Okay... I turn on the boob tube and I see Barack Obama and his house of Liberal players out asking other liberals if they want more 'Free Benefits'..... or something others will pay for..... and I think, it's like asking a kindergarten class if they want ice cream and candy for lunch or vegetables and a salad. The children (liberals) will be very excited and everything will be fine, until the sugar high is expended by running, screaming and yelling and then the low is experienced.
I can see it now.
"Free" Universal Heath Care will bring excitement for a period of time until reality sets in.
Costs will soar, taxes will be raised then rationing, curtailing of treatments and diagnostic tests will begin. Discussions will begin about "life unworthy of life" and the high costs associated with that. Babies and small children will be considered first. Should Americans be paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to save a baby that is born premature? Should mere children receive treatments for diseases and birth defects that cost thousands?
Then discussions will begin about the elderly, "How much should be spent on someone who only has a few years to live, no matter what we do for them?"
Next will be discussions about those who are handicapped, "Do they really have a quality of life that helps society or are they a drain on the resources of society?"
Next will be discussions about those who are horribly damaged in automobile or other accidents, "what will they add to society after many thousands of dollars are spent to repair them?"
"Why should those who are terminally ill, drag society down as well, after all the money spent will only increase their life for a short period and they are already suffering anyway."
Sound familiar?? This was the thinking behind the NAZI Germany plan "Code named "Aktion T4".
This plan was instituted only 70 years ago by a Socialist Government called (National Socialist German Workers Party) or NAZI.
Could Obama be going the way of Aktion T4? We have democrats in the House stirring up a kettle of disgusting gruel they're calling universal health care as you read this. Leave it to liberals to promote a program which will cost trillions of tax dollars and which has already proven to be a disaster in England, Cuba and Canada. And please don't believe for a second that when he needs serious medical attention, Michael Moore seeks it in any of those three countries. If you think otherwise, you are probably the sort of person who believes that Sen. Charles Schumer will wait patiently to have his number called if he ever needs to be treated for that life-threatening disease he has or that Rep. Barney Frank will sit twiddling his thumbs and picking his nails in some crowded clinic if he ever decides to have his over-active salivary gland removed. And in spite of his advanced age, Sen. Robert Byrd isn't going to be told that he's too old to have that overdue brain transplant operation.
When a massive spending bill strong-armed by the President can only squeak through in the House, one has reason to hope that the members of the Senate will see the writing on the wall. At least you can hope that those members who are up for re-election in 2010 will see it.
We keep hearing about people who don't have medical insurance. What we don't hear is how many of those people are in the U.S. illegally or how many people simply prefer spending their discretionary income on booze, drugs, porn and electronic toys. I don't know a lot of young people who budget for health care. What truly confounds me is the blind faith that liberals have in their government, at least during those years when left-wingers are running the show in Washington. What, I constantly ask myself, is wrong with these people that they're dying to have the feds in charge of their health care? After all, these are the same bureaucratic dunderheads who mailed out at least 10,000 of those $250 stimulus checks to dead people. Just in case you were wondering, it didn't stimulate even one of them back to life. However, maybe it wasn't a $2.5 million goof, after all. I dunno, maybe it was simply Obama's way of rewarding 10,000 of Chicago's most loyal voters for past services to the party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_T4
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/holocaust/h-euthanasia.htm
It has been a success in Canada since the 1960's when it was first established. Get your facts straight. Here in America people who are uninsured can't afford the cost of it being taken out of their paycheck and still pay for food and rent. They chose a home over healthcare. It sucks, but the price keeps going up and wages don't. Also, do not go off on waiting for your number to be called. Here in Kansas my sister had to wait 3 months for a spot to get her friggin' tonsils out! My daughter had to wait 3 months to see a pulmonologist. Don't talk to me about waiting.
