Two years ago, I cast the most important vote of my career for the Affordable Care Act. Thanks to health care reform, 5,000 young adults in my district now have health insurance and 3,600 seniors are now receiving prescription drug discounts worth an average of $630 a year. I was proud to vote yes on the Affordable Care Act, and honored that Northern Virginia stood with me -- electing me to another term in 2010.

This week, the Supreme Court is holding oral arguments on the Affordable Care Act. A narrow band of ideologues -- led by Virginia's Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli -- has attacked the Affordable Care Act on the flimsiest of constitutional grounds. Sadly, the same conservatives who elected President Bush in a 5-4 decision could take away health care from millions of Americans by the same margin.

As the Supreme Court begins hearing oral arguments on the future of health care, do you know how many seats are available to the general public? Only 60! And the Supreme Court has continued its long-standing ban on cameras in the courtroom; cameras that would allow interested Americans to watch the debates.

That is why I introduced bi-partisan legislation to require the Supreme Court to broadcast oral arguments. It's too late to require the health care reform hearings to be televised for all to see, but it's not too late for future hearings to receive the same accountability and transparency that the American people have come to expect from our other branches of government.

I want to continue working for the people of Northern Virginia for years to come, but conservative Super PACs hope to defeat me in November. Last election they spent $3 million on attack ads against me, and they came within 981 votes of beating me. This November, they're committed to spending even more. Can you help me stand up to Karl Rove and the Koch brothers by making a contribution?

We've set an ambitious grassroots goal of raising $10,000 online before our end-of-quarter deadline this Saturday. You can help us meet our goal -- and ensure I have the resources I need to fend off the vicious attacks from outside groups -- by making a generous contribution.

With your support, I will be able to continue fighting for Northern Virginia in Congress for years to come.

Yours in Service,

Congressman Gerry Connolly
11th District of Virginia

So you're willing to force my fellow citizens to cover my health care spending?
Cool! Sure, I'll vote for that.
While you're at it - my biggest TV is a 48" Phipps. I've a smaller Samsung that's quite nice, but a 60" is rather pricey. How 'bout forcing my fellow citizens to cough up a few $$ - and you can keep a little vig...

/s

Sounds like the super PACs need some more dough, folks. $3 million and only lost by 981 votes? How about instead of coughing up a nut for King Connolly, you cut the check for the super PAC and run this douche bag out of office.

Dear Comrade Connolly,

My page got cut off, I missed the part on how you are going to pay for this massive giveaway.

Won by 981 votes! Interesting, almost as interesting as when the voting machines malfunctioned..........you do remember that dont you Gerry?

Comparing a tv to everyone having healthcare? That's dumb even for a republican.

even kids of republicans (18-26) need healthcare, especially for the ADHD meds...

Congressman Conolly,

As a physician I must inform you, as you seem to be in denial, that this Obamacare healthcare legislation will NOT improve healthcare and does not provide healthcare. It destroys the best health care system in the world. Already patients with medicare are having a hard time finding physicians. (AND IT CUTS 500Billion from medicare!)

My family's health care premium has increased. This legislation is projected to cost twice what you promised at 1.7 trillion dollars!!

STOP spending my kids and grandkids money. Average debt per kid is 50K!!! Who do you think you are continuing to spend away their future?

You should be ashamed.

Both levey taxes on employer-provided health insurance premiums.

Democrats - taxes if you don't buy overpriced health insurance
Republicans - tax breaks and vouchers to buy overpriced health insurance

If I live a reasonably healthy lifestyle, you are making me pay to take care of someone with aids or has lung cancer from 30 years of smoking. Why the hell should I subsidize some idiots bad lifestyle with my tax $?

If I eat crappy food in moderation, why the hell should I subsidize some morbidly obese piece of dogshit who eats shit all of the time?

What if Bob wants to become Barbara, some transgender freak. You know libs are going to whine about healthcare not covering that, claiming some bullshit discrimnination reason. Why the hell should I pay for for deviant freak to change his dick into a vag?

I am all for bi-partisan reforms, but aspects of the Affordable Care Act need to be struck down. I do not want to subsidize losers who make bad lifestlye choices just by the fact that I have a job and pay taxes.

Back in the day, we carried "hospitalization" which helped you pay for catastrophic expenses. People paid the doctors directly and there were a lot fewer paper pushers in doctors' offices. We didn't see constant ads on tv from lawyers who wanted to sue doctors. We didn't see ads telling you about medicine that was only available by prescription--and to "be sure and ask your doctor about "x".

