PaleoCon Command Center: ObamaCare:

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

ObamaCare:

Steven Crowder has an excellent video on socialized medicine... It is a bit long, but well worth your time, IMO:

36 comments:

FJ said...: It was like a day at the motor vehicle admin...

a bit long... and definitely NOT worth the wait. ;-); 14 July, 2009 19:49
The Hermit said...: I'll have to watch this at work where I have DSL. I'll check it out tomorrow.; 14 July, 2009 21:53
WomanHonorThyself said...: will come back tomorrow Brooke..its 12:30 yikes...lol; 15 July, 2009 00:17
Always On Watch said...: I bitch a lot about my health-insurance issues.

But I don't have any hope (pardon the expression) that BHO will make my situation any better.; 15 July, 2009 09:04
cube said...: There is no doubt that our health care system needs a little revamping, but Obamacare is NOT an option.

The cumulative greed of the insurance companies, the physicians, and the lawyers needs to be brought down a notch. We don't need socilaized medicine to do that.; 15 July, 2009 12:14
FJ said...: As the Canadian health care model proves, all socialized medicine does is DOUBLE healthcare costs, only nobody has insurance to pay the 2nd half of the costs...; 15 July, 2009 12:27
Z said...: Don't worry, we'll be FINE, we CAN keep our plans we like!
When all our neighbors decide freebies are better and drop Blue Shield or any other of their private plans, the government will bail Blue Shield OUT, SIMPLE, RIGHT?

oh, brother. Super video...it needs to be on CNN.; 15 July, 2009 13:22
heidianne jackson said...: our healthcare system needs to be deregulated and let the private market rule. great eyeopener. yeah, right, z.; 15 July, 2009 16:14
Dora said...: Ignored Psych Patient Dies on Hospital Floor

in America!

http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=5284151; 15 July, 2009 21:02
heidianne jackson said...: it's a tragedy to be sure, dora. however, disciplinary action has been taken. had these employees all be government union employees what would have been done? what would the family's recourse be? likely nothing and none.; 15 July, 2009 21:22
Dora said...: "had these employees all be government union employees what would have been done? what would the family's recourse be? likely nothing and none."

Government officials are prosecuted, disciplined, and sued all the time. Moreover, there is no proposal anywhere for healthcare that involves nationalizing private hospitals, so even with "obamacare", private institutions would be as liable as they are now.; 15 July, 2009 22:05
FJ said...: Government officials are prosecuted, disciplined, and sued all the time...

Yeah, Republican officials like Sarah Palin...

...private institutions would be as liable as they are now... Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha. You mean they won't simply pass a law restricting hospital liability in order to "hold down health care costs"? G_d, Dim-o-crats are soooooo naive, aren't they?; 16 July, 2009 08:16
CONSERVATIVEFLIX.COM said...: I love the cover of National Review for this month...

http://nrd.nationalreview.com/; 16 July, 2009 09:29
FJ said...: Government is trying to force private providers to either EAT the cost of universal medical care, or force them to figure out clever ways to ration services. Let's face it, once the government is in charge of health care, they'll blame everyone but themselves for ever increasing rationing of services and poorer and poorer quality standards of care.; 16 July, 2009 14:28
Brooke said...: FJ: Exactly.

If I'm not mistaken, aren't most gov't social workers made immune from lawsuits, particularly in family services?

You're right about rationing... ObamaCare is going
to suck for the oldsters, terminally ill, and those that might become terminally ill, such as prostate cancer victims.; 16 July, 2009 15:15
Krystal said...: I have a special needs child. I fear that he will NOT be provided for the same way as a "normal" child would be due to rationing. Medical care, under socialized medicines, is based upon the healthiest persons getting help first. That way if supplies run out the least of the society members are the ones to die out.

All we need to do in this country to dramatically decrease medical cost is to change ONE LAW. There is a law that says a doctor has no recourse in a malpractice suit if the doctor is found innocent. In other words, the doctor is in a loose-loose situation. It is cheaper to settle than to prove innocence. That is why there are so many frivolous malpractice suits out there.

