www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Endless Health Care Problems in the United Kingdom

Go Cowboys!

I actually wanted to jump back to this thread to apologize to Stuart and anyone else I may have offended. Please accept my apology as we enter the closing days in preparing for Christ's incarnation.

Christ is Born! (Almost)

Glorify Him (even now)!

Since it looks like we are having a bill, I am glad that the Democrats are taking full ownership of it. It is a bad bill and it should have been killed.

I would think it reasonable to vote "nea" even on 'good' bills that have not been properly vetted. With a 2,700+ page bill that had a nearly 400 page pay-off at the 11th hour, I can't see how one senator could offer a solid "yea". The current leftist movement has brought a new measure of absurdity to the political scene.

Terry

Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.

Stuart, Terry, and anyone else who can shed some light--

I only caught a bit in passing of the special deal Sen. Nelson got for his home state. What did it all entail?

BOB

As far as Tom Colburn goes (the story that you linked), the Huffington Post is not a fair source of news, and there is no evidence to suggest that Sen. Colburn was speaking of Sen. Byrd. There is about 2 feet of snow on the ground and the nation’s capital continues to dig out. It is far more reasonable to conclude that Sen. Colburn was speaking of the weather, and the travel problems it created. That Job would use it supports that his whole case cannot be supported by evidence (indeed, he has offered little more than emotion and unsubstantiated claims).

Again, you miss the point. Most of the problems here are caused by improper government regulation that limits the market. If someone was allowed to choose their health care company from other states they would go from having (in Maine) one company to choose from to having over 1,300. You seem to think that more government (in place of private insurance) is the answer. That is wrong.

I could respond to your other points but I would like to respond to some earlier points you made.

First, you continue to label me and otters and “anti-reform”. Given that both I and others have offered specific ideas for reform over the past few years we’ve discussed this issue, on what basis do you make such a claim? If you cannot show where I have stood against all types of reforms rather than just reforms tending towards socialism you need to retract your accusation.

Second, you and others have stated anecdotally that people in countries with socialized medicine are happy and would not change. What do you make of the fact that the surveys show that 85% of Americans are happy with their health care, and that over 65% are opposed to the bill being rammed through Congress? The satisfaction rates for American health care notably higher than elsewhere, and the care is (objectively and scientifically measured) notably superior. I see plenty of room for reform both here and in other countries. But I look at the scientific studies that document quality & availability of care vs cost & price. You seem to only look to what people feel about health care. I would look forward to anything scientific / economic that you might provide.

I too am not fully informed on special language crafted for Sen. Nelson in mind, so I can't speak to the context of what would change his mind from his opposition to his support.

I am more familiar with the favor given to Nebraska's Sen. Ben Nelson, that basically alleviates the cost the state would have to put out for a Medicaid expansion. http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/2009/12/21/20091221gerson22.html

Of particular concern to Catholics ought to be the ostensibly "anti-abortion" language that Nelson approved, which in fact would only prevent the use of Federal tax dollars to fund abortions in just thirteen states.

"What profiteth it a man to gain the world but lose his soul. . . but for Medicare alleviation, Ben?"

Question is Fox news a fair source of News??? I won't say anymore on that since your answer will speak volumes. Although, I think I know the answer.

John I don't miss the point. We will just never agree! You think the problems are caused by government. I think the problems are based on an inherent greed that has taken hold in our system.



The basis, as I have said over and over again, is the "REFORM ideas" that the right continues to throwout are nothing more than windowdressing. I think in my numerous posts I addressed what you and Stuart have proposed. If you like, I can refer to your side not as "anti-reform" but "the windowdressers"



First I don't see the connection between your first sentence and the question that follows? The only thing I can think is that you wanted to once again throw out "socialized medicine". This is getting tiring...

In Regards to the second sentence, the fact that 85% are happy with their current health care, is really not the issue. What this bill seeks to accomplish is help with covering those who do not have access. Also, I have asked you to link or at least cite where you get your information from. I am really leary of the 85% number in that, approximately the same percentage in poll after poll are not pleased with insurance companies. I would think that this figure you site (as do many conservatives) has to do with the wording of the poll, and the fact that people on the right are fear-mongering by repeating such things as "socialized medicine", which this really isn't! Remember, and I say remember because I am sure you are aware of this, poll numbers can be made to come out however you want them to. They also have more than one question asked during a survey so one really needs to look deeper into the other questions asked to get the true "pulse" of the population that's being surveyed.



Once again, please provide your sources...

Thank you for jumping into the frey Terry! I am also glad the Democrats are not afraid to take full ownership of it. Remember, Medicare and Social Security were not popular at the beginning either. Both are now staples, to a dignified retirement that a great majority would not give up.

In regards to properly vetted. I think senators have enough staff to get through 400 pages in a few days. The Rest of the 2,700 page bill is primarily things that have been discussed "ad naseum" in committees and has been available to the senators for months.

The private sector and public sector have been at a dance for some time. This bill puts the private sector under the public sector's feet, which is its apparent aim.

TERRY:

Thanks for the link. Makes one a bit sick this early in the morning--before my second cup of coffee. Isn't this . . . nah, forget it. When someone does it one the street for money, they call it . . .

BOB