Sarah
Quote from: jerry wagner on July 11, 2009, 02:27:18 PM
It has been a success in Canada since the 1960's when it was first established. Get your facts straight. Here in America people who are uninsured can't afford the cost of it being taken out of their paycheck and still pay for food and rent. They chose a home over healthcare. It sucks, but the price keeps going up and wages don't. Also, do not go off on waiting for your number to be called. Here in Kansas my sister had to wait 3 months for a spot to get her friggin' tonsils out! My daughter had to wait 3 months to see a pulmonologist. Don't talk to me about waiting.
Sarah
Canada has it right??? ROTFL I have many friends up in canada and they cuss the system every day. THey have to come here to the US to get treatment cause the waiting list is over 18 months. If your a heart patient, its your death warrant. Need a MRI, your screwed cause you ain't going to get it anytime soon.
IF your daughter had to wait 3 months then I would have taken her to a different doctor. I don't have to wait for anything i need with the system as it is now. Though tonsilectomies are not immediate need either.
Quote from: srkruzich on July 11, 2009, 05:11:44 PM
Quote from: jerry wagner on July 11, 2009, 02:27:18 PM
It has been a success in Canada since the 1960's when it was first established. Get your facts straight. Here in America people who are uninsured can't afford the cost of it being taken out of their paycheck and still pay for food and rent. They chose a home over healthcare. It sucks, but the price keeps going up and wages don't. Also, do not go off on waiting for your number to be called. Here in Kansas my sister had to wait 3 months for a spot to get her friggin' tonsils out! My daughter had to wait 3 months to see a pulmonologist. Don't talk to me about waiting.
Sarah
Canada has it right??? ROTFL I have many friends up in canada and they cuss the system every day. THey have to come here to the US to get treatment cause the waiting list is over 18 months. If your a heart patient, its your death warrant. Need a MRI, your screwed cause you ain't going to get it anytime soon.
IF your daughter had to wait 3 months then I would have taken her to a different doctor. I don't have to wait for anything i need with the system as it is now. Though tonsilectomies are not immediate need either.
ROTFL Laughing my ass off right now. My father had a heart attack while we lived in Canada and survived..... in fact had quicker care than he had here. To put it politely, if you do not live there, you have no knowledge of how the system works. MRI's are rarely actually necessary, in fact most Physician association admit that the MRI is over used 3 times what is necessary. Further to that, I have never had an 18 month wait for something. But of course, I am not the expert on care like you. There was no other pulmonologist in the state of KS that would accept our insurance and there is only one other one to begin with, so there is a wait time deal with it. Tonsillectomies are urgent need if it is preventing you from swallowing. There are horror stories to every system..... perhaps it is time to listen to more than just the poor examples. BTW when my mother was a nurse @ the Ottawa General Hospital, hundreds of Americans came there for treatment (as well as CHEO next door (Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario)) because they had a better standard of care than in the US. You are not going to convince me that you are correct, I HAVE lived in both situations.
If the healthcare system in canada is such a success, why is there a push for the privatization of the system? Why is there a lawsuit brought by 10,000 breast cancer patients against 12 different hospitals?
You talk about people not being able to afford healthcare, well, as cold as it may sound, those people put themselves in that situtation. We are all born on equal footing in this country, that is, we all have the oppurtunity to succeed. Frankly, I don't want my taxes going up or the level of healthcare my family currently enjoys going down, which is exactly what is going to happen if we nationalize healthcare.
Quote from: BillyakaVarmit on July 11, 2009, 08:30:51 PM
If the healthcare system in canada is such a success, why is there a push for the privatization of the system? Why is there a lawsuit brought by 10,000 breast cancer patients against 12 different hospitals?
You talk about people not being able to afford healthcare, well, as cold as it may sound, those people put themselves in that situtation. We are all born on equal footing in this country, that is, we all have the oppurtunity to succeed. Frankly, I don't want my taxes going up or the level of healthcare my family currently enjoys going down, which is exactly what is going to happen if we nationalize healthcare.