I know a doctor who was sued. Here's how it went:

Woman comes into a private hospital in labor. She hasn't hit transition yet and is on Medicaid. Medicaid will not pay for private hospital unless it's an emergency. She is told to go to the public hospital.

She says she doesn't want to go there because she wants a private room. She was forced to go to the public hospital because she was in early labor. There was no reason for her not to go.

THE NEXT DAY she delivered a special needs baby that was sick. The baby HAD HARD DRUGS IN ITS SYSTEM.

She sued the doctor saying her baby was sick and deformed because she was turned away from the private hospital.

Even though it was a slam-dunk case for the doctor I know, IT WAS CHEAPER TO PAY HER OFF THAN TO PROVE HIS INNOCENCE. So his insurance paid the woman and raised his premium. It was the first time he had ever been sued.

This type of thing happens a LOT!

Personaly, I think we should set amounts for people to be paid for error (it's going to happen, some for lack of caring and others from just being human). We should set those amounts and do away with the ambulance chasers. It would lower malpractice insurance and medical costs.

We also need to look into why American companies that get tax breaks for research and development sell a drug in Canada for $10 for a month's supply and the same thing here for $100 for a month's supply....; 16 July, 2009 16:05
beamish said...: how to cut health care costs the leftist way; 16 July, 2009 21:57
Brooke said...: Ah, yes, the "mercy death."

The libs in charge of universal health care will grant it either through procrastination of treatment, or to be humane, whether the patient wants it or not.; 17 July, 2009 11:21
Dora said...: Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha. You mean they won't simply pass a law restricting hospital liability in order to "hold down health care costs"? G_d, Dim-o-crats are soooooo naive, aren't they?

Aren't you talking about tort reform, which limits doctors' liability, and isn't that a banner rightwing issue? lol; 17 July, 2009 21:53
beamish said...: Tort reform my ass.; 18 July, 2009 05:25
FJ said...: Aren't you talking about tort reform, which limits doctors' liability, and isn't that a banner rightwing issue? lol

Turning the lawyers loose on doctors and hospitals isn't going to reduce health care costs, deary. And isn't THAT the argument Democrats are using for the need for "fixing" the system?

As beamish's link above shows, the democrats seems to want to both increase quality by driving private medical practitioners out of business with lawsuits AND make health care more "efficient" and "affordable." There's no way they can do both.

As Isaiah Berlin has said, "some of the great goods cannot live together and so we are forced to choose... and herein lies the tragic nature of choice."

There's a reason why health care costs in this nation are soaring. The costs are "worth it" to people. What good is a new Ferrari if you're dying and too sick to drive it? Viagra could cost 100x what it does, and the demand would still be high.; 18 July, 2009 08:00
DD2 aka Debonair Dude said...: Hi Hon, long time no see or hear.
Hope you are doing well.
I see you are still in there slamming away. Good for you.; 18 July, 2009 09:38
FJ said...: Oooops. I guess no one told Congress that the object was to decrease health care costs, NOT INCREASE THEM....

...but then ANY idiot can design a more expensive health care system, even Nancy Pelosi.; 18 July, 2009 09:56
Dora said...: "There's a reason why health care costs in this nation are soaring. The costs are "worth it" to people."

And one of the Republicans' alternative proposals is going even further in tort reform, because that's an oft-cited reason for soaring costs.

However, it seems that states that have passed tort reform (like Texas), which cap liability, have not seen any decrease in healthcare costs.

Weird, huh?

So, are you for tort reform or not? Seems when Repugs are pushing for it, you're for it, but when Dems are pushing for it, you're against it. What's up with that?; 18 July, 2009 11:17
FJ said...: LOL! Are you for check OR balances, dora... which is it?

You can't claim that on the basis of "cost" and "coverage gaps" the "system is broken" and then PRETEND that you can both reduce cost AND increase coverage. It's either one or the other. The Democrats pretend that they can have their cake AND eat it, too. They can't. It's ALL A LIE to NATIONALIZE HEALTHCARE. Period.

