truly nationalized system. I would worry about taxes, choice, and quality of service. The reason for bringing up the thread was not to push one way or the other on the issue of nationalized healthcare --- it was to look at it from a straight bottom-line point of view for corporations that have huge healthcare costs.

I think part of it is the corporations get a tax right off for there healthcare programs where if it was nationailized they'd lose that.

P4B i dont think the six figure crowd is immune to sin taxes unless your a saint a pack of COLTS with 5 or 6 cigars costs around 7 bucks a bottle of cheap wine is 11-15 bucks a bottle of Crown Royal 40 ouncer is 35-40 bucks a pack of smokes is 12 bucks soo yeah most of what we pay for those things is taxes.But i think the government should be responsible for health care i find it funny how those that are opposed to universal health care talk about the Canadian model and how fucked up it is BUT there are other countries who have universal health care and do it rather well.Look at Japans model look at Germanies model both have great health care,France is another country.So dont diss universal health care because it can work in your country as well you just have to find the right model.I really dont care that i have high sin taxes because i can see my family doctor anytime for anything and i dont get a bill,i can go to the emergency room in any hospital and get treated and i dont have to take out my credit card.Yes we have long waiting lists for surgery but the government is trying to address it,its not perfect but what is?

universal healthcare, frickin stupid

government is so great right? they handle everything more efficient and cheaper than the private sector? yeh right. why in the hell would you want to give even more power to the federal government? for the greater good right? we might as well just send our entire paychecks to the government and then they can provide us with what we need, i bet it'd be utopia.

the US healthcare system is fucked up, but only an idiot would want the government to take it over, there's definately a better solution, although i don't know what that would be.

Something every other industialized country in the world has universal health care except America so i guess every other country is wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishman3811

P4B i dont think the six figure crowd is immune to sin taxes

---

I recall back in the early "90"s when they were going to raise the tax on beer but not on wine....created quite the stink. Fact is, if your in the six figure crowd you can pay these taxes with little effect on your present "standard of life" while those in the lower income ranges can't afford this tax and it does have an effect on their recreational usage....at least for some.

Have a good one!:s4:

oh shit you convinced me, good job, everyone else is doing it. i don't believe that the us federal government is capable of doing a good job handling our healthcare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by something

i don't believe that the us federal government is capable of doing a good job handling our healthcare.

---

They can't keep their own house clean...why would anybody want them involved in their health care is beyond me.

Have a good one!:s4:

Well why not work with other countries who follow different models to find out which one is right for your country. It really is a better idea, and I swear..once you're afforded the ability to receive medical care anytime, anywhere, for free its great. Just like you guys can't understand why we pay all the tax for this service, and let the government run it - I don't understand why you don't see the shit in having to pay for medical treatment for say, an accident. Say you're injured in a car wreck..you go to the hospital and get fixed, but you come out with a bill. That right there is complete bullshit, and worse than any type of socialized health care. Your declaration of independence gives you the "right" to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
They should be able to help save your life and not ask for money in return. I know you guys are uptight with the taxes, but honestly, its so much better to be able to go get a bad cough, or a throat infection, or a stomach thing...small stuff...for free. I don't have to worry about paying, so what is the harm in getting care if I can. Sure we have wait times and stuff, but its not like they avoid urgent cases...if you are seriously hurt, you'll find care. And I can see a family doctor even when its not urgent...I have never been turned away, or had to travel for it.
In the states its crazy that you have to pay(and btw, if anyone wants to share stories of that..I'd be interested in knowing how much it costs you). And in the end, although I pay tax..I know that it might save somebody if I do, and someone may save me someday. Call us compassionate, I guess;)

here is the argument for nationalized universal healthcare in a nutshell. the childish innocence and greed of the cult of entitlement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FreshNugz

....and I swear..once you're afforded the ability to receive medical care anytime, anywhere, for free its great.

---

no one ever turned down a free lunch. it sure would be nice if society paid to feed and clothe my children, if someone else would take care of all my needs from the cradle to the grave.

