I watched the event on CSpan and couldn't help but notice Stu Gibson at the end, desperately trying to get to Moran and Dean. He looked like a teenage girl after a Jonas Brother's autograph.

when I arrived at the school at 5:30, the gym was full and several hundred people spilled out into the parking area, as more were walking to the school.

Being outside, I wasn't able to view the presentation or follow the discussions, other than what the media wanted us to hear.

After the meeting, several people said Moran's mantra was "Medicare for everyone." I don't know if this was exaggeration for effect, or if he really did say this ... several times.

Was this a rumor or fact?

RestonLass Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> when I arrived at the school at 5:30, the gym was
> full and several hundred people spilled out into
> the parking area, as more were walking to the
> school.
>
> Being outside, I wasn't able to view the
> presentation or follow the discussions, other than
> what the media wanted us to hear.
>
> After the meeting, several people said Moran's
> mantra was "Medicare for everyone." I don't know
> if this was exaggeration for effect, or if he
> really did say this ... several times.
>
> Was this a rumor or fact?

Rumor. He repeatedly stated that those who choose to keep their private insurance are at liberty to do so.

>>Rumor. He repeatedly stated that those who choose to keep their private insurance are at liberty to do so

This is BS - a huge number of businesses will stop offering healthcare benefits and dump their employees on the public roles - they will of course pay a tax to do this, but it will be preferable to paying for insurance to them

hop Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >>Rumor. He repeatedly stated that those who
> choose to keep their private insurance are at
> liberty to do so
>
> This is BS - a huge number of businesses will stop
> offering healthcare benefits and dump their
> employees on the public roles - they will of
> course pay a tax to do this, but it will be
> preferable to paying for insurance to them

Exactly! It truly amazes me that some people are just too dumb to understand
this. I would also predict that many other Federal health care programs
such as the Veterans Administration could easily be dissolved and folded
into the "public option" as well.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well I haven't heard the Limbaughs and Becks (or
> Michael Steele for that matter) of the world
> coming out to denounce their idiotic claims of
> "Nazism" and "socialism". In fact, I've heard
> Limbaugh use the same terms.

Political parties and pundits have been calling those they oppose Nazis for years - get some thicker skin. It is juvenile and stupid, but it happens. Limbaugh and Beck have never been candidates for office. Liberal bloggers and pundits refer to the GOP and the protestors as brown shirters and nazis regularly, has Tim Kaine denounced them?

> He never received a nomination for president from
> the Dems and has run under the guise of more than
> one party.

He ran SEVEN times as a Democrat. Janice Hart and mark Fairchild, Democrats from IL were the Democratic General Election Candidates for Lt. Gov and Sec. of State in 1986. Both are ardent LRouche supporters.

> The Dems also refused to seat the very
> few delegates he received during the primaries and
> refused to recognize him as a party member.

Two Dem State Reps (one from MS and one from PA) endorsed LaRouche in 2004. Maybe you should go back to PA and ensure the LaRouchians are done infiltrating your party.

>> Maybe you should go back to PA and ensure the LaRouchians are done infiltrating your party.


LOL, it's so funny how you feel the need to log out of your real account and post anonymously when you want to make an attempt at arguing. Like you're afraid or something, haha, it's just silly.



>> get some thicker skin

Pot, meet kettle.

hop Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >>Rumor. He repeatedly stated that those who
> choose to keep their private insurance are at
> liberty to do so
>
> This is BS - a huge number of businesses will stop
> offering healthcare benefits and dump their
> employees on the public roles - they will of
> course pay a tax to do this, but it will be
> preferable to paying for insurance to them

They already are. Two job postings from my CareerBuilder Alert today said they do not offer Health Beanefits (full time job), but will provide a stipend to purchase an individual policy.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >> Maybe you should go back to PA and ensure the
> LaRouchians are done infiltrating your party.
>
>
> LOL, it's so funny how you feel the need to log
> out of your real account and post anonymously
> when you want to make an attempt at arguing. Like
> you're afraid or something, haha, it's just
> silly.

I don't have a real account. Nice try though.

> >> get some thicker skin
>
> Pot, meet kettle.

I have plenty thick skin. I don't need to invent facts or make ad hominum attacks to justify my arguments.

FDLF4 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I don't need to invent facts or make ad hominum attacks to justify my arguments.


You mean like what the GOP townhall protestors do?


In re: to RestonLass: it's not really a new thing for small companies to not offer health care. I deal with alot of small consulting firms who don't have health care for their employees, and they've been that way for years and years. They just pay a little extra in salary (or stipend). They were even doing this in the 90s when premiums were much cheaper. It's not like companies are just starting to do this.

hop Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >>Rumor. He repeatedly stated that those who
> choose to keep their private insurance are at
> liberty to do so
>
> This is BS - a huge number of businesses will stop
> offering healthcare benefits and dump their
> employees on the public roles - they will of
> course pay a tax to do this, but it will be
> preferable to paying for insurance to them

Prove it.

