quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Nobody wants to stop true reform. When you define "reform" as a government takeover, that's what people want to stop.

If they don't want to stop reform, then why is their sole focus on...stopping reform. If they have any alternatives, by all means, let's hear them. Unfortunately, I don't expect anything new to come from conservatives or Fox News, because we all know, conservatives by the definition seek to keep everything the same.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton If they don't want to stop reform, then why is their sole focus on...stopping reform. If they have any alternatives, by all means, let's hear them. Unfortunately, I don't expect anything new to come from conservatives or Fox News, because we all know, conservatives by the definition seek to keep everything the same.

Because reform, as being promoted in this bill isn't seen as "reform" by the public... it is seen as a mix bag of government takeover of 1/6 of the private sector economy with no guarantee that anything will actually improve or cost less... it includes provisions that will make private insurance history (page 16 of the bill), it includes taxpayer funding for abortion, and it even includes government coming into homes and usurping parental rights in child care development (womb to tomb government intrusion buddy)!

Section 440 and Section 1904 of the House bill (page 838) under the heading: "Home visitation programs for families with young children and families expecting children," which would provide (via grants to states) for home visitation programs to educate parents on child behavior and parenting skills. ... The bill says that the government agents, the "well-trained and competent staff," will "provide parents with knowledge of age-appropriate child development in cognitive language, social, emotional and motor domains ... modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices, skills to interact with their child to enhance age-appropriate development."

Well trained government experts as defined by who? What field of child development theory? Is there one theory that fits all parenting skills? This is absurd... they shouldn't even be allowed to come into your home and make those judgements in the first place. So you see, this bill isn't really about just "health care", and the people know it and they don't want it. Reform as defined by this bill is a hell of a lot more than just "reform".

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Section 440 and Section 1904 of the House bill (page 838) under the heading: "Home visitation programs for families with young children and families expecting children," which would provide (via grants to states) for home visitation programs to educate parents on child behavior and parenting skills. ... The bill says that the government agents, the "well-trained and competent staff," will "provide parents with knowledge of age-appropriate child development in cognitive language, social, emotional and motor domains ... modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices, skills to interact with their child to enhance age-appropriate development." Well trained government experts as defined by who? What field of child development theory? Is there one theory that fits all parenting skills? This is absurd... they shouldn't even be allowed to come into your home and make those judgements in the first place. So you see, this bill isn't really about just "health care", and the people know it and they don't want it. Reform as defined by this bill is a hell of a lot more than just "reform".

You're missing a key word from the very first line of that section...(440)

quote:

Purpose- The purpose of this section is to improve the well-being, health, and development of children by enabling the establishment and expansion of high quality programs providing voluntary home visitation for families with young children and families expecting children.

The section goes on to state that the latest evidence-based techniques should be taught and that the effectiveness of the program should be independently monitored. You can argue about the qualifications of the personnel all you want, but that's pretty standard lingo.

More importantly, there are over 4 million births in the US each year. Can you imagine the resources that would be required to have some sort of government-mandated parent education on even a fraction of those? This is simply another home health program, of which Medicare/Medicaid already has multiple, expanded to a different population. Selectively cherry picking sections of the bill and leaving out key facts are a good reason why there is so much disinformation floating around.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Because reform, as being promoted in this bill isn't seen as "reform" by the public... it is seen as a mix bag of government takeover of 1/6 of the private sector economy with no guarantee that anything will actually improve or cost less...

Delete public. Insert GOP. Healthcare is on par with utilities, infrastructure, etc and should be regulated heavily by the government, just like every other first world country. You seem content in America's continuing stumble down the standard of living list. You are content in a healthcare system that is an obvious failure, and blindly rejecting a serious attempt to reform it. Republicans aren't providing their own proposals. Nooooo. Their only focus is making sure Obama/Democrats fail. Perhaps revenge for Bush's stupidity?

quote:

it includes provisions that will make private insurance history (page 16 of the bill), it includes taxpayer funding for abortion, and it even includes government coming into homes and usurping parental rights in child care development (womb to tomb government intrusion buddy)!

Private insurance should be as private as the electricity grid. In my personal opinion, health insurance companies shouldn't be allowed to make a profit.

As for the abortion lie you just posted, keep reading...None of the reform bills "even mentioned the word abortion until this latest version took on this issue last week," Farley said, referring to an amendment introduced by Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif. The amendment would segregate "the money that would be used to cover abortions. It would specifically prohibit federal dollars from being used to subsidize abortions."

As for "government coming into homes usurping parental rights." As neophono made clear, the program is VOLUNTARY.

quote:

Section 440 and Section 1904 of the House bill (page 838) under the heading: "Home visitation programs for families with young children and families expecting children," which would provide (via grants to states) for home visitation programs to educate parents on child behavior and parenting skills. ... The bill says that the government agents, the "well-trained and competent staff," will "provide parents with knowledge of age-appropriate child development in cognitive language, social, emotional and motor domains ... modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices, skills to interact with their child to enhance age-appropriate development." Well trained government experts as defined by who? What field of child development theory? Is there one theory that fits all parenting skills? This is absurd...