Quote:

---

Just like you guys can't understand why we pay all the tax for this service, and let the government run it....

---

i suppose that your government is free from the corruption and inefficiencies that plague the rest of the world. i suppose that you don't have to concern yourself with the loss of freedoms that allowing government into every facet of your life leads to. it must be wonderful to be able to trust your government so completely that you needn't worry about what direction they will take your life.

Quote:

---

I don't understand why you don't see the shit in having to pay for medical treatment for say, an accident. Say you're injured in a car wreck..you go to the hospital and get fixed, but you come out with a bill. That right there is complete bullshit....

---

having to pay for a service is bullshit? i guessed i missed that part of the lesson on what growing up is all about. children may consider life a wonderful free for all, but any reasonable adult knows that there is a price to pay for everything.

Quote:

---

Your declaration of independence gives you the "right" to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

---

yes, the right to life. no one ever guaranteed a long life or a happy life or a life free from the sorrows that are a part of all human existence.

Quote:

---

...small stuff...for free. I don't have to worry about paying, so what is the harm in getting care if I can.

---

again, your glee at getting something for nothing is apparent. the fact that you are not entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor seems to have totally escaped your attention.

Quote:

---

In the states its crazy that you have to pay....

---

having to pay for the better things in life is all a part of taking responsibility for yourself. with no personal responsibility comes no freedom to control your own destiny.

Quote:

---

Call us compassionate, I guess

---

here is the big lie. somehow it is considered compassionate to be forced to care for others. compassion implies a charitable nature and charity by legislation is theft, not compassion.

This is my kind of thread. It's a really worthwhile debate to be having right now, too.

The reason we're going to have to look at the question of nationalized health care is because big-business-ized health care isn't working and is out of the reach of more and more sick people. It's very simple, really. It's not that anyone truly wants the government involved in health care, P4B. It's that without that involvement, there are millions of people who cannot obtain care at all and more and more among the working, insured populations who are going bankrupt as a result of our current system. This is only going to get worse.

FreshNugz does seem to relish the gift of his covered health care services, Delusions. Perhaps that is entitlement. Perhaps it's just his Canadian perspective combined with his youth. I don't think any reasonable American believes that a nationalized program is going to provide across-the-board services free of charge or free of problems for anyone. Certainly it'll be paid for in one way or another, just like it's being paid for right now in our grossly overpriced system by the few who still have insurance and extra cash. Making care that'll be available to everyone and portable isn't legislating compassion, though. At least not in my book. It's simply a more compassionate way to approach the problem we have now, which first takes into account everything but what really matters, which is what will benefit people's health. Personal responsibility will still factor in, too. That'll always factor in in health care, from picking up copayments and shares of the premiums or taxes/tax credits that support it to living the health-smart behaviors that ensure you need fewer rather than more services.

I'm hoping some of you will read this link, this information. It's a really good study of health care system comparisons by country and what people think about them, plus what their advantages and disadvantages are. Some of it's mighty dry. Good info, though. This is the study that's helping drive planning for the soon-to-be American system and is the data that helped show just how badly American health care needed to do something different when it came out a couple of years ago.

Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: An Update on the Quality of American Health Care Through the Patient's Lens

having social health or not is a good little debate. im against what america does fact that im 1 of about 70 million americans that has no insurance or can get doctor help because i cant afford it. my wife is 5 months pregnant and we cant see the doctor because we cant afford. she had medicaid on the first pregnancy (that we lost first baby) and were being sued by the hospitals because medicaid wont cover the bills like their supposed to. and on top of that it took 2 yrs to get a triple bypass for my father. that shows how good american healthcare is. no one gets help. tryin to get medicaid now for the wife and theirs no office around us. goin to have to drive 60-70 miles 1 direction to maybe get some help. when the healthcare system is breaking the average american and they have to sell off their familys worth to pay for meds and heart surgery or diabeties.