Yes, there is more medicine available now-and maybe it is a good thing. But, when the taxpayers pay for free Viagara and birth control for people who can well affrod it, it seems to me we have gone way over the line of personal responsibility. Where do we draw the line?

The bill was 2,000 pages and the regulations are now over 10,000 pages. How can small businesses--or big businesses-ever know if they are in compliance?


This is a Pandora's box that needs to be eliminated asap.

Come up with a simple plan that sets a personal cap--let people know that if they don't have catastrophic insurance of some type, that they are on their own and could lose their property. Let them know that the government won't bail them out.
We already are paying money for poor people--that is not going to change.

Because we live in this world only in relation to others. Because when you or your loved ones find yourselves in a catastrophic accident, god forbid, and rack up hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills, you too will need help from your neighbors and countrymen. Because unless everyone pitches in, we will continue to have the most expensive, least effective health care in the world. Because it's the right thing to do.



daaids Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If I live a reasonably healthy lifestyle, you are
> making me pay to take care of someone with aids or
> has lung cancer from 30 years of smoking. Why the
> hell should I subsidize some idiots bad lifestyle
> with my tax $?
>
> If I eat crappy food in moderation, why the hell
> should I subsidize some morbidly obese piece of
> dogshit who eats shit all of the time?

"Because it's the right thing to do." Typical bleeding heart liberal argument for lame, horse shit arguments. Just like some 'social contract' I am supposedly bound to, but never read, signed, or agreed to.

That reason of "Because it's the right thing to do" is exactly why CA is in the financial hole. Politicians justifying their spending with that being the only reason.

Good morning Gerry! Hows about telling us about the cuts in military
retirees healthcare? Col. Perkins might have a few things to say too.

Universal healthcare is the hallmark of a civilized society, guess that won't go over here.

righto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Universal healthcare is the hallmark of a
> civilized society, guess that won't go over here.


So a civilized society is England where there is universal health care? Elderly aren't taken care of in the hospitals and they are rationing care. Currently arguing over who is more deserving of healthcare, the obese or the elderly? That is what you think we should have??? The bureaucrats deciding who gets the care???

daaids Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If I live a reasonably healthy lifestyle, you are
> making me pay to take care of someone with aids or
> has lung cancer from 30 years of smoking. Why the
> hell should I subsidize some idiots bad lifestyle
> with my tax $?
>
>....... Why the hell
> should I pay for for deviant freak to change his
> dick into a vag?
>


Why should you "subsidize" someone else's lifestyle?

Do you realize your doing that now through high insurance premiums?
Do you realize that the people who don't need/want/can't afford insurance are causing higher premiums?
Do you realize that by being against the mandatory provisions your basically giving these people a pass to keep on doing what their doing?

There's all sorts of people who don't have insurance; young people, people who can't afford it, people who think they won't get sick or hurt soon, the list goes on. Here's the most important part, if you get people who are young and/or healthy and don't have insurance into the market then costs will come down for everyone.

Fine. If healthy people (mostly younger) don't want to pay for health insurance, that's OK. That's fine. No problem.

So long as then they don't demand it when they need it. You get into a car accident: Pay for your hospitalization yourself. You get cancer: Pay for the treatment yourself. You break a leg skiing or surfing or skydiving: Pay for it yourself. Don't expect the hospitals to pick up the cost and pass it along. If you need to, ask your friends, your parents, your relatives, for the money. But then: Pay for it.

Why not sign a pledge: "I choose not to pay for health care. I therefore promise to pay 100% of any medical or health care services I receive." Simple. Straightforward. And something I'd love to see.

Does this cover crazy fucks like Bleh?

"Universal healthcare is the hallmark of a civilized society, guess that won't go over here."

You mean like the Swiss?

Gerry Connolly must have missed the memo: He is supposed to start referring to Obamacare as "A bipartisan agreement". See:

http://freebeacon.com/white-house-tries-to-rebrand-mandate/

Just wait a few days. You'll hear it from his lips soon.

Of course, this bill was never really about health care. Rather, it is a payback for the health insurance and drug industries to gain them more customers. The mandate helped Obama win favor among the industry, which donated $2.3 million to his 2008 campaign. His fundraising among the healthcare industry has not slowed in 2012, with Obama raking in more than $360,000 from drug makers.

