posted on March 4, 2004 07:52:09 PM new
Oh? Like you're willing to welcome the change in abortion laws so these 25+ week babies you want health care for can be allowed to live?
And though you haven't posted here for a while.....so I don't know if you're one who's been complaining about the current deficits or not....but you want Kerry's plan of $165B dollars more than he can cut from our defense, to pay the estimated costs for his Health Care program?
You want higher deficits?
edited to add the statement I was responding to:
I value the human life that is presently existing, not potential. If your Bush valued the potential, every pregnant woman in this country would have access to GOOD prenatal care, and that is most definitely not the case. The US leads the industialized nations in infant mortality. The US is one of the highest ranking countires in neonatal death among the industialized nations.
Put your money where your mouth is and support universal health care.
Re-elect President Bush!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Mar 4, 2004 09:40 PM ]
posted on March 4, 2004 08:17:57 PM new
LindaK, with universal health care and better sex education, there very likely would not be nearly as many 25 weekers. Poverty is one of the risk factors for prematurity, you know. The US also rank very high in the industialized world in preterm birth. Complications of prematurity are expensive to treat, and some can persist through life. I've seen families bankrupted by the medical costs incurred.
You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
posted on March 4, 2004 08:29:24 PM new
Linda, it sounds like you missed this part that was posted on page one of this thread.
No one is forced to attend Nobody’s Fool, and parents have to give their approval, so no child is going to get this information if her parents don’t approve.
I don't see anyone here promoting abortion for teenagers and I certainly don't.
You say:
Others don't want their children to abort their grandchildren and don't need ultra liberals telling them how to raise their own children. And they're the one's you all criticise. what a laugh.
posted on March 4, 2004 08:31:20 PM new
snowy - You're talking about the 25+ weekers you care for in the neonatal unit. I'm talking about the 25+ weekers that are being aborted. They're no different that the babies you care for. Just one's inside the womb and the others outside.
We cannot afford National Health care. Look to Canada for an example of how much they pay in taxes and how long they wait for care in order to 'enjoy' those benefits. Not much medical equipment, outdated usually and certainly none that compares to what we have in the US. PLUS their government gets to make their medical decisions for them. NO thank you, I'd like to keep those decisions between my and my doctors....not our government.
Yes, I know how much it costs to care for those babies. And I understand what it's like when parents don't have insurance, or their insurance runs out....but they don't have to pay for their childs care. There's all kinds of funding help. They can also file for bankruptcy. That's the reason the bankruptcy courts were established.
So, I'm sorry but I don't buy that excuse. Been there and done that with my sister's baby who was born early and was in a neonatal unit for two months.
posted on March 4, 2004 08:37:02 PM new
Kiara - Thank you but I didn't miss anything.
This thread has been jumping from one subject to another. I was addressing the fact that PP promotes abortions and that young girls, in most states, don't even need parental approval to have an abortion.
So that if anyone wants to do what that group of Girl Scout leaders/mothers did, I feel they have the right to fight for change.
They did. And it worked. I believe I've already posted that paragraph for you earlier.
posted on March 4, 2004 09:06:57 PM new"Yes, I know how much it costs to care for those babies. And I understand what it's like when parents don't have insurance, or their insurance runs out....but they don't have to pay for their childs care. There's all kinds of funding help. They can also file for bankruptcy. That's the reason the bankruptcy courts were established.
You mentioned that parents don't have to pay for their child's care. I'm really interested to know what kind of funding help is immediately available to those without insurance?
You mentioned bankrupcy? In the meantime, will hopsitals take care of the uninsured for free?
posted on March 4, 2004 09:15:19 PM new
helen - posted on March 4, 2004 12:15:41 PM It's great to see so many posters butting heads with the butthead so skillfully.
It should make everyone question the slogan, "Re-elect President Misleader".
Helen
-----------
posted on February 26, 2004 08:36:15 AM
And, linda....
