Why Am I for nationa healthcare?

  • Thread starter Thread starter aspawloski4th
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
NotWorthy said:
Yes, you are right, it was Jamie Gorelick. She is also one of the main bumblers on setting up all the roadblocks that prevented our intelligence community from catching the 911 hijackers before it was too light.

But yes, Miss Gorelick, Mr. Barney Frank, and Mr. Dodd are the main stooges that help set up the banking fiasco which, as you pointed out so accurately, President George Bush tried to fix before it was too late!
Click to expand...
I had a copy of the article in the New York Times from 1999 where Bill Clinton pretty much mandated that the banks and financial institutions would have to give a portion of their mortgages to people who really didn’t qualify. Can’t find the copy, but don’t know if anyone else has it and wants to quote the actual words.

I’m sure all the trouble started before that time, but that is a specific example of the govt forcing businesses to make a bad business decision. And we all know what happened later with the subprime mortgages. Can’t understand why there is so much foreclosure - they couldn’t afford their mortgages in the first place!!!

Can’t imagine how they would sabotage the health care industry if they got their hands on it.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
By the way, President George W. Bush issued warnings repeatedly that Social Security had to be fixed before it flat ran out of money. You can Google YouTube and find the warnings. But Congress wants nothing to do with making ANY changes to Social Security or Medicare.
Click to expand...
But Ronald Reagan fixed it. Why couldn’t Bush follow his lead instead of listening to Karl Rove? Everyone gave out warnings about it. I gave out warnings about Bush’s humungous spending antics which he refused to pay for, including $600 billion as a subsidy to the drug companies. Well, we’re paying for it now.
 
KQP said:
Aspawloski - Do you think Australia has better health care than the US?
Click to expand...
Healthcare involves more than what doctors and hospitals do. Healthcare involves a lot of self treatment and lifestyle. Why do many cancer patients come to the US for special treatment, for example? Maybe because in their own countries their lifestyles lead to fewer cancers and they can’t cost justify the research in order to treat it. That would be my guess.

On the other hand, there are growing number of cases where Americans are going abroad to get bypasses and other routine surgeries. Why not? A bypass costs over $125,000 in the US and only $5,000 in India.
 
KQP said:
Can’t imagine how they would sabotage the health care industry if they got their hands on it.
Click to expand...
The We the people government is supposed to protect us from corporate fraud. But we the people have not elected the right officials in order to do that. **Both parties are guility **and we keep voting in wrong people, while at the same time the Federal Reserve keeps bailing out the banks and insurance companies and say nothing when the corporates overcharge us or fail to honor their contracts with our health expenses. Who can stop the Federal Reserve System? Thirty biparisan senators tried to vote down Bernanke but the other seventy senators wanted to keep the fraudulent and ponzi scheme going. Things are going to get uglier.
 
NotWorthy said:
But yes, Miss Gorelick, Mr. Barney Frank, and Mr. Dodd are the main stooges that help set up the banking fiasco which, as you pointed out so accurately, President George Bush tried to fix before it was too late!
Click to expand...
Not at all. Bush reappointed Greenspan and appointed Bernanke who were at the root cause of the problem. Bush and Frank and Dodd and McConnell and Boehner et al profitted politically when home prices went up, thanks to the Federal Reserve, excessive spending, foreign loans, a push toward ARMs, and downright overoptimism in the markets. And don’t forget that those same banks, with the no-interest loans, are now using that money to drive up oil prices, wheat prices, etc. etc. etc. In fact, it’s worse because ANYONE who calls himself a bank gets money from Bernanke at zero percent with a good chance to get bailed out when he fails. This is a good system?
 
ProVobis said:
Healthcare involves more than what doctors and hospitals do. Healthcare involves a lot of self treatment and lifestyle. Why do many cancer patients come to the US for special treatment, for example? Maybe because in their own countries their lifestyles lead to fewer cancers and they can’t cost justify the research in order to treat it. That would be my guess.

On the other hand, there are growing number of cases where Americans are going abroad to get bypasses and other routine surgeries. Why not? A bypass costs over $125,000 in the US and only $5,000 in India.
Click to expand...
Maybe because they do less research. It’s not cost effective because they don’t make a profit like a company would in the free market. If Canada has a 57% higher cancer patient death rate than the US, it’s because of the long wait to get to specialists, not because there are fewer cancers.
 
aspawloski4th said:
It’s availble to a higher percentage of their people than ours.
Click to expand...
All socialized medicine is available to more people. But is it better? If it’s available but not quickly enough to be effective, or the quality is less. That’s how you measure health care.