There is no push for privatization. Any political party that questions the validity of the Canadian healthcare system does not survive the election. The Conservative Party of Canada recognized that after a few severe electoral defeats and now favor the current system with tweaks. But by all means tell me how it was like in Canada. How many lawsuits do you suppose are pending for breast cancer patients in the US?
No push for privatization? Really? Then how do you explain why it is in Alberta, a conservative province, that pressure is indeed up for private health care?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/20/health/main681801.shtml?cmp=EM8705 (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/20/health/main681801.shtml?cmp=EM8705)
As for breast cancer lawsuits in the U.S., I am not saying that there aren't any, but how many do you suppose are due to having to wait for treatment?
Quote from: BillyakaVarmit on July 11, 2009, 08:57:16 PM
No push for privatization? Really? Then how do you explain why it is in Alberta, a conservative province, that pressure is indeed up for private health care?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/20/health/main681801.shtml?cmp=EM8705 (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/20/health/main681801.shtml?cmp=EM8705)
As for breast cancer lawsuits in the U.S., I am not saying that there aren't any, but how many do you suppose are due to having to wait for treatment?
Good job, you picked a news article from an AMERICAN station written in 2005. Also, almost every source in that article was a CONSERVATIVE, it would be a real leap to expect them to bash the system. We could spend all day send article links back and forth and the simple fact is this: you don't live, you don't know how it works and you won't convince of your point of view. I've lived there and understand the system and support it.
You're right, jerry, I haven't lived in canada. Nor do I want to. Yes, I picked an article written by conservatives, why? Because they are right.
However, this thread isn't about Canadas healtcare system, it is about Americas. So, lets examine it shall we. The figure that Pelosi and others like to throw around is 47 million. They claim that there are 47 million americans without healthcare coverage and they say that this is the reason why we need to nationalize our healthcare. When we examine that figure a little more closely we find that, according to the 2006 Census Bureau, that there are 46.6 million people without health insurance. About 9.5 were not U.S. citizens. Another 17 million had incomes over $50,000 a year and could purchase insurance if they choose to do so. 18 million were between the ages of 18 and 34, in good health and did need health insurance or chose not to purchase it. Also, only 30% of the noneldery who lost their coverage in a given year remained unisured for more than twelve months. Almost 50% regained thire health coverage within four months.
So, then lets do the math shall we...47-9.5-17-18= 2.5
Even if we factor in those who lost their coverage but got it back that brings the total to 3,250,000
So, we are going to nationalize our healthcare system in support of roughly 3 million people? Whatever happened to our demorcratic system? Thats right, the Socialists and Statists were put in charge. Okay, then lets examine another gov't run healthcare system then. Take Great Britian for example. Their National Health Service has mandated that all patients admitted to a hospital be treated with four hours. However, instead of sitting for hours in a hospital waiting room, thousands of patients are forced to wait in ambulances, this allows hospitals to use a loophole in delaying care.
Waiting times are a complete disaster. Between one and two years for hip and knee replacement. Across specialties, 1 in 7 waits more than a year for treatment. Children must travel to the U.S. for certain cancer treatments that are unavailable under Britians health system.
But wait, it gets better, a recent survey in Britian shows that as many as one in three family and hospital doctors believes that eldery patients should not be given free treatment if it is unlikely to help them over the long term. Half of the physicians believe that smokers should be denied bypass surgery and a quarter believe the obese should not be eligble for hip replacement surgery.
In short, you can keep your state run healthcare system. Or if you prefer that over our current system, then by all means feel free to relocated to a country offering that type of care. Whatever your decision may be, stop trying to force a Socialist, Statist, and Progressive agenda on me and my family.
By the way Jerry.... When do you move to Canada?
Quote from: Teresa on July 12, 2009, 12:02:59 PM
By the way Jerry.... When do you move to Canada?
Hmmm..... irrelevant.... I am a Citizen of the United States and thus entitled to express my opinion and also vote accordingly. Should I support a national health care approach, I am entitled to do so. Typical response really: "You don't like it here move."