If you have noticed, there are posters here that I ignore. I read their comments but simply don't respond because I have determined that those posters are either unable to communicate on a level higher than that of a juvenile playground insult or in cases like yours lack sufficient knowledge about a subject.
I have other problems with you including your refusal to document your questionable information and your unsubstantiated allegations. So, I have no interest in engaging in any kind of dialogue with you on a conventional basis. I will continue to point out errors and wrong allegations but I have no interest in you other than that. I have butted heads with you many times and after winning the battles, you simply ignore your lost arguments by returning to your first statements which were proved wrong.
I come here like most people to read and share opinions with other people and have a good laugh every now and then. Arguing with you requires so much maintenance that it is not worthwhile. By maintenance I mean review of history for you, researching your information for you, and dealing with your narrow minded conservative opinions. Helen
posted on March 4, 2004 09:25:06 PM new
I said above, I will continue to point out errors and wrong allegations but I have no interest in you other than that.
By asking those questions which you chose not to answer, I have pointed out an error as I suggested I would.
posted on March 4, 2004 09:45:26 PM new
Linda, you're misinformed on some of your info about the health care in Canada but you seem to be on your own little soapbox here so I won't say anything about that.
And don't include me in your broad "you all" statements, it would be better to name the names instead of generalizing about everyone here as you can't possibly know what the rest of us are thinking.
posted on March 4, 2004 09:51:54 PM new
Kiara - We had a thread on here a while back, and I believe it was KD who said that Canadians pay an approx. 50% tax rate. Then you pay a sort of sales tax of 15% on everything you buy....including your homes. Then there are other taxes you pay when items come into Canada.
Is any of that incorrect? Please feel free to say if it is.
And I'd like to also let me know what part of your medical care I was wrong about. Because when we had this previous thread, I searched on google and found articles that spoke to the statements I've made.
posted on March 4, 2004 09:59:16 PM new
Kiara - Here's the first one that came up for me on a google search.
It listed the pros and cons. Here were their cons:
The Plan's Weaknesses:
Financing of Canada's health plan has been generous during periods of growth and tight when government must control its deficits - a major problem recently, since payments have been frozen for the last several years.
Access to some high-tech procedures has been limited by a shortage of some equipment and hospital beds.
Benefits are basic - only procedures deemed "medically necessary," are covered (e.g. optometrists and dentists may not be covered.)
Cost over-runs - primarily in physician services - prompt provincial governments to increase cost controls, resulting in outcries of "rationing" by providers and, on several occasions, political uproars.
--------
And I also believe on that thread we discussed your doctors were unhappy with their salaries. And that some were coming to the US because we pay better here.
It has been nearly 10 years since the Clinton health-care plan, which would have put control of health care into the hands of government, was laid to rest. And yet, the idea of universal coverage is once again "out of the woods," with Mr. Kerry, among others, leading the charge. Proponents believe that universal coverage is the only viable solution to the problems facing the health-care industry in the U.S.
A popular rallying cry for supporters of universal coverage has been Canada's single-payer health-care system. Congressmen Jim McDermott and John Conyers have introduced legislation modeled on the Canadian system, as has California state senator Sheila Kuehl. But Canada only offers a false promise for what ails the U.S.
As a former Canadian now living in the U.S., I have witnessed firsthand the failures of national health care.
Implemented in 1971, the Canadian system provides excellent evidence of what happens to the quality of care when government is the sole provider – long waiting lines for critical procedures, lack of access to current technology, increasing costs to taxpayers and patients, and a brain drain of doctors, who head south for better working conditions and more money.
Waiting Longer
Kerry is the beneficiary of this brain drain.
Yet, under a Canadian-style system, which claims to deliver comprehensive, accessible, and universal care, he would likely have to wait months for critical care.
According to the Fraser Institute's 12th annual survey, Waiting Your Turn: Hospital Waiting Lists, total average waiting time for patients rose to 16.5 weeks in 2001–02, 77 percent higher compared to 1993.