It's only absurd to you because you mistakenly (willingly or otherwise) believe the program is mandatory. It is not...

quote:

So you see, this bill isn't really about just "health care", and the people know it and they don't want it. Reform as defined by this bill is a hell of a lot more than just "reform".

What I see is someone whose fallen head over heels the rhetoric coming from Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and other idiots. A little advice. When you see Glenn Beck on tv, turn it off!!

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 18,000 folks die each year as a result of a lack of healthcare, about 50/day: http://hc-dw.org/

I did some digging around on that one and its statistically based on the 25-64yr old age group, which is essentially people in their prime working years. The loss of them is compounded into a greater economic loss for the country overall than the 15million saved by private companies they didn't pay money.
By my figures the net economic 'dent' caused by their removal is around 1 billion if they're gainfully employed and earning the average wage.
Thats 1billion dollars which they will not earn or spend, more importantly, that's 22,000 people, not numbers.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Luckily I don't care what the rest of the world thinks.

You aren't an island, not by location and certainly not financially, us 'foreigners' own a fairly huge chunk of your fat arse in securities alone. Needless to say if you're going to behave like a bunch of inbred hicks in the marketplace any time soon, we'd like to put our money somewhere else.

Coming late to this thread, are people here still advocating maintaining the status quo when it comes to health care? Not to suggest we need to adopt Obama's approach ... personally I think it's a flawed compromise, we need to adopt a more Switzerland approach, however, I thought that it was universally recognized that spending the most as a percentage of gpd per capita on health care out of all industrialized nations with the POOREST health results is indicative of a fucked up health care system? Bear in mind, I have excellent health care provided by my employer so I'm perfectly content in maintaining the status quo.

Have republicans come up with an alternative health bill option? I'm very critical of the democrats' health bill on a number of issues (there's a lot to disagree with on a 1000 page peice of legislation) but I'm even more critical of an alternative option that doesn't exist.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I thought that it was universally recognized that spending the most as a percentage of gpd per capita on health care out of all industrialized nations with the POOREST health results is indicative of a fucked up health care system?

just curious, does anyone know the breakdown of the costs of our healthcare? I'm curious because I have a feeling it includes a ton of research costs that other nations may not incur, but nevertheless from which they benefit. Just a hunch, and i could be wrong. I just don't see how we spend the most and get the least.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Bear in mind, I have excellent health care provided by my employer so I'm perfectly content in maintaining the status quo.

ha - that's exactly how I feel.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 just curious, does anyone know the breakdown of the costs of our healthcare? I'm curious because I have a feeling it includes a ton of research costs that other nations may not incur, but nevertheless from which they benefit. Just a hunch, and i could be wrong. I just don't see how we spend the most and get the least. ha - that's exactly how I feel.

http://www.americanhealthsolution.o...factors2008.pdf

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider http://www.americanhealthsolution.o...factors2008.pdf

\

i didn't read the entire thing (i skimmed most of it), but it appears that report just focused on the components of the growth in costs, not the total costs.

Up until a year or so ago, I had no idea that the US didn't have free health care. Being British and having grown up with the NHS, the thought of the American system turns my stomach, in the 21st century, in supposedly the most developed country in the world, free health care isn't accessible to it's poorest sections of society? absolutely mental

it's almost as mental as some of the arguments against "socialised" medicine (not counting )
the doctors in the NHS don't get paid enough argument also, is absolute shit, I personally know 2 recently qualified doctors, and a surgeon. All earn upwards of $90k, the surgeon has paid his student loan debts within 2 years, and is opening a restaurant as side project with his spare cash.

quote:

Originally posted by Az the doctors in the NHS don't get paid enough argument also, is absolute shit, I personally know 2 recently qualified doctors, and a surgeon. All earn upwards of $90k, the surgeon has paid his student loan debts within 2 years, and is opening a restaurant as side project with his spare cash.

Nurses get paid $90k. Being a doctor here is synonymous with six figure incomes.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Az the doctors in the NHS don't get paid enough argument also, is absolute shit, I personally know 2 recently qualified doctors, and a surgeon. All earn upwards of $90k, the surgeon has paid his student loan debts within 2 years, and is opening a restaurant as side project with his spare cash.

The only argument I'd add to that is that in the UK, the average debt out of med school is around 50k, in the US it's 250k. If the US could somehow lower the cost of med school student debt I think making sub-six-figures would be doable, but as of now even low six-figures can be tough when looking at payback time limitations and interest. The US already has a substantial doctor shortage and lowering pay here would price many future doctors out of the profession. I'd also add that the "average" American doctor works 10-15 hours more a week than their UK counterpart and a US intern/resident is capped at 80 hours a week vs. the 48 hour weekly cap of a junior doctor in Britain.