They already do. It's called Medicaid. If the bill passed, they could no longer opt out of their company's insurance provider and go on Medicaid. If they can't afford their company's insurance provider, they would receive a subsidy to purchase insurance through their company or from the public plan. It would be a big boon for the states since the states provide half of the funding for Medicaid. In many states, 30-50 percent of the budget is devoted to providing health care for the elderly and the poor.

http://www.breitbart.tv/congressman-demands-to-see-constituents-id-before-allowing-town-hall-question/

He actually managed to do something even more "Moranic" then usual.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.breitbart.tv/congressman-demands-to-see
> -constituents-id-before-allowing-town-hall-questio
> n/
>
> He actually managed to do something even more
> "Moranic" then usual.




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

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.breitbart.tv/congressman-demands-to-see
> -constituents-id-before-allowing-town-hall-questio
> n/
>
> He actually managed to do something even more
> "Moranic" then usual.


Except people were standing up claiming to be the name on the question card trying to pull a fast one.

The cards themselves were a farce. And Morons reaction was anything but intelligent.
.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/28/2009 06:19PM by Registered Voter.
Attachments:

Why do opponents of single-payer healthcare keep assuming things will happen here that have not happened in any European country?

I ask the Republicans and "Independents" here this:
1) Is it a bad or an indifferent thing that 40 million Americans went without health insurance for all or part of 2008?
2) If it is a bad thing, how do you propose solving this issue?

formerhick76 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why do opponents of single-payer healthcare keep
> assuming things will happen here that have not
> happened in any European country?
>
> I ask the Republicans and "Independents" here
> this:
> 1) Is it a bad or an indifferent thing that 40
> million Americans went without health insurance
> for all or part of 2008?
> 2) If it is a bad thing, how do you propose
> solving this issue?

I'm not under any obligation whatsoever to do anything just because they
do it in Europe. It sucks.

1) 40 million my ass. 20 million of those are illegal aliens who should
not be here in the first place.

2) Leave it alone.

Taxpayer Wrote:
> I'm not under any obligation whatsoever to do
> anything just because they do it in Europe. It sucks.

Even thought they live longer than we do, and seem to do it more cheaply? (And if you want to say they don't have an illegal alien problem, I've got some Parisian riots to sell you.)

> 1) 40 million my ass. 20 million of those are
> illegal aliens who should not be here in the first place.

That still leaves 20 million w/o health insurance for part or all of last year. (BTW, 20 million seems a little high for the number of illegal aliens. Got any cite?)

> 2) Leave it alone.

Because paying more for inferior goods is the American way!

I'll chalk you up in the 'there's not really a problem' column, then.

formerhick76 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Taxpayer Wrote:
> > I'm not under any obligation whatsoever to do
> > anything just because they do it in Europe. It
> sucks.
>
> Even thought they live longer than we do, and seem
> to do it more cheaply? (And if you want to say
> they don't have an illegal alien problem, I've got
> some Parisian riots to sell you.)
>
> > 1) 40 million my ass. 20 million of those are
> > illegal aliens who should not be here in the
> first place.
>
> That still leaves 20 million w/o health insurance
> for part or all of last year. (BTW, 20 million
> seems a little high for the number of illegal
> aliens. Got any cite?)
>
> > 2) Leave it alone.
>
> Because paying more for inferior goods is the
> American way!
>
> I'll chalk you up in the 'there's not really a
> problem' column, then.

Chalk it up wherever you want, but I've seen hospitals all over the world
and even if I am paying more, I'll take what we've got over anything the
You're-A-Peein's have.

The count depends on who you listen to. If you look at this website,
you get 20 million.

http://www.theamericanresistance.com/ref/illegal_alien_numbers.html

If you look at Gerry Connolly's past statements, there are NONE.

I frequently see different organizations stating anywhere from 8-12 million
but I like TheAmericanResistance.com because they are more in line with my
personal observations.

Taxpayer Wrote:
> Chalk it up wherever you want, but I've seen
> hospitals all over the world and even if I am paying more, I'll take
> what we've got over anything the You're-A-Peein's have.

On what basis? Are their hospitals dirtier, understaffed, etc., etc.? It must be something that doesn't shorten lifespan.

> The count depends on who you listen to. If you
> look at this website, you get 20 million.
>
> http://www.theamericanresistance.com/ref/illegal_a
> lien_numbers.html
>
> If you look at Gerry Connolly's past statements,
> there are NONE.
>
> I frequently see different organizations stating
> anywhere from 8-12 million but I like TheAmericanResistance.com
> because they are more in line with my personal observations.