In Canada's most populous province, Ontario, the average wait time in 2001–02 for prostate cancer treatment after seeing a specialist rose to 8.5 weeks from 6.5 weeks in 2000–01. Senator Kerry, who underwent a biopsy in December, a precautionary bone and CAT scan in January, and surgery in February, was not forced to wait for treatment. No one else should have to wait either.
But it's not simply a question of waiting. In Canada, the federal government sets and administers the national standards for provincial health care. It transfers federal funds to provincial governments, where physicians are paid fee-for-service at government set rates. Because the rates are low, physicians perform more services, placing upward pressure on spending, and leading many provincial governments to cap the total amount they can bill in a year.
It doesn't require a business degree to see that there are cost containment problems in a system where consumers pay nothing at the point of consumption and producers are left free to decide what to sell. The government is forced to control spending and hospitals are left shortchanged.
The end result is a severe under investment in high-tech hospital equipment (including radiology equipment), and ultimately, a rationing of care. Canadians confront few barriers—and no bills—when they need to see a primary care doctor. But should that doctor diagnose a serious disease, such as prostate cancer, Canadians, both young and old, are quickly exposed to their system's limits.
Canadians have shown signs that they no longer tolerate such a system. In response to increasing outrage over health care quality and access, Prime Minister Chretien, in April 2001, established a commission to investigate the system and come up with some viable cures.
end quote/
So....Kiara....please let me know what I misstated.
posted on March 4, 2004 10:35:51 PM new
Americans also pay significantly higher social security taxes than Canadians along with state and county taxes. When you add it up, the difference between what Americans and Canadians pay in taxes is not nearly as much as often stated.
Standard and Poor's has concluded that if the costs of private sector health and education services are added to the US tax bill, there is no difference in the overall tax burden.
posted on March 4, 2004 10:45:00 PM new
Linda, yes our taxes are high but we gain many benefits from living here and Canada is rated as one of the top three countries to live in when it comes to highest standard of living.
When purchasing a home there is 7% GST on newly constructed homes and that's only if it's not your primary residence. If it is, you pay 4.5% GST. There is no tax on resale homes.
Our medical system has had many problems because of government cutbacks but there is supposed to be more funding now and they are trying to improve things.
For the past six years I've been partly responsible for arranging medical care for some that do not live in my city. I've always been able to phone their doctors and get immediate help or my doctor has arranged it through their doctors with no government involvement. This has worked efficiently, even when specialists have taken over or have been called in.
Everyone I personally know gets help right away with no government decisions so perhaps it depends on the doctors that one has or the area we live in. There are reports that some wait lengthy times for surgery but the ones I know have been very fortunate so far.
It's like the Girl Scout cookies, there is a story and people run with it (especially the media) and it gets blown out of proportion until it all sounds bad. There are problems here but there are also solutions. Our government wastes much of the tax dollars that could go towards health care and it does outrage us.
posted on March 4, 2004 10:47:33 PM new
Linda..I love this part of your post about Canadian health care back there a'ways...
"PLUS their government gets to make their medical decisions for them. NO thank you, I'd like to keep those decisions between my and my doctors....not our government."
Truly ~ coming from you in a thread that has turned to abortion is hysterical.
posted on March 4, 2004 10:59:48 PM new
Kiara - Thank you for sharing your own experience of your health care system. And I do believe what you're saying. But this isn't only one article that's been blown out of proportion....there are tons of sites that say the same thing. So I wasn't misstating anything.
And you mentioned things are going to get better.....because of more funding. I assume you Canadians will be the one's paying even higher taxes to pay for those increases.
And the cost of such a government run program, whether here or in your country is only going to continue to cost more.
If people want to vote for it, that's their right. But many of the posters here have been screaming about our deficits being too high now. They're willing to support a National Health Care System that Kerry's economic people have said will cost AT LEAST $165B [that's at the beginning - and also includes funding that will be taken from our current defense funding]...and that's only going to increase our deficit.
But thank you for sharing your personal experience.
posted on March 4, 2004 11:09:02 PM new
yes raw - glad that gave you a laugh.