100% social health care might not be the best but it sure beats not having any type of medical help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by delusionsofNORMALity

here is the argument for nationalized universal healthcare in a nutshell. the childish innocence and greed of the cult of entitlement.

no one ever turned down a free lunch. it sure would be nice if society paid to feed and clothe my children, if someone else would take care of all my needs from the cradle to the grave.

i suppose that your government is free from the corruption and inefficiencies that plague the rest of the world. i suppose that you don't have to concern yourself with the loss of freedoms that allowing government into every facet of your life leads to. it must be wonderful to be able to trust your government so completely that you needn't worry about what direction they will take your life.

having to pay for a service is bullshit? i guessed i missed that part of the lesson on what growing up is all about. children may consider life a wonderful free for all, but any reasonable adult knows that there is a price to pay for everything.

yes, the right to life. no one ever guaranteed a long life or a happy life or a life free from the sorrows that are a part of all human existence.

again, your glee at getting something for nothing is apparent. the fact that you are not entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor seems to have totally escaped your attention.

having to pay for the better things in life is all a part of taking responsibility for yourself. with no personal responsibility comes no freedom to control your own destiny.

here is the big lie. somehow it is considered compassionate to be forced to care for others. compassion implies a charitable nature and charity by legislation is theft, not compassion.

---

Well, I knew you might pop in here and make this debate good DoN. I'm going to try my best, although a debate between you and I, where I try to defend any type of socialism, is just not going to be resolved. However, keep in mind I'm defending only health care, not feeding and clothing children, or watering the lawn for the elderly here. Feeding, clothing, bla bla bla for children is a completely different issue. Children are to be planned for - not taken lightly. And that requires a lot of the type of responsibility you're talking about...health care on the other hand is different. You don't "plan" to get cancer, to be shot, to be raped, things like that. There are medical conditions which people do not impose on themselves. And some people, I guarantee everyone knows one, has needed medical care at some point. If this person can be saved, shouldn't they be? Is it not a waste to let one perish because he/she can't afford to pay for a treatment they now need because they've fallen ill?? Never did I say my government was free of corruption ...ever. I just basically see it as kind of a joke. It does what it needs to, and sometimes what it doesnt need to, but all in all i'm not afraid or threatened by my government health care system "taking my life in some direction". You've got to step out of the anti socialist anarchy behaviour here, and stop taking everything to its utmost literal extreme. I don't trust them completely, in fact I absolutely hate my Prime Minister and think he is a scoundrel...i am just not as afraid of government as you seem to be. A program to help save a life is not Orwelian like you see it.

Having to pay for service is not bullshit at all. But The service of being saved, IF YOU CAN, is something worth paying for. You are almost equating it with a visit from the electrician, and a hefty bill because something's wrong with your house...that is a case of "shit happening"... For those who are happy to accept that , hey, well I could get hit by a car tomorrow and possibly die, but ...shit happens? Totally different. If that is the sentiment, I'd almost guarantee they'd blurt out save me when they realized it was coming to an end. Though there are some who see death as acceptable and inevitable, there are others who would like their life saved if it is possible.
Being an adult and realizing there is a price to pay for everything is hardly a convincing argument here. That is applicable to the example 'visit from the electrician'. So because I'm an adult I have to realize that I could be hurt and its better to not have a place to receive care because sometimes shit happens? I really don't understand your sentiment. I am not a child like you both have suggested..I realize there is a price to pay, if i didn't...well i'd go turn in front of a truck blindly saying, its okay, i have medicare?? i don't do that. You act like people are stupid for wanting health care to save them when a situation is IMPOSED on them which could take your life. I agree, someone who turns their vehicle in front of someone else knowing they could die is a moron and shouldn't have the "fruits of your labour" at their disposal....i'm talking about serious issues that can take a life. You just seem to not get that.
And I don't get something for nothing . I'm alright with the fact that someone who can be saved can enjoy the fruits of my labour, because I can enjoy theirs if something happens to me too. But they don't take care of "all my needs cradle to grave" nor do I ask them to.
Nobody forced me to have medicare either. I don't need it. I can go find health care elsewhere if I so please. So its not forced compassion...and its not theft from the government.
Again with the pure hatred of anything governmental..there's lots to hate, but on this issue I don't. And i don't naively think I am entitled to the fruits of their labour just because i get sick...they don't have to have medicare...
How does having a health care system make me incapable of having personal responsibilities. I have lots. For someone who recognizes that the government treats the population like shit most of the time, don't you think you deserve a few stitches or an appendectomy if you need?