OK, let's say 15 million.

(I also wonder how this is affecting unemployment #'s and other poverty-based statistics, it seems things are ok for native born folks of all races.)

But it seems you think that for native-born Americans, there's not much of a problem (with regard to healthcare, job availability, etc., etc.) and that high levels of immigration threaten the stability of our society/culture. (FWIW, we had a higher percentage of immigrants in the Ellis Island days; whether they were legal or not, most of the immigrants back then had low English skills and were largely unskilled.)

Stu Gibson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I watched the event on CSpan and couldn't help but
> notice Stu Gibson at the end, desperately trying
> to get to Moran and Dean. He looked like a
> teenage girl after a Jonas Brother's autograph.

That is TOO funny! No doubt he was desperate to be acknowledged and to share a stage with the big boys, the REAL politicians!

He's too busy to bother going to school board meetings, but he can go get his heros' autographs?!

Stu's a typical pol, prefers running for office, and hanging out with politicians, to actually doing the job that he was elected to do OR dealing with the people who elected him. They're so annoying, always whining about something.

I hear Stu will run again since he doesn't want to leave his government job just yet and the job prevents him from running for higher office. He can't wait to go to Switzerland and nab the tax cheats! Playing in the big leagues now. Or so his delusions tell him.

When Ken Plum eventually dies in office, in another decade or two, our little Stuy can finally move up in the world.

Berdhuis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> hop Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > >>Rumor. He repeatedly stated that those who
> > choose to keep their private insurance are at
> > liberty to do so
> >
> > This is BS - a huge number of businesses will
> stop
> > offering healthcare benefits and dump their
> > employees on the public roles - they will of
> > course pay a tax to do this, but it will be
> > preferable to paying for insurance to them
>
> Prove it.

Easy. Why would employers provide costly insurance when they can dump the plan and let their employees buy the government plan with the money that the employer has given them in raises once he doesn't have to pay for health insurance anymore? government plan is cheaper for employers. Why would they offer anything else?

Berdhuis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> hop Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > >>Rumor. He repeatedly stated that those who
> > choose to keep their private insurance are at
> > liberty to do so
> >
> > This is BS - a huge number of businesses will
> stop
> > offering healthcare benefits and dump their
> > employees on the public roles - they will of
> > course pay a tax to do this, but it will be
> > preferable to paying for insurance to them
>
> Prove it.

Just ask WTL. Didn't he say he'd be done with that headache in a heartbeat?

Once again we are going to allow a stupid issue like illegals bring progress to a halt...that and abortion. You people need to grow up.

Undocumented workers should be provided medical care under the program...for one reason...it's cheaper then dumping them into Emergency Wards.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

I say anyone who is unwilling to work hard and save money deserves the exact rewards of those who do. This is the American way.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Once again we are going to allow a stupid issue
> like illegals bring progress to a halt...that and
> abortion. You people need to grow up.
>
> Undocumented workers should be provided medical
> care under the program...for one reason...it's
> cheaper then dumping them into Emergency Wards.

You're right. With the deficit in the tillions, what's a couple billion more a year?

FYI #1: Illegal immigrants (and their children - who are also illegal, except in Canada) are not provided free medical care in any of the countries you liberals point to as a plan to emulate

Another FYI #2: In those same counties, child birth is NOT considered Emergency Care

Taxpayer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not under any obligation whatsoever to do anything just because they
> do it in Europe.

You are absolutely correct here.

> It sucks.

Actually not. According to WHO data (http://www.who.int/countries/en/):
comparing a European country as France to the US reveals that:

France
Per capita expenditure is $3,554
Total expenditure on health as % GDP is 11.1%
Ratio of doctors to population is 1/340
% General & Administrative costs for health care is 5%

US
Per capita expenditure is $6,714
Total expenditure on health as % GDP is 15.3%
Ratio of doctors to population is 1/1290
% General & Administrative costs for health care is 30%

France is ranked #1 in the world for health care; the US is ranked #37.

Berdhuis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Taxpayer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I'm not under any obligation whatsoever to do
> anything just because they
> > do it in Europe.
>
> You are absolutely correct here.
>
> > It sucks.
>
> Actually not. According to WHO data
> (http://www.who.int/countries/en/):
> comparing a European country as France to the US
> reveals that:
>
> France
> Per capita expenditure is $3,554
> Total expenditure on health as % GDP is 11.1%
> Ratio of doctors to population is 1/340
> % General & Administrative costs for health care
> is 5%
>
> US
> Per capita expenditure is $6,714
> Total expenditure on health as % GDP is 15.3%
> Ratio of doctors to population is 1/1290
> % General & Administrative costs for health care
> is 30%
>
> France is ranked #1 in the world for health care;
> the US is ranked #37.


