This is your opinion, not a universal truth

• Is anyone really surprised - Patterson

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Great post piglet.  I so agree with what you all had to say in support of changing our current system.  Canada probably has the worst universal healthcare system, and yet the average Canadian lives 3 years longer than the average American.  People always point to the flaws in their system and just assume that we will make all the same mistakes.  Of course their system has flaws, just as our system has many fatal flaws.  England and France actually have great universal healthcare systems.  Here is an article I found about France's successful program:

"France's model healthcare system
By Paul V. Dutton | August 11, 2007

MANY advocates of a universal healthcare system in the United States look to Canada for their model. While the Canadian healthcare system has much to recommend it, there's another model that has been too long neglected. That is the healthcare system in France.

Although the French system faces many challenges, the World Health Organization rated it the best in the world in 2001 because of its universal coverage, responsive healthcare providers, patient and provider freedoms, and the health and longevity of the country's population. The United States ranked 37.

The French system is also not inexpensive. At $3,500 per capita it is one of the most costly in Europe, yet that is still far less than the $6,100 per person in the United States.

An understanding of how France came to its healthcare system would be instructive in any renewed debate in the United States.

That's because the French share Americans' distaste for restrictions on patient choice and they insist on autonomous private practitioners rather than a British-style national health service, which the French dismiss as "socialized medicine." Virtually all physicians in France participate in the nation's public health insurance, Sécurité Sociale.

Their freedoms of diagnosis and therapy are protected in ways that would make their managed-care-controlled US counterparts envious. However, the average American physician earns more than five times the average US wage while the average French physician makes only about two times the average earnings of his or her compatriots. But the lower income of French physicians is allayed by two factors. Practice liability is greatly diminished by a tort-averse legal system, and medical schools, although extremely competitive to enter, are tuition-free. Thus, French physicians enter their careers with little if any debt and pay much lower malpractice insurance premiums.

Nor do France's doctors face the high nonmedical personnel payroll expenses that burden American physicians. Sécurité Sociale has created a standardized and speedy system for physician billing and patient reimbursement using electronic funds.

It's not uncommon to visit a French medical office and see no nonmedical personnel. What a concept. No back office army of billing specialists who do daily battle with insurers' arcane and constantly changing rules of payment.

Moreover, in contrast to Canada and Britain, there are no waiting lists for elective procedures and patients need not seek pre-authorizations. In other words, like in the United States, "rationing" is not a word that leaves the lips of hopeful politicians. How might the French case inform the US debate over healthcare reform?

National health insurance in France stands upon two grand historical bargains -- the first with doctors and a second with insurers.

Doctors only agreed to participate in compulsory health insurance if the law protected a patient's choice of practitioner and guaranteed physicians' control over medical decision-making. Given their current frustrations, America's doctors might finally be convinced to throw their support behind universal health insurance if it protected their professional judgment and created a sane system of billing and reimbursement.

French legislators also overcame insurance industry resistance by permitting the nation's already existing insurers to administer its new healthcare funds. Private health insurers are also central to the system as supplemental insurers who cover patient expenses that are not paid for by Sécurité Sociale. Indeed, nearly 90 percent of the French population possesses such coverage, making France home to a booming private health insurance market.

The French system strongly discourages the kind of experience rating that occurs in the United States, making it more difficult for insurers to deny coverage for preexisting conditions or to those who are not in good health. In fact, in France, the sicker you are, the more coverage, care, and treatment you get. Would American insurance companies cut a comparable deal?

Like all healthcare systems, the French confront ongoing problems. Today French reformers' number one priority is to move health insurance financing away from payroll and wage levies because they hamper employers' willingness to hire. Instead, France is turning toward broad taxes on earned and unearned income alike to pay for healthcare.

American advocates of mandates on employers to provide health insurance should take note. The link between employment and health security is a historical artifact whose disadvantages now far outweigh its advantages. Economists estimate that between 25 and 45 percent of the US labor force is now job-locked. That is, employees make career decisions based on their need to maintain affordable health coverage or avoid exclusion based on a preexisting condition.