The Supreme Court appears to have figured this out.

Reason Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Because we live in this world only in relation to
> others. Because when you or your loved ones find
> yourselves in a catastrophic accident, god forbid,
> and rack up hundreds of thousands of dollars in
> medical bills, you too will need help from your
> neighbors and countrymen. Because unless everyone
> pitches in, we will continue to have the most
> expensive, least effective health care in the
> world. Because it's the right thing to do.

Yea our healthcare is so ineffective that people from all over the world come here for treatment. We have the best doctors in the world. What world do you live in

Why the hell should bump and run gerry care he's exempt from obamacare.

The least he could do is tell us if he's read the damn thing yet and let us know what elese is in it that we don't know!

Keep up the good work Gerry,

"The least he could do is tell us if he's read the damn thing yet "

I'd say he's at least to page three - only 2,697 more to go!

We spend a much higher percentage of our GDP (17%) on health care than any other country on the planet, yet lack of access to pre-natal care results in us having worse infant mortality rates as most third world countries. Cuba has better health care outcomes than we do.

Sure, if you are really rich and can pay cash for surgical procedures, the United States is a great place to visit. That doesn't mean that the system is working for us as a nation. Health care that is only available to the privileged is not great health care.


not even remotely true Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Yea our healthcare is so ineffective that people
> from all over the world come here for treatment.
> We have the best doctors in the world. What world
> do you live in

Our healthcare is awful, dangerous and expensive because it links profit and illness, we need the mandates to get rid of the profit margin, the WORST thing you can have is privatization, the most effective is the single payer model.

not even remotely true Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Yea our healthcare is so ineffective that people
> from all over the world come here for treatment.
> We have the best doctors in the world. What world
> do you live in

They do for many things, that is true. Of course, the advanced state of medicine in the U.S. is due in no small part to signficant backing and subsidies provided by the Federal Government. Do you think the cutting edge research done at Johns Hopkins and our other world leading research institutes is payed for by Aetna Health? Try the National Institutes of Health. The Federal Government funds the largest portion of basic medical (and other) research. Cut that off and in a short while, patients will flock to the U.S. for treatment at about the same rate as business rushes to invest in Zimbabwe.

Sadly, our system doesn't really provide the best care. Though we're first in expeditures, we rank well behind France, the Netherlands, Sweden, Canada, and yes even the UK, with it's often lambasted National Health Service, in quality of medical care, infant mortality, cancer deaths, and all those other silly little metrics.

Where in the 2,700 pages of the health care bill does it say NIH will receive more funding? Answer: It does not.

How many articles about Canadians having to wait forever for routine tests and treatments have you read?

Did you know the cost of airfare and lodging while traveling to another country is tax deductible? Yet there is still no mass migration from the US for treatment. Except Steve Jobs, but we all know how that turned out.

Gerry Conolly is trying to pivot to his liberal base, even with the gerrymandering, pardon the pun, the Weasel shall not be able to overcome this issue, which is a failure not only on the President's part, but this "Congressman" who doesn't support our district. Go through the "annals" of Congressional Quarterly, and look at where most of his work ends up. California and other states. His 98% record of support for Obama/Pelosi during their little two year run of child like spending, cannot be hidden, and he's now getting ready to come up with new gun legislation targeting the second amendment. Bad move Weasel. Kind of like your hit and run. Oops.

Anyhow, the Weasel, much like James Moran in the neighboring People's Republic of Arlington, is a joke to even the Democratic Party.(Insert other joke here). With that being said, Col. Chris Perkins is going to put a foot in the weasel's ass November, as the Weasel knows his legislation time is endangered, just like his species of politician. He will try to use the health care plan, that went far beyond no prexisting conditions and other common sense ideas, and ride the coattails of Obama, who's failing with the rise of gas prices(not all his fault but still responsible with the blocking of the Canada pipeline, shutting down of offshore drilling, cancelling contracts, etc), and of course his "open microphone comment" the other day. Gerry's days are numbered-he doesn't have second rates like Keith Fimian to kick around anymore, he's now facing Green Beret Col. Perkins, and that 951 vote margin, boy he weaseled out of that one.

Derpes. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We spend a much higher percentage of our GDP (17%)
> on health care than any other country on the
> planet, yet lack of access to pre-natal care
> results in us having worse infant mortality rates
> as most third world countries. Cuba has better
> health care outcomes than we do.
>
> Sure, if you are really rich and can pay cash for
> surgical procedures, the United States is a great
> place to visit. That doesn't mean that the system
> is working for us as a nation. Health care that is
> only available to the privileged is not great
> health care.