+1..there isnt a health care index in existense that puts the US near the top...yet our politicians keep lying to us saying we have the best health care...and we are stupid enough to believe it.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Berdhuis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> France is ranked #1 in the world for health care;
> the US is ranked #37.

I like the French plan, first and foremost because they "spit in the eye" of the ubra liberals who demand the tax payers support anyone and everyone who decides to squat on French soil. The children of illegals are not citizens by birth - as is the case in most of European developed countries. Unlike here, they do not perceive any entitlements, because the French government is not at all shy about reminding them they have none.

France takes care of its citizens first and everyone else is on their own (except for emergency care). France doesn't give handouts to illegals and doctors and nurses do not hesitate to turn them away from any government clinic if they don't have Euros in hand.

If the US adopted the French policy of "citizens first," we would move way up in the ranking. Instead, we remain low on the list because we spend countless billions of dollars each year supplementing millions of illegals and all their illegitimate anchor babies, forcing Americans to take a back seat for jobs, living assistance, and health care.

If you do the math, the amount of money spent to supplement illegals and their new and illegitimate families (after they send unreported earnings back home to support the families they made there), would be more than sufficient to provide health care for every uninsured American citizen.

So Berdhuis, I agree with you 100% and I’m doing a high-five that if Americans opt for a socialized health care plan, they emulate the French model – to include amending birthright citizenship – which does not require an Amendment, only a Supreme Court interpretation ruling.

Vive la America!

RestonLass Wrote:
> You're right. With the deficit in the tillions,
> what's a couple billion more a year?

So you think it's better to spend those trillions through non-govt sources as opposed to the gov't? Or are you one of those who robotically thinks, 'Gubmint only does it more expensively'?

Call it health insurance premiums or call it a tax, we spend more on health care than any other Western democracy, and we get worse results for this surfeit of spending.

If you add the amount we spend on health care to what we spend on taxes (as a percentage of GDP), and we are roughly equal to Germany and Spain and just behind the Netherlands.

> FYI #1: Illegal immigrants (and their children -
> who are also illegal, except in Canada) are not
> provided free medical care in any of the countries
> you liberals point to as a plan to emulate
>
> Another FYI #2: In those same counties, child
> birth is NOT considered Emergency Care

Citation plz?

RestonLass Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Berdhuis Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > France is ranked #1 in the world for health
> care;
> > the US is ranked #37.
>
> I like the French plan, first and foremost because
> they "spit in the eye" of the ubra liberals who
> demand the tax payers support anyone and everyone
> who decides to squat on French soil. The children
> of illegals are not citizens by birth - as is the
> case in most of European developed countries.
> Unlike here, they do not perceive any
> entitlements, because the French government is not
> at all shy about reminding them they have none.
>
> France takes care of its citizens first and
> everyone else is on their own (except for
> emergency care). France doesn't give handouts to
> illegals and doctors and nurses do not hesitate to
> turn them away from any government clinic if they
> don't have Euros in hand.

I thought conservatives had a good laugh during the Parisian riots back in 2007. If the US adopted the French policy of "citizens
> first," we would move way up in the ranking.
> Instead, we remain low on the list because we
> spend countless billions of dollars each year
> supplementing millions of illegals and all their
> illegitimate anchor babies, forcing Americans to
> take a back seat for jobs, living assistance, and
> health care.

Yeah, those illegal immigrants have it so good.

> If you do the math, the amount of money spent to
> supplement illegals and their new and illegitimate
> families (after they send unreported earnings back
> home to support the families they made there),
> would be more than sufficient to provide health
> care for every uninsured American citizen.

How much does the US spend on providing healthcare to illegal aliens (and how much would it cost to ferret them out and deport them all?)

> So Berdhuis, I agree with you 100% and I’m doing a
> high-five that if Americans opt for a socialized
> health care plan, they emulate the French model –
> to include amending birthright citizenship – which
> does not require an Amendment, only a Supreme
> Court interpretation ruling.

I thought conservatives didn't like activist judges overturning 100+ years of precedent?

> Vive la America!

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Seems pretty straight-forward.

formerhick76 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


> So you think it's better to spend those trillions
> through non-govt sources as opposed to the gov't?
> Or are you one of those who robotically thinks,
> 'Gubmint only does it more expensively'?

The tirllions have already been spent - that's why it's called a deficit?

>
> Call it health insurance premiums or call it a
> tax, we spend more on health care than any other
> Western democracy, and we get worse results for
> this surfeit of spending.
>
And whose fault is that? Do you even have a clue how much you are charged when you visit your doctor? YOU get worse results because your health care costs are the only service for which you do not comparison shop.

You simply accept whatever is billed and don't even ask the amount - before, during or after. Costs are high because people like you don't care how much you spend - if it doesn't come from your wallet at the time the service is provided, you don't care how much it costs.


