Majority Of Americans Believe Health Care Reform 'myths'

[dapokerbum 0]

I don't know a single american who thinks that.

I guess you can count me as one. well to quantify, I am against the government taking my tax dollars and spending future generations money to give health care to someone that isn't doing anything to earn it. I understand the economy is bad and I believe there should be some sort of reprieve for that ... but I am against giving my hard earned money to someone that is lazy and thinks that they are entitled to what essentially breaks down to be a government handout.I understand that this viewpoint may blow up in my face, but I sometimes have a hard time writing down my thoughts and they might come out a little wrong, so be patient with this post. thanks,

[hblask 1]

I guess you can count me as one. well to quantify, I am against the government taking my tax dollars and spending future generations money to give health care to someone that isn't doing anything to earn it. I understand the economy is bad and I believe there should be some sort of reprieve for that ... but I am against giving my hard earned money to someone that is lazy and thinks that they are entitled to what essentially breaks down to be a government handout.I understand that this viewpoint may blow up in my face, but I sometimes have a hard time writing down my thoughts and they might come out a little wrong, so be patient with this post. thanks,

Yeah, I agree with you.... my point was "why are so many opposed to giving healthcare to fellow citizens" is a lot different than saying "why are so many americans opposed to a government takeover of medicine in the country."I think we are all happy to help out however we can for deserving people in need. Many of us are opposed to the destruction that would be rained upon us if the federal government decided that it was their job to do so.

[strategy 4]

I guess you can count me as one. well to quantify, I am against the government taking my tax dollars and spending future generations money to give health care to someone that isn't doing anything to earn it. I understand the economy is bad and I believe there should be some sort of reprieve for that ... but I am against giving my hard earned money to someone that is lazy and thinks that they are entitled to what essentially breaks down to be a government handout.

well, henry was saying he believes that the smaller government option would do a better job of maximizing coverage. I believe he genuinely feels this way, but I also think there are shit-tons of people who believe this debate is simply yet another confrontation between the classes.admittedly I don't know you or your situation, but from what you write here, I believe you fall into the category of people who dislike the plan for the wrong reasons. or maybe you are just incapable of articulating why you feel the way you do.

[Plus one 0]

what proof do you have to support your claim?the US currently spends more than any other country on health care, more than countries with gov health care.

i love it when posters self own. Of course the us spends more money, they dont ration it, how exactly does what you claim advance your posituion?

[Plus one 0]

what proof do you have to support your claim?the US currently spends more than any other country on health care, more than countries with gov health care.

edit

[All_In 0]

Analyze this statement:The US spends more money per capita on video games than the residents of Somalia. Therefore, the US has a video game crisis.

No, an extension from my argument would be that since americans spend more on video games than somalia, americans should have better video games. I think you can agree that that is true, yes?

For your second thought experiment, analyze this statement:Countries in which healthcare is rationed spend less on health care than in the US, where people are free to spend their own money on things they value. Therefore, rationing is a superior method.

what is your definition of rationing? would you rather have 'some' than none at all?

[All_In 0]

i love it when posters self own. Of course the us spends more money, they dont ration it, how exactly does what you claim advance your posituion?

really? u serious?i am talking about the claim that costs will increase.please try to keep up.

[All_In 0]

It's called "rationing" for a reason.

bottom line is that citizens are covered. btw, i have never heard canadian healthcare being labeled as 'rationing'.

I don't know a single american who thinks that.

yet many are vehemently against providing coverage to almost 50 mil americans without healthcare.

Because we can look at the results from all the other industrialized countries that have it.

like a superior system that helps its citizens and costs less. and that the US is the only country without gov healthcare?

[All_In 0]

But i'm not assuming, i've given many examples of healthcare articles and comments that show exactly the tendency I'm talking about. And the fact is, barely anyone who is complaining about this bill has read it, and even if they have it was already with their mind made up, their only motive for reading the bill being to find small lines of texts that an be twisted to fit their own pre-decided conclusion. Because you live in your own country, you might not realise how absolutely absurd and unashamedly biased stuff gets published in the media/internet. I've read a lot of debate on this healthcare bill, and I've literally seen no Republicans that gave convincing unbiased arguments based on logical evidence that didn't revolve around killing grandma or flaming socialist fears. The provenance and motive of 99% of opposing literature is so totally based around their ideology and completely blinded and non-objective to reality.I respect opinions that come from people who have analysed the situations without their minds made up. From people who are willing to admit that something which does not 'fit' with their ideology might actually be the best move. From people who have good enough reasons against something that their first resort isn't twisting every sentence they can find into the next apocalypse. This is sadly not the case in American politics.