A husband of one of my customers had a heart condition. He is Canadian but they were in the US. He got emergency care here. While he was in the hospital, the Canadian system said he needed to fly to Canada, and his appointment for the specialist he needed would be in 3 1-2 weeks. The US doctors fought it because by their findings, he would be dead. He ended up paying for the treatment himself so there was no delay and went for reimbursement from the Canadian healthcare system later. Don’t know if he was ever reimbursed or not, but what a nightmare when your life is on the line.

So yes, the health care was available, but so what? It wasn’t effective.
 
KQP said:
All socialized medicine is available to more people. But is it better? If it’s available but not quickly enough to be effective, or the quality is less. That’s how you measure health care.

A husband of one of my customers had a heart condition. He is Canadian but they were in the US. He got emergency care here. While he was in the hospital, the Canadian system said he needed to fly to Canada, and his appointment for the specialist he needed would be in 3 1-2 weeks. The US doctors fought it because by their findings, he would be dead. He ended up paying for the treatment himself so there was no delay and went for reimbursement from the Canadian healthcare system later. Don’t know if he was ever reimbursed or not, but what a nightmare when your life is on the line.

So yes, the health care was available, but so what? It wasn’t effective.
Click to expand...
And if it isn’t availble to you , it doesn’t do you a lick of good.
 
ProVobis said:
Healthcare involves more than what doctors and hospitals do. Healthcare involves a lot of self treatment and lifestyle. Why do many cancer patients come to the US for special treatment, for example? Maybe because in their own countries their lifestyles lead to fewer cancers and they can’t cost justify the research in order to treat it. That would be my guess.
Click to expand...
… . I think you’re beginning to get to the heart of the matter. wait… wait…
ProVobis said:
On the other hand, there are growing number of cases where Americans are going abroad to get bypasses and other routine surgeries. Why not? A bypass costs over $125,000 in the US and only $5,000 in India.
Click to expand...
And why is this? Do you think it could be because American have had to do all the research in perfecting the bypass treatment, the American insurance system has to cover the cost of malpractice insurance because of the cost of this research and our Indian friends just “copy and paste”?
 
ProVobis said:
Not at all. Bush reappointed Greenspan and appointed Bernanke who were at the root cause of the problem. Bush and Frank and Dodd and McConnell and Boehner et al profitted politically when home prices went up, thanks to the Federal Reserve, excessive spending, foreign loans, a push toward ARMs, and downright overoptimism in the markets. And don’t forget that those same banks, with the no-interest loans, are now using that money to drive up oil prices, wheat prices, etc. etc. etc. In fact, it’s worse because ANYONE who calls himself a bank gets money from Bernanke at zero percent with a good chance to get bailed out when he fails. This is a good system?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure I ever called our banking system, in its present state, good. It started, as KQP indicated, with Clinton. The problem with banks is, they have to be allowed to fail. There was no mechanism. The bank get a “low income” loan? No problem. Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac will buy it. Then, when they cover up the coming problems…
 
tjm190 said:
Why is better to have second rate care for everyone rather than first rate care for the majority?
Click to expand...
That maybe the majority in the literal and classical definition, but in no way shape or form is that an overwhealming majority. It is also an ever shrinking majority soon to be a minority.
 
aspawloski4th said:
And if it isn’t availble to you , it doesn’t do you a lick of good.
Click to expand...
And if it’s not available in time, it really isn’t available either. If I had a leaking roof but couldn’t get it repaired for three months, it wouldn’t really matter because the damage would be done by then.
 
aspawloski4th said:
That maybe the majority in the literal and classical definition, but in no way shape or form is that an overwhealming majority. It is also an ever shrinking majority soon to be a minority.
Click to expand...
KQP said:
What!?!?
Click to expand...
Aspa may be eluding to the shrinking job market… another thing that needs to be reversed. Drill for oil in the US and turn the job market around, and that will help both the job market and the healthcare gap.
 
aspawloski4th said:
That maybe the majority in the literal and classical definition, but in no way shape or form is that an overwhealming majority. It is also an ever shrinking majority soon to be a minority.
Click to expand...
You didn’t answer the question.
 
tjm190 said:
Why is better to have second rate care for everyone rather than first rate care for the majority?
Click to expand...
And the minority gets third or fourth rate, if anything at all. I feel like I am dying, I don’t know, I can’t afford to find out what’s wrong with me anymore
 
Interesting. In today’s readings at Mass in the Gospel of Luke we have " woe to the rich, for they already have their consolation. You rich people wining and sniveling about " your" money used for someone else’s health isn’t looking impressive to the man upstairs. The funny thing is, it going to be everyone’s money used for everyone’s health. Those who say their money and someone’s health, whithout reconizingsomeone elses money and their health are greedy and selfish, mega woe to you!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top