If we had food insurance, I bet you would pay $50 for a steak that normally sells for $20 (without batting an eyelash), using the same logic - hey, I don't care how much it costs, I'm not paying for it, the insurance covers it.


> If you add the amount we spend on health care to
> what we spend on taxes (as a percentage of GDP),
> and we are roughly equal to Germany and Spain and
> just behind the Netherlands.
>
This is irrelevant. Germany, Spain and the Netherlands will kick illegals and non ciitzens to the curb in a heart-beat, and walk away without even so much as a sigh.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/31/2009 09:56AM by RestonLass.

RestonLass Wrote:
> The tirllions have already been spent - that's why
> it's called a deficit?

You're not replying to what I'm saying. My point is that money spent on healthcare is money spent on healthcare, and hence cannot be spent on other things.

> And whose fault is that? Do you even have a clue
> how much you are charged when you visit your
> doctor? YOU get worse results because your health
> care costs are the only service for which you do
> not comparison shop.

(snip the rest)

Your argument seems to be that health insurance itself causes higher health care costs. Of course, there will be idiots who don't get preventative care, and I do wonder how the bottom 20-30% or so would afford any health care in your perfect world. I suppose in your perfect world, they can just go mangent some of that delicious brioche (Is this where you tell me about all the wonderful things you do for private charity?)

Some healthcare costs can be comparison shopped, others can't. It's a little easier to shop around for a knee replacement than it is for an emergency surgery of some sort.

> This is irrelevant. Germany, Spain and the
> Netherlands will kick illegals and non ciitzens to
> the curb in a heart-beat, and walk away without
> even so much as a sigh.

Do you have any articles that say European hospitals will send a heart attack victim to the curb in a manner not even done here?

The big problem is aging of the society and the rising costs associated with insuring more people over 50. Just go on to ehealthinsurance and plug in different birthdates. You'll find that insurance rates escalate rather dramatically from around 50 to 65. Care for dying people consumes about 25-30 percent of total healthcare costs even though they comprise only 1 percent of the population. Another large cost for the older propulation is that many, if not most, start to go on decades of regular therapies to control long-term conditions, such as diabetes, hypertension, cancer, lung disease (smokers), heart disease, etc. They have to go to regular doctor checkups every three months to their GP and one or more specialists as well as take various medications daily to control the diseases. Costs for maintaining health can easily run 3000-4000 per person each year.

Out-of-pocket costs for maintaining health can easily run 3000-4000 per person each year.

they should just lower medicare to age 55. done.

Berdhuis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually not. According to WHO data
> (http://www.who.int/countries/en/):
> comparing a European country as France to the US
> reveals that:
>
> France
> Per capita expenditure is $3,554
> Total expenditure on health as % GDP is 11.1%
> Ratio of doctors to population is 1/340
> % General & Administrative costs for health care
> is 5%
>
> US
> Per capita expenditure is $6,714
> Total expenditure on health as % GDP is 15.3%
> Ratio of doctors to population is 1/1290
> % General & Administrative costs for health care
> is 30%
>
> France is ranked #1 in the world for health care;
> the US is ranked #37.

The BOLD tells the tale. We wouldn't need as many administrators if we had more actual doctors. Any government led health plan will have an even higher administration cost because there will be more care managers.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

said the internet poster who purports himself to be an expert on health care, among other many other things such as posting frerotte wall headbutting and OMG OMG clips and using words such as 'anony-trollie'. wtf????????

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Berdhuis Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Actually not. According to WHO data
> > (http://www.who.int/countries/en/):
> > comparing a European country as France to the
> US
> > reveals that:
> >
> > France
> > Per capita expenditure is $3,554
> > Total expenditure on health as % GDP is 11.1%
> > Ratio of doctors to population is 1/340
> > % General & Administrative costs for health
> care
> > is 5%
> >
> > US
> > Per capita expenditure is $6,714
> > Total expenditure on health as % GDP is 15.3%
> > Ratio of doctors to population is 1/1290
> > % General & Administrative costs for health
> care
> > is 30%
> >
> > France is ranked #1 in the world for health
> care;
> > the US is ranked #37.
>
> The BOLD tells the tale. We wouldn't need as many
> administrators if we had more actual doctors. Any
> government led health plan will have an even
> higher administration cost because there will be
> more care managers.

The program in France is government run, and has LESS G&A costs. You're right about the doctor per capita ratio in that quality of care would likely be much higher.

Oh, people live on average 4 more years in France than we do in the US.

Berdhuis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The program in France is government run, and has
> LESS G&A costs. You're right about the doctor per
> capita ratio in that quality of care would likely
> be much higher.