You may find this interesting:http://www.livescience.com/culture/090826-...are-debate.html

[All_In 0]

I guess you can count me as one. well to quantify, I am against the government taking my tax dollars and spending future generations money to give health care to someone that isn't doing anything to earn it. I understand the economy is bad and I believe there should be some sort of reprieve for that ... but I am against giving my hard earned money to someone that is lazy and thinks that they are entitled to what essentially breaks down to be a government handout.I understand that this viewpoint may blow up in my face, but I sometimes have a hard time writing down my thoughts and they might come out a little wrong, so be patient with this post. thanks,

to most in this world, healthcare is a right, or at least viewed as a right.your cold, self-righteous views are a little scary.

[El Guapo 8]

bottom line is that citizens are covered. btw, i have never heard canadian healthcare being labeled as 'rationing'.

Of course you haven't. It doesn't mean that is not what it is. There are multiple people from Canada, that post here, that have come to the US and paid for a medical procedure with their own money because it was 3-9 months before they could get in done in Canada. That is rationing.

yet many are vehemently against providing coverage to almost 50 mil americans without healthcare.

First off. That 50 million number has been debunked numerous times. A large percentage of that number are people who choose not to have health coverage for various reasons. Another large percentage are illegal aliens, and most people don't want to use public dollars so people can come across the border to get better health care.

like a superior system that helps its citizens and costs less. and that the US is the only country without gov healthcare?

This is also false. We had medicare, medicaid and each state has their own version of welfare that covers medical costs.The thing is, in this country right now, nobody is denied life saving medical attention. Now if you don't have insurance it may bankrupt you. But most people would probably prefer bad credit than being dead.

[dapokerbum 0]

well, henry was saying he believes that the smaller government option would do a better job of maximizing coverage. I believe he genuinely feels this way, but I also think there are shit-tons of people who believe this debate is simply yet another confrontation between the classes.admittedly I don't know you or your situation, but from what you write here, I believe you fall into the category of people who dislike the plan for the wrong reasons. or maybe you are just incapable of articulating why you feel the way you do.

This, I am not much of a writer and sometimes the things I believe when written seem like it is the only thing I know. However, one of the BIG reasons I don't like this plan is the cost. Because where does this money come from? It comes from the people and as I am one of the people I don't want to spend extra monies that we don't necessarily need to.

[dapokerbum 0]

to most in this world, healthcare is a right, or at least viewed as a right.your cold, self-righteous views are a little scary.

Okay so if you are a hard working person and you have made a bunch of money. Then I come along and I've never worked a day in my life, I hardly do anything not because I can't but because I choose not to. Are you going to pay for me to get an allergy test? As I said, I have no problem if there is a person that is out there, let's say a schoolteacher, that is working hard and it just so happens that he has less seniority and he gets laid off. Absolutely there should be help available for him and I believe there is. But I am talking about the useless people that are only trying to find a way around the system so that they can get all they want for free while doing nothing productive in return. If that makes me "cold and self righteous" then so be it.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

to most in this world, healthcare is a right, or at least viewed as a right.your cold, self-righteous views are a little scary.

It may or may not be a Right. That doesn't mean that the Government provides it.For example: in this Country you have a Right to Free Speech - that doesn't mean the Government has to give you a printing press or megaphone. We have a right to bear arms, the government doesn't provide a gun to each citizen.

[JustDoIt 10]

game?i supplied a link that supports what i think. I also pointed out how countries with fed. healthcare spend less than the US on healthcare.you just made up your opinion...based on what???