".........half of our country works for a living and half votes for a living."
Well then, can you tell us if you're working for a living or voting for a living?
Maybe now is a bad time to mention that Obama's plan is almost the same as the plan that McCain proposed during the election.
You might be right about that. If so, I'm not surprised as the
two parties are not much different when you get right down to it.
Quote from: Anmar on July 12, 2009, 10:55:28 PM
Maybe now is a bad time to mention that Obama's plan is almost the same as the plan that McCain proposed during the election.
How so???
I know they both agree on a few issues. Both want to speed up adoption of electronic record-keeping systems..... they also agree on the need for safety and transparency, speeding up the introduction of generic drugs, making it easier to buy drugs from overseas and on coordination of care for those seeing a variety of specialists. Otherwise, they had radically different health care proposals.
They also both pay for themselves in the same way, by borrowing money, and creating new taxes on peoples' existing health care benefits. You like to rail on and on about socialism and communism, this is probably the only thing you can really talk about in that respect that i would agree with you on.
Lets say Joe Schmoe works 45 hours a week, and his job provides him with compensation in the form of wages, health care, and any combination of other benefits (stock options, PTO, bonuses, etc). As you know, these other benefits were originally instituted as a way to circumvent wage controls during ww2. More recently, they have been used as a method of avoiding the income tax. This is more prevalent among white collar workers and executives obviously.
During the campaign, it was McCains proposal to implement taxes on these other forms of compensation in order to pay for a health care plan for the uninsured. In fact, Obama severly criticized McCain because he wanted to introduce new taxes. Obama also promised that he would not institute new taxes or raise taxes for the majority of Americans. This new plan being introduced is basically McCains plan. It taxes the benefits.
Like i keep saying on these forums, repubs, dems, they are all the same.
Getting back to the original question posed by the title of this thread, I would have to answer with a simple Yes, both Hitler and Obama share many of the same ideas. Both wanted the eradication of what the thought to be "undesirables". Now before you get all bent out of shape at the comparison, consider Obamas comment on "end of life" medical care, (I am paraphrasing here, I can't remember the exact quote) "Folks don't know for sure wether or not that treatment or surgery will work, so Hospice care should be looked at as an alternative"...in other words, you are either to old or sick to justify the cost, so just take a few painkillers, and go die.
And by the way, if you honestly believe that you will be able to keep your current insurance policy, or get a new one, after his obamacare plan is passed, consider that on page 16 of this bill is a provision for the phasing out of private insurance, which states that private insurance companies cannot enroll new members after this bill goes through.
As a side note, I would like to bring up that our current "Science Czar" believes that people should be sterlized, without their consent, inorder to control the population. This sick freak has some other "alternative" ideas that will be presented in another thread.
QuoteAs a side note, I would like to bring up that our current "Science Czar" believes that people should be sterlized, without their consent, inorder to control the population. This sick freak has some other "alternative" ideas that will be presented in another thread.
Ha.... ain't like it's the first time THAT one has been used in this country....I THOUGHT we had EVOLVED a bit more by now....
Quoteyou are either to old or sick to justify the cost, so just take a few painkillers, and go die.
You know I have ACtually given some thought to this on a PERSONAL level.....if I get where I can't get around and do stuff or get a disease that can't be cured but will get me eventually anyway...I'd just as soon get it over with myself. Quality instead of quantity.....but that's just my OWN thoughts not an endorsement of Obamas thing if that IS his thing. I don't know I didn't check..just thinkin out loud.
I'm not sure how putting old people in nursing homes is the same as hitler roasting his jews, gypsies, and the handicapped.
Pam, I agree with you on the Quality of life vs. Quanity. However, I think that each person should make that desicion for themselves. I think that we are saying the same thing on that one.
Anmar, by denying the elderly and terminally ill the medical treatments needed to prolong their life, obama would be signing their death warrant. By ordering jews, gypies, and the handicapped to be murdered Hitler signed theirs.