Also, France does not spend a considerable amount of its health care budget to provide non-emergency care to non citizens. PEW studies estimates as much as $2B EACH YEAR is spent on non-emergency care of illegal aliens and their illegitmate anchor babies. Those costs will increase as more illegals enter the country and/or have more children.

> Oh, people live on average 4 more years in France
> than we do in the US.

Life Expectancy is determined by the average number of years to be lived by a group of people born in the same year. Life expectancy at birth is also a measure of overall quality of life in a country and summarizes the mortality at all ages.

In France and other countries with government subsidized health care, life expectancy is calculated using members in the plan. Illegal aliens who wander in and wander out, with gang skirmishes in between, are not counted in the census or included in the statistics.

In the US, whenever an illegal alien dies (for any reason), data by gender and estimated age are entered into the database and added to all other data to arrive at an estimated average life expectancy. Our numbers are skewed and are not an accurate represenation of life expectancy in the US - for Americans.

To be quite honest, our government doesn't even have clue how many people are living in the US, or how many are here illegally. Yet, you want to use this skewed data to defend your allegation that health care in the US is sub-par.

If we were to remove from the actuarial data all illegal aliens and persons living in the country on temporary visas, I would not be at all surprised if the average life expectancy increased by at least 2 years, putting in a very close race with France.

formerhick76 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Americans, there's not much of a problem (with
> regard to healthcare, job availability, etc.,
> etc.) and that high levels of immigration threaten
> the stability of our society/culture. (FWIW, we
> had a higher percentage of immigrants in the Ellis
> Island days; whether they were legal or not, most
> of the immigrants back then had low English skills
> and were largely unskilled.)

And during that time, all entered the country legally - back then a visa was a requirement to buy passage on a ship.

They came to a country that was wide open with fewer than 100M people. Once here, they made it, died trying or returned. There was no Health & Human Services department - they took care of themselves with no illusion of perceived entitlement.

The last ship pulled into harbor at Ellis Island in 1954. At that time, the US population was 163M - with about 3M illegal Latinos, many of whom were rounded up and deported during Operation Wetback, with INS reporting a mass exodous across the Texas Border of an estimated 700,000. The entire project took less than a year. That was the last time the borders were actually secure.

And now, 55 years later, our population has nearly doubled, many of whom were, or are presently living here illegally. The majority are barely literate with limited skills, and sucking the American tax payers dry. These are NOT the immigrants that built this country 50 - 75 years ago. They are doing nothing to better the country.

RestonLass Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Berdhuis Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > France is ranked #1 in the world for health
> care;
> > the US is ranked #37.
>
> I like the French plan, first and foremost because
> they "spit in the eye" of the ubra liberals who
> demand the tax payers support anyone and everyone
> who decides to squat on French soil. The children
> of illegals are not citizens by birth - as is the
> case in most of European developed countries.
> Unlike here, they do not perceive any
> entitlements, because the French government is not
> at all shy about reminding them they have none.
>
>
> France takes care of its citizens first and
> everyone else is on their own (except for
> emergency care). France doesn't give handouts to
> illegals and doctors and nurses do not hesitate to
> turn them away from any government clinic if they
> don't have Euros in hand.
>
> If the US adopted the French policy of "citizens
> first," we would move way up in the ranking.
> Instead, we remain low on the list because we
> spend countless billions of dollars each year
> supplementing millions of illegals and all their
> illegitimate anchor babies, forcing Americans to
> take a back seat for jobs, living assistance, and
> health care.
>
> If you do the math, the amount of money spent to
> supplement illegals and their new and illegitimate
> families (after they send unreported earnings back
> home to support the families they made there),
> would be more than sufficient to provide health
> care for every uninsured American citizen.
>
> So Berdhuis, I agree with you 100% and I’m doing a
> high-five that if Americans opt for a socialized
> health care plan, they emulate the French model –
> to include amending birthright citizenship – which
> does not require an Amendment, only a Supreme
> Court interpretation ruling.
>
> Vive la America!


Junes? Are you under there? You walk like a Junes..you talk like a Junes. Your world is dark and filled with hate.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Geesh, you are one paranoid skitzo.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/31/2009 08:33PM by RestonLass.

The problem with emergency room usage isn't illegal immigrants. It's the people who are told by their doctors that they can't be seen right away and decide on their own to go to a clinic. Maybe they decide that they don't want to take time off from work and put off medical care till after hours when the only alternatives are emergency rooms and urgent care facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MR. WILLSMALL: I went to the downtown clinic cause when this happened I wasn't able to work. I lost my job. I lost my apartment.

DR. NORFLEET: Okay.

MR. WILLSMALL: And so, I'm just trying to get help.

DR. NORFLEET: Yes, Sir. We are going help you, okay?