If this is true I think we know the reason. Don't you think the government needs to clean up medicare and the social security needs to be cleaned up........oh by the way they are going broke. Name one government program that they haven't driven in the ground.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12...s-took-out.html

[Jeepster80125 0]

bottom line is that citizens are covered. btw, i have never heard canadian healthcare being labeled as 'rationing'.yet many are vehemently against providing coverage to almost 50 mil americans without healthcare.like a superior system that helps its citizens and costs less. and that the US is the only country without gov healthcare?

Of course you haven't. It doesn't mean that is not what it is. There are multiple people from Canada, that post here, that have come to the US and paid for a medical procedure with their own money because it was 3-9 months before they could get in done in Canada. That is rationing.First off. That 50 million number has been debunked numerous times. A large percentage of that number are people who choose not to have health coverage for various reasons. Another large percentage are illegal aliens, and most people don't want to use public dollars so people can come across the border to get better health care.This is also false. We had medicare, medicaid and each state has their own version of welfare that covers medical costs.The thing is, in this country right now, nobody is denied life saving medical attention. Now if you don't have insurance it may bankrupt you. But most people would probably prefer bad credit than being dead.

All in, here you go. You brought up three points which were quite easily debunked. Is it possible you don't really have enough of a fucking clue about the healthcare system in either country to form a coherent opinion. You might think about sticking to the conspiracy theories and anti US rhetoric.Like NC said, if you're really not a troll (ha!) then go read the healthcare threads and make a post there. Stop being an attention whore.

[Sal Paradise 57]

All in, here you go. You brought up three points which were quite easily debunked. Is it possible you don't really have enough of a fucking clue about the healthcare system in either country to form a coherent opinion. You might think about sticking to the conspiracy theories and anti US rhetoric.Like NC said, if you're really not a troll (ha!) then go read the healthcare threads and make a post there. Stop being an attention whore.

he probably won't answer, so I'll do it for him: do u not care about all of the billions of people that die in america every day because they do not have health care? america is supposed 2 be so great but it lets all of these poor people die all the time. I have one the argument please go away.

[hblask 1]

No, an extension from my argument would be that since americans spend more on video games than somalia, americans should have better video games. I think you can agree that that is true, yes?

As we do have better health care, by far. When the richest people in the world get sick, they come here. Also, results are WAY better.There are many lies that the supporters of socialized medicine keep repeating. For one, the notion that other countries get better results is just plain false. If you measure on a condition by condition basis, results in the US are FAR better.Also, if you remove accidental deaths and homicides from all countries, the US longevity exceeds those of other countries by significant amounts. (With accidental deaths, the difference is negligible). So yes, in a country with freedom and risk taking and guns, people die sooner. That's hardly a reflection on the medical system, especially when removing skydiving accidents etc, our system is better.

what is your definition of rationing? would you rather have 'some' than none at all?

Rationing is the withholding of desired services or products from consumers by those in a position of authority but who have no vested interest in the transaction.

[hblask 1]

bottom line is that citizens are covered. btw, i have never heard canadian healthcare being labeled as 'rationing'.

Yes, they do call it that. And no, they are not covered if it's only in theory.It's like the old line about the Soviet Union...."We pretend to work, they pretend to provide us with food."

yet many are vehemently against providing coverage to almost 50 mil americans without healthcare.

I already explained this... we are against the federal government destroying healthcare for 290 million Americans in order to get coverage to the 10 million (or fewer) who are actually without health care.

[hblask 1]

to most in this world, healthcare is a right, or at least viewed as a right.your cold, self-righteous views are a little scary.

You know what is a self-righteous, scary position? The notion that you (or anyone) being alive is a demand on other people's lives. The notion that you have a right to the fruit of other people's labor by virtue of existing in the world.This is an idea that has cost hundreds of MILLIONS of lives over the last hundred years or so. It is the most evil idea in history, AINEC.

[85suited 0]

You know what is a self-righteous, scary position? The notion that you (or anyone) being alive is a demand on other people's lives. The notion that you have a right to the fruit of other people's labor by virtue of existing in the world.This is an idea that has cost hundreds of MILLIONS of lives over the last hundred years or so. It is the most evil idea in history, AINEC.

QFTOP - please tell what the govt has run well? why would I want them handling my health care? almost every thing they are involved with is bankrupt or going bankrupt....

