Chukpike
Banned
Exactly my point. Second and third hand information.
New health care system
03USMC
Active member
Seems to me that you ethier ignored or missed the above portion of the statement. That rates as first hand information not second or third hand information. And it's not an uncommon occurance even if you have insurance.
If you want to address the issues then I suggest you address them but stop the baiting.
And in my opinion the problem to acces can be solved by having money. And there it goes wrong... The have's have no problem and enjoy the luxury of an excellent medical system. But the enormous pool of have-not's.... Ah well, it must be their choice to be poor, so who cares?
And while I was just typing the above, I thought of a solution. What if you institute a referendum? The oldest democracies in the world used and still use this once in a while. Every party draws up their plan and let the majority decide. Every US citizen can cast his vote on a plan and the plan with the most votes lose. And the losing side take their loss with dignity... Then this whole ordeal would be over and done with in the purest form of democracy!
Rob Henderson
Banned
Because we are not JUST a democracy... We are a democratic republic. We elect officials who supposedly will represent us on the political battlefield.
And by putting the problem by this elected group you perpetuate the problem. If they can't work it out amongst themselves, why not use your democratic prerogative and excersize your right. A very big pro is that the problem can be solved in one or two days instead of decades!
Rob Henderson
Banned
That's my point... We elect these officials to come up with the solutions because that's what they're supposed to do. They're supposed to be the voice of the people who voted for them.
Another bit of a problem is that a large percentage of Americans (I don't know the exact numbers, Chukpike) don't vote. Unfortunately, it's a lot of the same people who NEED to pay attention to these sort of issues. The voting would be misconstrued by the simple fact that not everyone who it affects is going to vote.
Another bit of a problem is that a large percentage of Americans (I don't know the exact numbers, Chukpike) don't vote. Unfortunately, it's a lot of the same people who NEED to pay attention to these sort of issues. The voting would be misconstrued by the simple fact that not everyone who it affects is going to vote.
I think it depends how you get the message across. The last time we had a referendum in Holland it regarded the creation of an European constitution. It was a very hot item and it got a lot of air-time. As you can imagine we had doubble the amount of voters we ususally have.
And the best part was that, even though the referendum was non-binding, all parties agreed to respect the outcome. Consequently the bill went into the bin. It is do-able, but you just need the political will to do it. All ingredients are there, so why not give it a vote?
And the best part was that, even though the referendum was non-binding, all parties agreed to respect the outcome. Consequently the bill went into the bin. It is do-able, but you just need the political will to do it. All ingredients are there, so why not give it a vote?
The Other Guy
Spam King
Interesting concept :rock:, though I think you will need a good PR manager to sell it...
Rattler
Damn... I did say that didn't I!! :roll:
That is indeed a snag TOG... But if their is mutual acception of the plan, you must be able to draw up a few guide lines. It is interesting though that we don't have this most money - best campaign over here. All parties get money from the same source. I like it better that way.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Which is why you should (and probably do) have broadcasting standards legislation which says you can not make misleading or false claims in advertising, I am a huge fan of all political advertising requiring a fact check before airing.
rattler
Active member
So do I, in Spain and Germany it is the same as in Holland (no lobbyists democracy).
OTOH, we here all are allowed to vote automatically (and get a government letter coming in that reminds us of the date and the place: Bring your passport or ID card!), in the US you have to register to be allowed to vote, and many people either are to lazy to do so or even have no clue how to do it.
A beaurocratic hurdle that IMHO could be done without and that surely is - at least partially -responsible for the low vote participitation percentage rates there (but I realize that in the US without a permanent citizen register that won´t work).
Rattler
I would make this something of the people and the political parties. Let all those commercial enterprises out of it. This will save you a whole lot of mis-information. Once you have your voted option, than you'll decide how to treat them corporate pricks. It is something that affects you personal so let's make the communication so short as possible. Leave the rest out of it.