He's complaining of vomiting blood. It's been going on for a month so it's not really considered an emergency anymore. It's considered a chronic problem, but we get a lot of patients like that, that the emergency department is the only place they know they can go to, to maybe address their problem.

He didn't have the luxury of having a primary care provider, which is a luxury in this country, which is kind of sad. We're like the richest country, you know, and a lot of our people don't have doctors so they use the emergency department in order to see a physician.

NURSE: Say, "Ah." You've got a lot of congestion in the back of your throat. Do you feel like its kind of sitting there?

DENTIST: Well, that second to last tooth is infected and the very back tooth looks broken off.

PATIENT: All right.

MAGGIE MAHAR: Over the last 12 years a number of people visiting America's emergency rooms has soared. Yet here's what's surprising: The number of low-income people going to ERs has not increased. The increase has come almost entirely among middle-class people and many of them have insurance.

NURSE: Whose insurance do you have?

PATIENT: Blue Cross.

NURSE: Do you have your card with you?

PATIENT: Yeah.

MAGGIE MAHAR: So why do they go to the ER? Why aren't they seeing their own doctor? Many people think that they know what's wrong with the health care system in this country. Millions of people are uninsured. And sure, that's part of the problem. But that's not the whole problem. The whole problem is bigger than that.

DR. JOHN NIXON: I am on top here. Any problem up there? Any problem in the back?

DR NIXON: There're just not enough resources out there for, not only your uninsured patients, but also your insured patients. Insured patients have a problem also because their doctors, when they call their office and says, "I need to see…" … "We can't see you for three weeks." "Well, what am I going to do for three weeks?"

DOCTOR: Open your mouth.

Health care costs keep going up, up and up and up. But the access seems to be going down down down down.

All right. Do you need anything for pain right now? You do? Okay, we'll get you something all right? We've got to run some tests and we'll be back.


http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08282009/transcript1.html

Why do Canadians come here? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Easy. Why would employers provide costly
> insurance when they can dump the plan and let
> their employees buy the government plan with the
> money that the employer has given them in raises
> once he doesn't have to pay for health insurance
> anymore? government plan is cheaper for
> employers. Why would they offer anything else?

First, companies aren't going to give employees raises if the compnay private insurance is dumped.

Second, wouldn't all of the chest-thumpers out there who don't want a government run system insist on a private plan anyway?

And if not, then that would suggest that they aren't genuinely opposed to a government run system afterall.

Can't wait for the same people who run the post office, FEMA, and the DMV to run my doctor's office!!!!

RestonLass:
$2 billion a year on health care for illegals?

That's like, 0.1% of total healthcare costs in this country.

Also, do you have any idea how many illegal aliens die each year?

formerhick76 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RestonLass:
> $2 billion a year on health care for illegals? That's like, 0.1% of total healthcare costs in this country.

It's $2B that could be used for health care for American citizens. To those who are uninsured because they make $15 more a week than the cut off, the percentage is irrelevant.

>
> Also, do you have any idea how many illegal aliens die each year?

They seem to be doing a pretty good job of keeping their own population down With infanticides, beatings and stabbings, it's hard to keep track. If they don't care, why should I? Isn't that something their government should handling?

formerhick76 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Also, do you have any idea how many illegal aliens
> die each year?

Not enough.

"The top 5 executives at each of the 20 banks that accepted the most bailout dollars averaged $32 million A PIECE in personal compensation from 2006-2008"
-----------Institute for Policy Studies

Its oversight like this that makes the average U.S. citizen reluctant to turn over Health care to Gov't bureaucrats who answer to greedy corporate executives-- (who are clearly the only constituency elected officials care about)

Trying to better regulate a system which at least has some pressure created by market forces to reform seems easier and less expensive

As far as providing health care to illegals,,,,,I think we've done enough for them already. Illegals have drained this country in too many ways to list in this
forum.

credible? that's a reach. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> said the internet poster who purports himself to
> be an expert on health care, among other many
> other things such as posting frerotte wall
> headbutting and OMG OMG clips and using words such
> as 'anony-trollie'. wtf????????

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Attachments:

Berdhuis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> The program in France is government run, and has
> LESS G&A costs. You're right about the doctor per
> capita ratio in that quality of care would likely
> be much higher.
>
> Oh, people live on average 4 more years in France
> than we do in the US.

When you have MORE doctors, strangely enough you need FEWER care managers. The main reason for care managers is to manage costs - with more doctors you will significantly lower costs.