Yea our infant mortality rate is 174 out of 222 we are definitely on par with 3rd world countries. Our 5.98 is very similar to the 109.08 in Niger or 75.29 in Ethiopia.

We really dont seem to have a very good understanding of this at all. There isnt a lack of pre-natal care in the US. Access is there. Theres a large group of people who CHOSE not to us it particularly drug users or people who dont want the kid anyway.

Theres some issues with getting health care in rural areas but thats because of the lack of people in the area nothing more. We arent going to set up massive hospitals in towns of 100 people. Its one of the downfalls of living in a small town but those people know that and they like the atmosphere.

Cuba does not have a better system. You seem to be confusing people not wanting to use whats available and ability. We have the best healthcare and doctors in the world end of story.

Health care is far from only available to the elite. Free clinics everywhere, ERs cant turn anyone away, chruch hospitals until Obamacare shuts them down, you wont get the top specialists in the world but you will get seen and get the care you need.

I agree very much with the last poster. First of all, I have people overseas with "universal health care." In some regards its good, but if you are in pain, have a aspirin and be prepared to wait some time.


Competition is the key. That is not possible under "universal health care" as set up by Obama. It is a noble goal to improve health care. No question stuff has to be done. Yet the United States-home of where the vast majority of aspiring docs study. The home of the best hospitals in the world. A place where no one is turned away, and often there are charitable foundations set up to help those who are indigent and can't afford a bill, or payment plans can be taken care of.

Perfect? Nope, but I'd much rather have surgery or any medical work done right here.

TheProfessor Wrote:

> They do for many things, that is true. Of course,
> the advanced state of medicine in the U.S. is due
> in no small part to signficant backing and
> subsidies provided by the Federal Government. Do
> you think the cutting edge research done at Johns
> Hopkins and our other world leading research
> institutes is payed for by Aetna Health? Try the
> National Institutes of Health. The Federal
> Government funds the largest portion of basic
> medical (and other) research. Cut that off and in
> a short while, patients will flock to the U.S. for
> treatment at about the same rate as business
> rushes to invest in Zimbabwe.
>
> Sadly, our system doesn't really provide the best
> care. Though we're first in expeditures, we rank
> well behind France, the Netherlands, Sweden,
> Canada, and yes even the UK, with it's often
> lambasted National Health Service, in quality of
> medical care, infant mortality, cancer deaths, and
> all those other silly little metrics.

NIH is a good program, NO ONE is talking about getting rid of it.

Your completely crazy if you think even half those countries you named have better anything than the US in terms of health care.

As stated above please tell me how Obamacare has any affect on NIH. Also yes in fact the large insurance companies do fund research studies about more effective treatments as an investment and gives hospitals grants.

So much misinformation here. Its amazing how little people actually know when they think they know it all in an attempt to defend a terrible piece of legislation.

I love how people keep talking about infant mortality. There maybe a 2.0 difference between us and the best in the world. Sadly not matter what that will never be 0. That rate also doesnt account for the mothers that chose to drink smoke and use drugs during pregnancies where those deaths are a result of the mothers actions and not the health care system.

Gerry says:
"As the Supreme Court begins hearing oral arguments on the future of health care, do you know how many seats are available to the general public? Only 60! And the Supreme Court has continued its long-standing ban on cameras in the courtroom; cameras that would allow interested Americans to watch the debates.

That is why I introduced bi-partisan legislation to require the Supreme Court to broadcast oral arguments. It's too late to require the health care reform hearings to be televised for all to see, but it's not too late for future hearings to receive the same accountability and transparency that the American people have come to expect from our other branches of government"


I say, be careful what you ask for:


From Mother Jones:
"Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. should be grateful to the Supreme Court for refusing to allow cameras in the courtroom, because his defense of Obamacare on Tuesday may go down as one of the most spectacular flameouts in the history of the court…."

The US is actually at the top of, or in the top 1% of every category when all other factors are calculated. For example, in IM:

"The World Health Organization (WHO) defines a live birth as any born human being who demonstrates independent signs of life, including breathing, voluntary muscle movement, or heartbeat. Many countries, however, including certain European states and Japan, only count as live births cases where an infant breathes at birth, which makes their reported IMR numbers somewhat lower and raises their rates of perinatal mortality"
and
":Another challenge to comparability is the practice of counting frail or premature infants who die before the normal due date as miscarriages (spontaneous abortions) or those who die during or immediately after childbirth as stillborn. Therefore, the quality of a country's documentation of perinatal mortality can matter greatly to the accuracy of its infant mortality statistics."