As for Dave Byrd....
1. I am female. Not male.
2. It's hilarious how you argued the same thing I did in your first paragraph, yet called me a naive child for the same argument in your second paragraph. I agree with what you said: not that I want the government involved, but that if they aren't millions of people are dying needlessly. And when you say it will only get worse, I don't understand why we'd have a point of contention.
3. Its not entitlement or youth. My Canadian perspective however, does have something to do with it. You can view that perspective here: Universal Declaration of Human Rights
The aspect pertaining to our issues is covered under Articles 22-27. Now, I don't have all of these rights. But I consider health care to be the one of utmost importance. And as a Canadian(by the way, the UN declaration of human rights was written by a canadian, John Humphrey, 1949) I expect my government to aid this country in providing a health care system. And I respect the work of Tommy Douglas, who created and founded our system. Our country truly is a better place for it.
It is astonishing how both of you are so quick to make personal judgements on me based on my difference in opinion with you.

You said its a more compassionate way to deal with the problem you have. And I couldn't agree more. So please explain why you'd call me entitled, or consider me ignorant because of my youth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Byrd

It's not that anyone truly wants the government involved in health care, P4B. It's that without that involvement, there are millions of people who cannot obtain care at all and more and more among the working, insured populations who are going bankrupt as a result of our current system. This is only going to get worse.

---

I worked in Outside Industrial Sales for over 11 years in which I had the "pleasure" of doing business with the government. First you receive a call for quote from person "A"....this information is sent to person "B" that confirms the quote......next step is for person "C" to actually send the P.O. which consists of 1" worth of paperwork pinpointing each and every aspect of the part, P.O., conditions of the sale, etc. Because of all the beaurocracy the discount structure for Government accounts is "0".

IF either the patient, hospital, or insurance companies have to contend with this sort of system due to government involvement you will see the price of healthcare increase dramatically. This doesn't equate to fixing a system but instead adding to it's waste and passing the buck off to the U.S. taxpayer. A cost that neither the middle or lower class can, or wants to afford.

Fix the hospital system first!

The "myth" of non-profit organization:
At the end of the yearly budget if there is $5 million left over how is this "profit" used? "We need to burn the cash!" Renovations to office space with new desks, chairs, carpeting, curtains, etc. that isn't really needed but money spent in order to balance the books to protect the "myth". And like government, they get screwed on the cost based on the hoax of "hospital grade" equipment.

-Receptionists chairs that would cost $100 from Grainger are purchased from other vendors for $450 because they are "hospital grade".

-In house contractors are aware of the situation and the favored few jack the price of the projects full well knowing that the competition won't even be asked for a request for quote.

These two items are just an example of the waste. These areas didn't need to be done but the money was there and directors of the different departments all jocky for position to have their area done so it looks just a bit prettier than the others. This has nothing to do with managing waste or lowering the cost of healthcare to ALL patients.

Where could have this $5 million been used?
-In a hospital consisting of 120 beds, assuming that they are at full capacity year round, $114 could have been dropped from the room stay for each and every inhouse patient for the next fiscal year.

-The average cost of an MRI is $800 according to this information I found (gihealth.com - built for patient satisfaction). Assuming that they do 10 MRI's/day for the full 365 days in a year, this $5 million would spread $1369 to the cost/MRI. This $5 million has now covered the FULL cost of the MRI procedure for ALL patients that needed it with money left over!