Right now we are suffering from a lack of doctors and specialists. That is well documented and not in dispute as far as I know. The numbers you posted show that with the much higher number of patients/doctor we have in the US. There are many issues for why we suffer from higher costs here:

1. lack of doctors/specialist
2. pharmaceuticals running higher margins for the same medicines in the US as other countries, and using kick-back marketing with doctors
3. insurance companies running "for profit" - they work out rates with hospitals, doctors and such for how much they will pay. The costs for someone that has insurance will be significantly higher than someone without. At the same time, uninsured patients will receive ER care and that cost is passed on to patients with insurance.
4. we expect nicer "rooms" and facilities when we receive health care in the US - hospitals in other parts of the world tend to have larger room/ward occupancy numbers
5. while there are some legitimate cases of malpractice, there are many more frivolous lawsuits - without tort reform, malpractice insurance costs for doctors continues to get more expensive, and makes it so they are required to order additional procedures to cover their asses, thus pushing costs up.

So there are many areas of reform. Just putting in a "public option" is a feel good solution, where people somehow believe that because the government is running the program, somehow the program will be more efficient and less costly. Well, there is no additional efficiency in anything the federal government runs, I think we all know that from many years of watching them work. As far as costs, the only way they know how to deal with cost issues is to not pay for services, just like current insurers attempt today to reduce their costs as well. Putting in things like end of life planning, while it may not be overtly intended to force older folks into less care when they are in dire straits, will most likely end up being used that way by providers looking for ways to reduce costs down the road.

There are ways to fix the problem if you take the special interests out of the discussion. For instance, having the pharmaceuticals willing to sit and make a deal with Obama to reduce costs in the US is a tacit admission on their part that we could get a lot more out of them if we include the provisions to determine pricing based on taking into account other world markets for the same drugs. Folks like SEIU look to benefit if the whole system went single payer, as they would then become the Union masters of the Government run health care. They could then demand even better benefits from the government then they receive currently from private providers (they already hold these folks hostage with strike threats when contracts come to an end and they don't get their demands). Etc. By keeping health care providers private, we can get some better benefits in the long term as competition will keep innovation moving forward.

Don't get tied up in the stupid arguments put forth that no one wants to work together on solutions. The problem is, both sides are beholden to special interests that are more interested in their own issues then they are in what is best for the rest of the folks in America. Until we get past these financial difficulties, unless someone can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any change will reduce medical costs, we should be wary of any plan that is shoved through and allows for any hidden provisions dealing with issues outside the scope of health insurance to be introduced. There should be NO earmarks, or changes to other laws/regulations other than health care related issues in anything that moves forward. We should demand that if they do come up with a compromise plan, that Obama vetoes anything that contains provisions not related to the issue.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/02/2009 10:25PM by Registered Voter.

the private insurers generally control their costs by screening out risks and by capping their benefits. that's not something that a public plan would be able to do or a global health finance system would allow among its member companies. some of the private insurers also cross over into the medical service provision. they enter into arrangements with doctors, hospitals, etc. which give them preferrential access and rates. i suspect that these types of agreements contribute to an artificial shortage of doctors.

RV, unfortunately, the two important points you raised (lower prescription drugs and tort reform) are not on the table even though they are essential to reduce health care costs.

Obama has already crawled into bed with the Pharmas and the end result is higher prescription drugs and restrictions on buying them from anyone other than "Medicare approved" sources. The die has been cast, and I don't think this can be reversed as it's a huge feather in the cap of the Phramas.

Without Tort reform, doctors and medical facilities must pass thru their insurance premiums in their fees. If nothing is done to contain settlements, premiums will continue to increase as will fees. Obama has made it clear that tort reform is not part of his plan for the "Plan" Though not subtantiated, it is estimated that about 10% of a patient's bill is pass-through insurance premiums. No one I've spoken with expects doctors or facilities to "get a pass," they just want settlements based on need, not greed.

Obama plans to "take his plan" to Congress next week. No one really knows what his plan is, but hope he will be offer some specifics to build on.

My greatest concern about Obama's and Congress' health care reform is that each time an amendment is added to the primary bill, Medicare takes another hit and seniors are expected to dig deeper into their pockets to make up the difference.

I find it appalling that hearing aids and eye glasses are out of pocket expenses for seniors while Viagra is government paid.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/02/2009 11:55PM by RestonLass.

.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Attachments:

vision and hearing are options. that would be added to the cost of the medicare premium. many elderly have secondary plans where they can purchase these options, such as vision plans and dental coverage. the biggest problem with medicare is that two-thirds of the costs are being covered through the payroll tax. SS and medicare were designed to be viable in an economy where unemployment held under 6 percent. the real unemployment rate is 11 percent (unemployed + discouraged jobseekers) and getting worse.

Yet, Obama and Congress are writing into the "reform bill" (Medicaid extension) these and other "options" as government paid for the "47 million uninsured"

Medicaid is also funded by payroll taxes. Under the reform bill, 47M Uninsured 1 - 46M Seniors 0



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/03/2009 06:31AM by RestonLass.