Gerry says transparency. Gee Gerry, hiding at rest homes and retirement centers for your meetings with concerned citizens of your district or doing telephone meetings. Pretty transparent to me. Afraid of the citizens and their questions. Good luck next time. This term should be ur last.

Love Gerry Connolly, will work for his reelection, majority of Virginians want to re-elect Obama, best President since Bill Clinton.

BTW, if any of you counter-revolutionaries ask why I exempted myself (and the rest of Congress) from this pile of dung healthcare plan, I'll have your ass thrown in jail.

Love, Comrade Gerry

He goes to them because they have a harder time getting about than other groups. I don't know what kinds of issues you are having but I have never had any trouble getting in touch with his office or going to ask him a question. Maybe you have an irrational fear of seniors?

Liberty24601 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gerry says transparency. Gee Gerry, hiding at rest
> homes and retirement centers for your meetings
> with concerned citizens of your district or doing
> telephone meetings. Pretty transparent to me.
> Afraid of the citizens and their questions. Good
> luck next time. This term should be ur last.

Joe, Lib is pointing out that Gerry hides @ such places - avoids the now more common "town hall" approach found in, well, pretty much everywhere.

Hey Gerry! Hows about those headlines in the Washington
ComPost this morning about the SCOTUS hearings on Obamacare?
Aint it sweet? Say hello to the Truth Squad for me. Later.

Gerry cant answer you right now, he just backed into another car.

hmmm..republican healthcare: DIE.

"hmmm..republican healthcare: DIE"

What brilliant conversation. Do please tell us more...

britain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> So a civilized society is England where there is
> universal health care? Elderly aren't taken care
> of in the hospitals and they are rationing care.
> Currently arguing over who is more deserving of
> healthcare, the obese or the elderly? That is
> what you think we should have??? The bureaucrats
> deciding who gets the care???

Ah, you're right. I'll concede the point. It is much better to have two Kaiser Permanente clerks and a "consulting" Nurse in a two minute phone conversation decide who gets the care.

TheProfessor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> britain Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > So a civilized society is England where there
> is
> > universal health care? Elderly aren't taken
> care
> > of in the hospitals and they are rationing care.
>
> > Currently arguing over who is more deserving of
> > healthcare, the obese or the elderly? That is
> > what you think we should have??? The
> bureaucrats
> > deciding who gets the care???
>
> Ah, you're right. I'll concede the point. It is
> much better to have two Kaiser Permanente clerks
> and a "consulting" Nurse in a two minute phone
> conversation decide who gets the care.

Hey, if you are with Kaiser, its by choice. Key word CHOICE. Choice, the ability to decide for yourself. Get a clue.

I always had my doubts about the Constitutionality of the individual mandate. It doesn't help when the Soliciter General, whose office should have been preparing for this case from day one, can't make a fuckin cogent argument before the Supreme Court. I thought lawyers were supposed to build a case by referring to past precident and examples. Instead, the dumbshit acts like he's a Toast Masters newbie and stammers through an incomprehensable mix of ramblings about how it would be a bad thing if the individual mandate was stripped. Seriously? WTF?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Your Affordable Care Act is in real trouble isnt it you tool? Are you sweating yet, since SCOTUS is basically drinking your milkshake?

Maybe your dear leader should not have pissed off the justices in his State of the Union speech...

____________________________________________________________________________________________

I say "fuck" a lot...

I am glad he's fucking up!

Actually, I don't smoke...anything.

What are you smoking Professor? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Where in the 2,700 pages of the health care bill
> does it say NIH will receive more funding?
> Answer: It does not.
>

I don't understand your point here, as I said nothing about increasing funding for NIH -- although that would be a good thing.


> How many articles about Canadians having to wait
> forever for routine tests and treatments have you
> read?
>

I don't need to read articles about Canadians having to wait "forever". I have lived and worked in Canada (both Ontario and PEI) and have numerous Canadian colleagues and friends. I have first hand experience with the provincial health care systems. Canadian medical care is the equal of U.S. medical care in every respect. Canadians love their system and would never "revert" to a U.S. styled privatized model. Newsmax.com has mislead you on this issue. Canada has had numerous Conservative governments (including the current one in place since 2006) since universal coverage began there, and not one has made the slightest attempt to get rid of it. (Incidently, Republicans in the U.S. could learn a lot from Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party in Canada about what it means to be conservative, starting with their positions on abortion -- "not the government's business" -- and gay marriage -- "not the government's business").