Perhaps it's time for us to take a closer look at French ideas about healthcare reform. They could become an import far less "foreign" and "unfriendly" than many here might initially imagine."

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial...lthcare_system/

1. There isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; do we really want an organization that developed the U.S. Tax Code handling something as complex as health care?
   
2. "Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc.
   
3. Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness.
   
4. Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility.
   
5. Patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free; thus, total costs will be several times what they are now.
   
6. Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care; nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance.
   
7. Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care.
   
8. Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc.
   
9. A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record creation.
   
10. Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession.
    
11. Malpractice lawsuit costs, which are already sky-high, could further explode since universal care may expose the government to legal liability, and the possibility to sue someone with deep pockets usually invites more lawsuits.
    
12. Government is more likely to pass additional restrictions or increase taxes on smoking, fast food, etc., leading to a further loss of personal freedoms.
    
13. Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a "right" by the public, meaning that it's politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control.

NOT VOTING FOR OBAMA!  His plans will fail and they will up the cost of everything.  Stop the government spending!  Don't vote for someone wanting to add more programs that will INCREASE government spending.  That is why our economy is in deep crap right now.

Oh my goodness, regarding universal health care, unfortunately these things are just not so.  How are things worse off - everyone is covered, for everything, no matter how rich or poor, or sick.  Will you have to wait longer, possibly, I don't know (do you have a reference for comparison) but you will be treated - absolutely no one is turned down who can derive benefit from treatment. 

Losing your best doctors?  Where are they going?

The government will pay for elective things like knee replacements, do pay for them every day. 

If you have cancer and the treatment is experimental, there are drug trials (for free), provincial assistance programs (for free) and compassionate release programs via drug companies (for free).  No "death certificates are signed"  If you are not happy with your treatment, you can see another doctor, any doctor you choose, and no one will say you cannot have a treatment or see a physican because of money!

I see again that everyone is talking about President Obama's plan for universal health care and I once again feel the need to distinguish between universal health care and what the plan is that President Obama has campaigned for.  I have copied and pasted part of the web page, but also included the link at the bottom of this for you to see the whole plan. 

President Obama does not ask for universal health care where the government is in charge - he just wants the government to ensure that everyone has access to medical care and health insurance.  Why is it so difficult to understand that this is not socialized medicine, government run healthcare, or universal coverage plans?

Barack Obama and Joe Biden's Plan

On health care reform, the American people are too often offered two extremes - government-run health care with higher taxes or letting the insurance companies operate without rules. Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe both of these extremes are wrong, and that’s why they’ve proposed a plan that strengthens employer coverage, makes insurance companies accountable and ensures patient choice of doctor and care without government interference.

The Obama-Biden plan provides affordable, accessible health care for all Americans, builds on the existing health care system, and uses existing providers, doctors and plans to implement the plan. Under the Obama-Biden plan, patients will be able to make health care decisions with their doctors, instead of being blocked by insurance company bureaucrats.

Under the plan, if you like your current health insurance, nothing changes, except your costs will go down by as much as $2,500 per year.

If you don’t have health insurance, you will have a choice of new, affordable health insurance options.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

I do believe, based on all information available, that Plame was truly outed.  There is no "opinion" involved here.  It is either true or false, and in this case, it is true she was outed. Throw as much distraction and verbiage at it as you want, but the fact remains.

This is all pretty much a matter of opinion, why does one have to be stupid to vote for who they FEEL is the best candidate.  None of them truly are qualified.  We can gave education and we can gain experience, but when given the task at hand, how many actually succeed.  I feel that the Bush administration has been the worst ever since I have become involved in politics over the years, but that is my personal opinion.  Not only was he given one term and failed, but a second term and things got worse.

I am not pushing any buttons or trying to step on anyones toes.  To me it does not matter what race, religion, or gender, have always been a democrat and nothing and no one can ever make me vote republican, but the replican administration that had the task of leading our country for the last 8 years has definitely turned some die hard republicans to say they will vote republican.