Kind of the same way I feel when I hear people blaming President Bush for creating such high deficits, saying how our children and grandchildren are going to be paying for it and then they turn around and call for a huge increase in those deficits to add National Health Care.
posted on March 4, 2004 11:14:55 PM new
From the same link I gave from that investment magazine.
In his State of the Union speech, President Bush rightly argued that current problems "will not be solved with a nationalized health-care system that dictates coverage and rations care." Medicare reform, medical savings accounts, and consumer-driven care will make for better health care in America, not a government-run single-payer system that promotes higher taxes, limits technology, produces long waiting lists, and prolongs suffering.
The market doesn't have to work perfectly to work better than government. The next time a senator needs critical care, and seeks out the best doctor in the profession for timely and expert treatment, he should remind himself of this fact.
posted on March 4, 2004 11:20:01 PM new
Linda, I think we can all agree that people are willing to pay more for good health care. The problem with governments in both countries is that they are wasting tons of money that could go towards it. That's what makes the taxpayers so frustrated.
As an example, look what the war in Iraq is costing everyone. And now all the injured soldiers will need medical care, some of them for the rest of their lives. That's going to be a big cost.
posted on March 4, 2004 11:40:06 PM new
Kiara - Yes, we all know there's government waste and that those funds could be used in more important areas.
I don't agree that the money spent on Iraq should have gone elsewhere. Saddam has long presented a threat to our country and he doesn't anymore.
If we don't have a way to defend our nation, if we make cuts in our FBI, CIA and defense etc. we won't be able to do so....and health care will be the least of our worries.
Bush has done nothing but squandered money on war and tax breaks for the wealthy. Now, the poor, who will have no health insurance will pay. The old people will pay when their social security is privatized, The middle class and children of future generations will pay outrageous taxes. Thousands of those who fought a needless war in Iraq will pay with their lives or wounds for the rest of their lives and veterans will pay when their benefits are cut. What a miserable failure...not a leader....a misleader.
posted on March 4, 2004 11:51:27 PM newHey, why not privatize the DMV? I'd vote for that
Really though, I think there are a lot of government agencies that we could privatize and save the taxpayers money. Most business focus on running a 'lean machine'. Our government does not.
posted on March 5, 2004 03:44:44 AM new
Linda, it is too bad people can't see past having a choice of doctors and not wanting abortion... sad, really sad....
logansdad, I am curious, please regale us all of your Boy scout experiences?
to make a blanket claim that they are used as a babysitting service tells me you know nothing about them other than they, rightfully so, won't let queers in... I am betting your military service was quite exciting also if you even have any... means you took an oath and lied... yep you're a good one to be complaining that President Bush is a liar...
National healthcare would be a disaster in this country, to many "hand outers"... Look at what they have done to the welfare system.
posted on March 5, 2004 04:53:14 AM newPrivatize the DMV
LOL!!!
ANyone who lived in NJ in the 90s had to deal with the privatization of the DMV. If you think dealing with state government agencies is bad, there's an example of privatization gone REALLY, REALLY bad. Day long waits for a simple liscense renewal. Sometimes you had to go back. That place literally drove people nuts. I was in there to get tags once, had been waiting 4 hours, and about 1 o'clock, they announced that the computer was broken, they had no idea when it would be fixed, and people could wait if they wanted. Many of the over one hundred people waiting had taken a day off of their job, and things got ugly. This was not in one of the busy north Jersey offices. I've dealt with state DMVs, state and federal bureaucracy, and the military system, and I have never seen anything like that.
It was the ninth circle of hell, I tell you.
You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
posted on March 5, 2004 08:30:52 AM newI've dealt with state DMVs, state and federal bureaucracy, and the military system, and I have never seen anything like that. [NJ-DMV]
Then you must not ever have dealt with the DMV in CA. That was a nightmare, worse than what you describe in NJ. In recent years they've gone to making appointments to do business, so that's helped ....a tiny bit. But just go in off the street....you'll be there most of the day.