Vendor Gouging
-The bed in the picture below is a lower end Hill Rom Advanta series. Nothing special....3 electric drive motor/cylinder combinations, 5 computor boards, framework, wiring harness, and a non-inflatable mattress pad. "Maybe" $5000 but do to prioritized parts so they get the replacement business this bed is actually $12,000. This also effects replacement parts due to the fact that "on shelf" components that could be bought from a basic vendor for 1/3 the cost have been modified by either a couple inches on the cylinder or by changing the motor mounts. Upper end beds go for as much as $25,000!!

-The O.R. table below is VERY basic. One gear pump motor combination that runs at 750 psi, one telescoping cylinder, 4 brake cylinders, and a few others used to adjust the head and foot sections. All this combined with a st. steel frame is worth maybe $20,000 due to the st. steel but sells to hospitals for $75,000! Once again, LOADED with prioritized parts.

This sort of waste is the equivalent of oil speculation in my book. Both of the current candidates have "talked" of an investigation into speculation and the same should be done within the hospital system. Adding government beaurocracy to a broken system isn't lowering the cost of health care or addressing the reason why costs are so high. All this plan would do is throw an invisible cloak over the problem by a system that is notorious for doing just that.

Officials at the University of Chicago Hospitals say a promotion and large pay increase given to Sen. Barack Obama's wife shortly after the Democrat was elected to Congress were well-deserved boosts for an executive who is "worth her weight in gold." The Chicago Tribune has the story.

"She's terrific," added Michael Riordan, who was president of the hospital in March 2005, when Michelle Obama was promoted to vice president for external affairs and had her annual salary increased from $121,910 to $316,962.
Hospital officials say Obama's wife deserved big raise - On Deadline - USATODAY.com

The Obama's have proven that they aren't part of the solution but actually part of the problem. With this pay increase came $millions in earmarks for this system. Benificial "change" won't happen from this candidate!

Have a good one!:s4:

You won't get any argument from me that the hospital system needs fixing in the process. You're precisely right that the whole system has a grossly inflated racket going w/ equipment and billing. The same thing is true of billing to insurance companies. Pharmaceutical. This is how the current prices got so inflated.

What you're not realizing, though, is that this is precisely the big-business-ized system the Obama team and the new nationalized plan is going to have to address to cut the very costs you're talking about. The reason they're the only ones who can do that, as opposed to the Rs, is that the current system has grown up at the nurturing of the Rs. You're aware who owns/runs the biggest hospital company in this country, right? Senator-Doctor Bill Frist. It's the Rs who've been gouging these costs all this time and running those bills up for everyone. In order to fatten the bottom lines of the hospital corporations, the pharmaceutical and insurance companies. There is where the racket is. I know what I'm talking about here.

It's going to be hard as hell to fix that, too. The over-billing equip, pharma and hospital bill thing (there are lots of others--entire industries have grown up simply to milk more money out of the current system) is so deeply entrenched in our current system that it's unbelievable. No one on either side of the aisle is going to argue that it's going to be hell to get through the process of changing this, either. It's going to be nasty. (And eventually entire industries will have cropped up to rape the new system, too. That's the sad thing.)

I wish I could stay and explain this a bit longer, but I am on call and have to go stand over a couple of those very beds at, fortunately, a not-for-profit hospital. Will try to get back to this later in the week.

Good thread!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

The Obama's have proven that they aren't part of the solution but actually part of the problem. With this pay increase came $millions in earmarks for this system. Benificial "change" won't happen from this candidate!

---

Your wording here is so closely aligned w/ Republican talking points that I'm starting to think you're one of those folks who's getting a little honorarium from one of the get-out-the-R-vote organizations that's paying people on discussion boards to cover R-leaning subjects of discussion. . . . Are you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Byrd

You won't get any argument from me that the hospital system needs fixing in the process. You're precisely right that the whole system has a grossly inflated racket going w/ equipment and billing. The same thing is true of billing to insurance companies. Pharmaceutical. This is how the current prices got so inflated.