This is a government power grab of 16% of the American economy, pure and simple. Only a fool would hand idiots 1/6th of the American economy in exchange for a pack of demonstrable lies and empty promises of future benefits.; 18 July, 2009 11:35
Dora said...: "You can't claim that on the basis of "cost" and "coverage gaps" the "system is broken" and then PRETEND that you can both reduce cost AND increase coverage."

Yes, you can. It's all very simple. Everyone who before got no healthcare except very expensive emergency room visits PAID FOR BY TAXPAYERS will not have basic comprehensive healthcare. It's the difference between getting an annual PAP smear and showing up at the emergency room with Stage III cervical cancer. Do you see how, maybe, just maybe, money can be saved here?

And on top of that, some healthcare costs are just a waste of money and have nothing to do with the quality of healthcare being provided, namely administrative costs and recoupment costs. How much moeny do providers spend trying to recoup costs from people who won't pay?

Furthermore, more than half of people who file for bankruptcy do so because of medical bills. Who pays for all that stuff? The rest of us do, with increases in costs for our own healthcare to cover the money lost to bankrupt patients. Imagine if those people didn't file for bankruptcy -- that would be a reduction of more than half!

And all that money we spend on healthcare now, somewhere around 16% of GDP, it's money we could spend elsewhere. If we got our spending down to Germany's level of 10%, that's 5% of the GDP that can be used to buy other things, stimulating the economy.

As I said on your blog, this is not rocket science, ALMOST EVERY OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD has figured this one out: how to cover everyone and spend much less money, and they pretty much all have average life expectancies longer than ours. We're number 50! Isn't that a scandal? What the hell is wrong with us?

We're behind all of these guys (starting with the longenst life expectancy): Andorra, Japan, San Marino, Australia, Canada, France, Sweden, Switzerland, Guernsey, Israel, Iceland, New Zealand, Italy, Gibraltar, Monaco, Liechtenstein, Spain, Norway, Jersey, Grecce, Austria, Malta, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Germany, Belgium, UK, Finland, EU on average, Denmark, Ireland, Portugal.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html?countryName=United%20States&countryCode=US&regionCode=na#US; 18 July, 2009 11:58
FJ said...: It's the difference between getting an annual PAP smear and showing up at the emergency room with Stage III cervical cancer. Do you see how, maybe, just maybe, money can be saved here?

Let's see... annual cost for PAP smears for 150 million people @ $100 per... totals $15 billion vs annual cost for treating 11,000 cervical cancer cases x $100,000 per case equals $1.1 billion. I'd say preventative care was more expensive... but then... that's just a back of the envelope calculation. Now, if each woman were to get the HPV vaccine, that might add another say 10 million vaccinations a year that are good for at least 5 years... at about $400 per vaccination... or $4 billion a year on top of the $15 billion for pap smears...

Preventative care turns out to be awfully expensive...; 18 July, 2009 15:52
Dora said...: FJ, you're a sorry excuse for a human being.; 19 July, 2009 02:08
USA_Admiral said...: Excellent find Brooke.

Crowder's explanation makes it understandable so even most idiots could get it. Notice I said "Most" idiots.

Some never will.; 19 July, 2009 07:39
FJ said...: FJ, you're a sorry excuse for a human being.

I'm not the one who tosses facile lies like "prevention is cheaper than cure" around. If you want Americans to accept and pay for universal healthcare, you need to tell them the truth.; 19 July, 2009 12:47
Brooke said...: Wow. I go to work for a couple of days and missed the party!

Dora, I won't tolerate another comment like your last one.; 19 July, 2009 15:28
Frank The Thinking Man, said...: Nice party ya got here, whens the drinks going to be served?
Great post brooke; 19 July, 2009 15:39
Brooke said...: Ok, you're out of here.; 21 July, 2009 11:31
Dora said...: This post has been removed by a blog administrator.; 20 July, 2009 23:25
Brooke said...: You're a bit thick, aren't you Dora?; 28 July, 2009 00:32
Dora said...: This post has been removed by a blog administrator.; 27 July, 2009 23:39

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)