Rob Henderson
Banned
You see, Ted, when the Founding Fathers created our Constitution, it was during a time when hardly anyone was considered "educated." In fact, for a very long time, it was only white, male, land owners who were allowed to vote at all. Although the times have changed and nearly everyone is literate in America and MOST are educated to a certain degree, there are those on the right whose mantra is "If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The system has worked for years, there's no need to change it." Even if it WOULD be much easier for the people to vote on issues directly, it would never be changed, because people FEAR that change.
Rob Henderson
Banned
George... If you're not going to post something constructive, don't post at all, mkay? THANKS
The Other Guy
Spam King
Oh, well that explains EVERYTHING. :roll:
This is the first time since I've been involved in politics that I'm not convinced the government has an ulterior motive. They've given me no evidence of such, other than the whining that the nationalized system will turn us into 1930s Germany.
Chukpike
Banned
Has nothing to do with a health care plan. NOT THE ISSUE
The service someone gets in an ER is based on severity, you don't take a number.
Obama's health care plan is not going to effect ERs as anyone that needs help gets it in the US, whether they can pay are not.
ERs follow standard triage. Breath, Blood and Bones. So if you go to the ER for a sprained ankle you are going to be last, as was I also, and insurance or no insurance had nothing to do with it.
The quality of the health care in the US is not the Issue. The ISSUE is changing the current health care system to accommodate the 45 million people with out insurance. I could go along with this, if someone will tell us all how it is going to be paid for. This plan may not do anything to rein in the costs of health care.
The Quality of health care in the US is second to no other country in the World. We have brought many children to the US to get medical attention that they could not get anywhere else in the World.
I was not baiting, I was stating a fact. You took my post without 13Th Rednecks comments I addressed, he was using second hand information.
If you want to chastise someone for not addressing the issue, then I suggest you learn what the issue of this thread is :
New health care plan
Not Slow treatment in ER or Poor Quality of US Health care
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
How it's related:
The current system of access to health care is poor.
The insurance companies and others who get very rich off the current system are preventing change.
So something has to be done to fix this problem.
So what I said is related to as to why a new health care system is necessary. Which is related to the new health care system.
I understand the ER takes people according to severity, but the question is, why am I being sent to the ER at all? As far as I know, the patients who aren't breathing or are bleeding or have broken bones aren't being ignored here either. They're getting treated right away. Yet, I'm still able to go and see a doctor in about 15-20 minutes. It's not magic.
You said the new plan would not change any of this. Maybe not. But by disempowering the insurance companies, I believe avenues for further development and improvement will open up.
Now I don't doubt the skill of US doctors or hospitals but rather feel that when I get poor treatment, it's because they don't really care to treat me. When it comes to the really big stuff like sports medicine etc., I have no doubt the US health care system has some of the best doctors, nurses, facilities and equipment in the world.
The current system of access to health care is poor.
The insurance companies and others who get very rich off the current system are preventing change.
So something has to be done to fix this problem.
So what I said is related to as to why a new health care system is necessary. Which is related to the new health care system.
I understand the ER takes people according to severity, but the question is, why am I being sent to the ER at all? As far as I know, the patients who aren't breathing or are bleeding or have broken bones aren't being ignored here either. They're getting treated right away. Yet, I'm still able to go and see a doctor in about 15-20 minutes. It's not magic.
You said the new plan would not change any of this. Maybe not. But by disempowering the insurance companies, I believe avenues for further development and improvement will open up.
Now I don't doubt the skill of US doctors or hospitals but rather feel that when I get poor treatment, it's because they don't really care to treat me. When it comes to the really big stuff like sports medicine etc., I have no doubt the US health care system has some of the best doctors, nurses, facilities and equipment in the world.
Last edited:
mmarsh
Active member
Oh please, George. We just got done with of the most abusive Administrations of presidential power in the History of the United States. From suspension to Habeaus Corpus, to the Patriot Act. Where were you to protest that? Nobody is going to buy the paranoia after getting rid of the worst presidents in US history.
And so what if Government took over the healthcare industry. It couldnt possibly be any worse than it is now. You complain about a government takeover, what about a corporate takeover which is just as oppressive, and in fact already exsists.