[DanielNegreanu 141]

QFTOP - please tell what the govt has run well? why would I want them handling my health care? almost every thing they are involved with is bankrupt or going bankrupt....

Hey, I remember you! LOL, you still owe me money from the Obama bet!

[85suited 0]

Hey, I remember you! LOL, you still owe me money from the Obama bet!

LOL... I PMed you like 3 times at the time of the bet to finalize details, correct odds, payout timing, and even posted in a forum to ask you to check your PM... But got no response to my questions on our bet.... Wanna bet if HR3200 as is gets passed? LOL

[Balloon guy 158]

LOL... I PMed you like 3 times at the time of the bet to finalize details, correct odds, payout timing, and even posted in a forum to ask you to check your PM... But got no response to my questions on our bet.... Wanna bet if HR3200 as is gets passed? LOL

DN would probably be fine with you paying me for the bet...

[hblask 1]

A more detailed analysis than most people here are willing to type, but it's what we've been saying all along: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10484In his most recent weekly radio address, President Barack Obama denounced "willful misrepresentations and outright distortions" in the debate over health care reform. He then went on to repeat one of the most outright distortions in the entire debate: "If you like your private health insurance plan, you can keep your plan. Period." No, Mr. President. No you can't. To go straight to the chapter and verse: under Section 59(B)(a) of HR3200, the bill making its way through the House, and Section 151 of the bill that passed out of a Senate committee, every American would be required to buy health insurance.And not just any insurance: to qualify, a plan would have to meet certain government-defined standards. For example, under Section 122(B) of the House bill, all plans must cover hospitalization; outpatient hospital and clinic services; services by physicians and other health professionals, as well as supplies and equipment incidental to their services; prescription drugs, rehabilitation services, mental health and substance-abuse treatment; preventive services (to be determined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the United States Preventive Services Task Force); and maternity, well-baby, and well-child care, as well as dental, vision, and hearing services for children under age 21. But that's not all. Section 1239(B) of the bill also establishes a federal Health Benefits Advisory Committee, headed by the U.S. surgeon general, which will have the power to develop additional minimum benefit requirements. There is no limit to how extensive those future required benefits may be. If your current health insurance doesn't meet all those requirements, you won't be immediately forced to drop your current insurance for a government-specified plan. But you would be required to switch if you lose your current insurance or "if significant changes are made to the existing health insurance plan." More critically, for the 70 percent of us who get our insurance through work, those plans would all have to satisfy the government's benefit requirements within five years. More likely, your employer will simply find that the increased cost and administrative burden is not worth it, and will dump you into the government-run "public option." The Lewin Group, an independent actuarial firm, estimates that under the House version of the bill, as many as 89.5 million workers will simply lose their current employer-provided plan and be forced into government-run insurance. Seniors, too, could lose their current coverage, at least the 10.2 million seniors currently participating in the Medicare advantage program. That program offers many seniors benefits not included in traditional Medicare, including preventive-care services, coordinated care for chronic conditions, routine physical examinations, additional hospitalization, skilled nursing facility stays, routine eye and hearing examinations, and glasses and hearing aids But the House bill cuts payments to the Medicare Advantage program by roughly $156.3 billion over 10 years. In response, many insurers are expected to stop participating in the program, while others increase the premiums they charge seniors. Millions of seniors will likely be forced off their current plan and back into traditional Medicare. Finally, the bills would all but eliminate Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), currently used by nearly 10 million Americans. Section 122 of the House bill and 311 of the Senate bill set minimum payout levels for any insurance policy. Insurance payouts must cover 70 percent of claims under the House bill and 76 percent under the Senate bill. And the bills also prohibit any deductibles or co-payments for preventive care. But virtually none of the high-deductible insurance plans in existence today, and required to accompany an HSA, can meet such a standard. They are simply not designed to work that way. The result will be that a plan designed to those specifications would offer few if any advantages over traditional insurance and would not be competitive in today's markets. As a result, insurers warn they would stop offering high-deductible policies. Any way you look at it, under the bills currently before Congress, millions of Americans will be forced out of their current health insurance plan, even if they are happy with it. Period. It is time for the president to stop spreading this particular "willful misrepresentation and outright distortion."