What you're not realizing, though, is that this is precisely the big-business-ized system the Obama team and the new nationalized plan is going to have to address to cut the very costs you're talking about. The reason they're the only ones who can do that, as opposed to the Rs, is that the current system has grown up at the nurturing of the Rs.

---

"going to have to address" and calling for an internal investigation are two different things. The system is corrupt and untill a candidate states just that I can't see where nothing will be done to solve the root of the problem. I'm sure that his ties with the University of Chicago Health System will stand in the way of real "change".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Byrd

I wish I could stay and explain this a bit longer, but I am on call and have to go stand over a couple of those very beds at, fortunately, a not-for-profit hospital. Will try to get back to this later in the week.

---

Not for profit....so at the end of the fiscal year when there is a couple million left in the kitty how do they handle it? I've found this system a myth as stated in my previous post.

Have a good one!:s4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Byrd

Your wording here is so closely aligned w/ Republican talking points that I'm starting to think you're one of those folks who's getting a little honorarium from one of the get-out-the-R-vote organizations that's paying people on discussion boards to cover R-leaning subjects of discussion. . . . Are you?

---

Absolutely NOT! Unlike others I would REFUSE to sell my soul to any of the political parties. I find it amusing that if your not for Obama all of a sudden your either a racist, anti-med. marijuana, or a hired hand. I'm a free thinker and refuse to change any of my beliefs based on a party's platform.

I don't like or respect Obama because of many reasons:
-Pull out "most" of the troops from Iraq and leave the others for target practice.
-We won't gradually go away from oil usage...lets just jump into the fire and see if we get burnt. Drill like hell here and work on other fuel alternatives in the meantime.
-He states that he's against earmarks but has so far gathered over $200,000,000 in his short term as a Senator.
-Associations with Rev. Wright for over 20 years and didn't realize he was a racist piece of garbage. I don't buy it!
-His insinuation that we would be in Darfur which would basically put us in charge of protecting China's oil interests in the country. Why?

I don't like many of McCains positions but I DO respect the man:
-He's been to hell and decided to stay with his men instead of leaving them behind. That to me shows an actual love for country and his fellow troops. MUCH RESPEC!!

-Right wing views of abortion are NOT part of my agenda
-His views on gay marriage are outdated.
-His views on med. m.j. are outdated.

ONCE AGAIN it's not a vote for who we like but a vote against the other. I've voted for Republicans, Democrats, and Independents in the past and the only ones that I can honestly say that I "voted for" was Reagan, and Perrot. B. Clinton also received my vote in his second term due to who he was running against.

My problem with Obama....he has a seperate face for every occasion. A promise for everyones issues tells me one thing; the man is a typical politician who's ONLY agenda is getting his name into the history books.

I still hold firm that real change will ONLY happen with term limits on Congress and Senate.

Have a good one!:s4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Byrd

The reason we're going to have to look at the question of nationalized health care is because big-business-ized health care isn't working and is out of the reach of more and more sick people.

---

there is little doubt that the health care and insurance industries are filled with abuse and inefficiency and is in desperate need of reform, but placing the entire mess in the hands of government will only serve to exacerbate an already desperate situation. you need only look to the other socialized services that the government provides to see what a mess that bureaucracy will make of things. the duty of government is to protect the rights of its citizens, not to micro-manage their daily affairs.

Quote:

---

Certainly it'll be paid for in one way or another, just like it's being paid for right now in our grossly overpriced system by the few who still have insurance and extra cash.

---

"one way or another"? we all know how it will be paid for, the same way every other faulty social program is paid for. the government way is to overtax the middle and upper classes to pay for the long term care of the poor. little, if any, attempt is ever made provide a means for those in poverty to gain some measure of self-sufficience, merely to entrap them in comfortable poverty. as long as health care is left in the private sector there will be choice. once government get its hands on it, choice disappears and is replaced with mediocrity.