> Did you know the cost of airfare and lodging while
> traveling to another country is tax deductible?

No, I did not. I guess my CPA wife missed that part on our Returns with respect to our vacations in Europe and the Carribean. Perhaps we should look into filing amended Returns.


> Yet there is still no mass migration from the US
> for treatment.

Well, actually, there is more than you think, though it typically involves persons returning to their countries of birth -- Indians having heart surgery in India or Mexicans being treated in Mexico for a fraction of the cost of treatment in the U.S. Americans like to believe we are the best in everything, that there is no way like "The American Way"; and while we are indeed an extraordinary land, there are too many of us whose lack of sophistication makes them believe the rest of the world lives in bleak hovels without electricity or running water. The first heart transplant was done in South Africa, Insulin was first isolated and used as a treatment for Diabetes in Canada, in vitro fertilization was developed in the U.K., the AIDS virus first identified in France, the list is long.

Except Steve Jobs, but we all know
> how that turned out.

Hmm, as I recall, Mr. Jobs had his transplant in Memphis Tennessee, which is very much a part of the United States. Perhaps you are thinking of another celebrity who sought unconventional therapies out of the country, such as Steve McQueen.

TheProfessor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't understand your point here, as I said
> nothing about increasing funding for NIH --
> although that would be a good thing.

You mentioned it like it was under attack getting rid of Obamacare. Just because NIH does good work doesnt mean that a federal take over of Health care would be a good idea.

> I don't need to read articles about Canadians
> having to wait "forever". I have lived and worked
> in Canada (both Ontario and PEI) and have numerous
> Canadian colleagues and friends. I have first
> hand experience with the provincial health care
> systems. Canadian medical care is the equal of
> U.S. medical care in every respect. Canadians love
> their system and would never "revert" to a U.S.
> styled privatized model. Newsmax.com has mislead
> you on this issue. Canada has had numerous
> Conservative governments (including the current
> one in place since 2006) since universal coverage
> began there, and not one has made the slightest
> attempt to get rid of it. (Incidently, Republicans
> in the U.S. could learn a lot from Stephen Harper
> and the Conservative Party in Canada about what it
> means to be conservative, starting with their
> positions on abortion -- "not the government's
> business" -- and gay marriage -- "not the
> government's business").

The only misleading thing is you. Its not newsmax that has reported on the problems in Canada with health care waits its everyone from CBS, LA Times literally everyone including liberal publications you would think would be in favor of it. Hell its even on Wikipedia.

"The median wait time in Canada to see a special physician is a little over four weeks with 89.5% waiting fewer than 90 days.[52]

The median wait time for diagnostic services such as MRI and CAT scans [53] is two weeks with 86.4% waiting fewer than 90 days.[52]

The median wait time for surgery is four weeks with 82.2% waiting fewer than 90 days.[52]

Another study by the Commonwealth Fund found that 57% of Canadians reported waiting 30 days (4 weeks) or more to see a specialist, broadly in line with the current official statistics. A quarter (24%) of all Canadians waited 4 hours or more in the emergency room.[54]"

The wait times are fine if you have a common cold, if you have a serious disease its unacceptable.

> Well, actually, there is more than you think,
> though it typically involves persons returning to
> their countries of birth -- Indians having heart
> surgery in India or Mexicans being treated in
> Mexico for a fraction of the cost of treatment in
> the U.S. Americans like to believe we are the
> best in everything, that there is no way like "The
> American Way"; and while we are indeed an
> extraordinary land, there are too many of us whose
> lack of sophistication makes them believe the rest
> of the world lives in bleak hovels without
> electricity or running water. The first heart
> transplant was done in South Africa, Insulin was
> first isolated and used as a treatment for
> Diabetes in Canada, in vitro fertilization was
> developed in the U.K., the AIDS virus first
> identified in France, the list is long.

The US isnt the only place in the world that has developments in medicine, it is still however the best at delivering those treatments and has the best doctors in the world. 18 of the worlds top 20 hospitals are in the US.