This is my thing, I'm poor in a sense that I do not have millions of dollars in the bank, the rising gas prices and food prices affect me tremendously, and I live below my means.  The economy has changed, it is not good.  I want to survive.  I want to know that my job is safe, if I need financial assistance to save my home or feed my kids that it is available.  There are more issues that hit home for me, just a few named above.  I do not care that the gentleman who started AIG lost 3 billion dollars, so what how many millions do he have left.  If I lose $100 that's a sore spot for me.  They are saving financial insitutions with buyouts, spending billions on a war, and nothing to help the working Americans who lost their job and lost their homes and they were working hard just to survive.

I'm torn in a sense, but I do feel sorry for our country.  How much more will we working Americans have to suffer. 

Just my thought, part of the money that is been sent to fund this war, can we have it here in America to give to our people who are suffering from natural disasters (hurricanes, raging fires, jobs moved overseas, and all the other major crises surrounding us).  What are we really striving for?

From reading her thesis....she just made it sound like ivy league colleges are directed towards the "Whites" and wondered if it was really beneficial for "Blacks" to attend these colleges in a predominant white setting.  Stating that "Blacks" who attended Princeton found themselves grouped together but at the end of their education came to finding their way in the "White" world and forsaking the "Black Community."  How some "Blacks" felt guilt because they felt they should help the low-income black community and hadn't and others felt no guilt and strived for a position in the white world like Princeton was to blame for these "Blacks" building a life for themself and their family instead of putting everything back into the black community.

It sounds to me like Michelle Obama is a bitter and arrogant black woman and her involvement and membership at Rev. Wright's church for 20 years is just more proof of that.  As many times as Rev. Wright showed up in interviews and spatted hate and the empowerment of blacks against their white oppressors....you cannot tell me honestly that Barrack and Michelle NEVER heard any message like that when it seems like that is all that comes out of Rev. Wright's mouth. 

I voted for the first time in 1960.  The issue then was "Catholic."  People were "scared" of a Catholic president.........much like Obama being "Muslim."  Not much new since then except for the extensive media and internet.  Of course the "Catholic" won.  Some still say that election was bought by the Senior Kennedy.  I  happen to believe that now and I voted for him.  At that time I was a young voter, JFK was young, good-looking and talked a good talk.

You say the media picked their "darling."  I've watched TV consistently since the beginning of all this mess, starting with the primaries and I have seen no bias on CNN where I usually get my news and watch debates, etc. I did notice that Tom Tancredo (whom I supported) and Ron Paul were NOT given equal time in the debates.   Anything I hear that does not come directly from the horse's mouth, I research and make up my own mind, thus I consider myself about as well-informed as anyone can be who doesn't personally know any of the candidates.  I continue to be dismayed by posters on this board such as the above poster who says "Obama caught in the act."  If this is the kind of ill-informed voters who actually vote and elect our leader, God save us all.

The ACORN thing.  If I understand it correctly, the actual voter registration office that "discovered" the fradulent registrations is run by Republicans.  So there you have it again...Dem vs. Pubs.  They say they "don't have time to sort out the legitimate registrations"...Isn't that their job?  Do you REALLY think ACORN is the only one guilty of voter fraud?  I most certainly do not.  Why do you think both parties steer far away from illegal immigration?  Not a word have I heard from either candidate about illegal immigration.  Why?  Both are in favor of giving the free-loading, criminal invaders of our country "a path to citizenship," because both parties want the Latino vote, legal or otherwise.

To answer your question....I think our next leader will be decided by rabid voters who support the ticket, whichever group has the most rabid voters that actually turn out, and it looks to me like it may be the Republican ticket so it will not surprise me if John McCain is the next president.  I personally know many people who say they are not going to vote because they, like myself, cannot support either candidate.  I think there will probably be a huge voter turn-out and much of the turn-out will be newly registered voters and those who have bought into the Obama is a scary fellow campaign.  Fear is the scary thing, it brings out the fight or flight instinct just as it is designed to do in this election.  Seems many people can't see the forrest for the trees. 

VOTING WITH A WRITE-IN VOTE FOR LOU DOBBS!!!!