Yes some people try and be cheap and get treatment elsewhere. You forgot to mention the super bug developed in Indian hospitals and the high rate of complications with their operations. Just because someone chooses to go somewhere else to save money doesnt mean its better. There are a few exceptions such as the HGH treatment in Germany for injuries that is catching on here, but overall and especially for lifesaving treatments the US is the place to be.


> Hmm, as I recall, Mr. Jobs had his transplant in
> Memphis Tennessee, which is very much a part of
> the United States. Perhaps you are thinking of
> another celebrity who sought unconventional
> therapies out of the country, such as Steve
> McQueen.

Did you also forget the part where he stopped all his treatments in order to try a holistic approach with that very terrible disease which more than likely shortened his life span? Regardless he had a very rare disease and not everything is curable sadly, but a mortality from a disease that nasty doesnt mean the US system is overrated.

the best example I heard about universal healthcare came from Cuba, remember that is where Michael Moore used as an example when he went there to blow Castro for his film.

Some guy was injured and needed to to get to the hospital, and it took a foreigner to hire a cab to take the injured man to the hospital. The hospital had some nice shiney ambulances and ambulence services. When the foreigner asked why they did not come pick up the injured man, a hospital employee said that they did not have gasoline for them.

Commie paradise!

universal_healthcare Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the best example I heard about universal
> healthcare came from Cuba, remember that is where
> Michael Moore used as an example when he went
> there to blow Castro for his film.
>
> Some guy was injured and needed to to get to the
> hospital, and it took a foreigner to hire a cab to
> take the injured man to the hospital. The hospital
> had some nice shiney ambulances and ambulence
> services. When the foreigner asked why they did
> not come pick up the injured man, a hospital
> employee said that they did not have gasoline for
> them.
>
> Commie paradise!


Exactly. It doesnt matter if everyone technically has health care if its rationed out and there are long waits to get help. Non insured people in the US have better health care access than the people of Cuba

"Canada's health care system is the subject of much political controversy and debate in the country. Some question the efficiencies of the current system to deliver treatments in a timely fashion, and advocate adopting a private system similar to the United States"

http://www.canadian-healthcare.org/

I don't mind some aspects of included in Affordable Care Act, but that is the same stuff that has gotten bipartisan support.

This story, though, gave me a warm fuzzy!

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/texas-ag-pelosi-yes-we-re-serious

HealthcareBob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't mind some aspects of included in
> Affordable Care Act, but that is the same stuff
> that has gotten bipartisan support.
>
> This story, though, gave me a warm fuzzy!
>
> http://cnsnews.com/news/article/texas-ag-pelosi-ye
> s-we-re-serious


Theres certainly good parts of the bill that as stand alone items would get a lot of support, theres just way to many bad things lumped in with it.

The Dems would be well served to remove people like Pelosi as the face of their party

LETS VOTE Gerry Connolly OUT!!! HE SUCKS

Quit hatin on Honest Gerry, he attends many community meetings to answer direct hard hitting questions from the public.
Attachments:

The bill is simply unconstitutional. What do the Democrats want to force us to buy next? Gerry, you came close to losing this last go round I only hope others in the county have the good common sense next time to vote in someone new.

Dear Mr. Connolly, Unfortunately the government did nothing to actually provide health care to anyone with all this paperwork. Just a bunch of billing rules and mandates. If you're serious about building up the health care infrastructure in this country then what is actually required are training programs for more nurse practitioners and doctors and public clinics, especially in underserved communities. Make it less expensive by having more of it available. Of course this would take work and responsibility. As usual our government wants to make everyone else do the actual work so they can sit back and pass judgement on it. Giving people a piece of paper that says they're insured is a joke if there's no one around to provide the care. We need more actual providers of health care, not some paperwork that says we're insured. Sincerely, WS

WS,

How is this going to happen when you've got the AMA keeping quotas on number of students in medical schools? What can the government do about that? Maybe we can import more foreign doctors (and nurses). It is very true that there is a big shortage of nurses.

in answering your question: "What do the democrats want to force us to buy now?" A brain, read a book, I want to force you to become intelligent, dealing with this level of stupidity is getting boring.

Nursing shortage, lol! There hasn't been one since 2008...

http://news.yahoo.com/another-17-trillion-surprise-found-obamacare-133210667.html

not even remotely true Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://news.yahoo.com/another-17-trillion-surprise
> -found-obamacare-133210667.html

Mr. Connolly??????