Cut off nose - spite face?

So do you want the government to bail out GM, or not?

In life it's not always about what you want.

I would have thought a man your age would have learned that by now.

"This post here shows you don't know the policies of those you support very well Sherman. Obama's plan would in no way touch the health care provided by corporations like GM as his plan is not meant to replace existing plans, just provide for those that don't have current health care, thus universal health care would not alter this situation one way or another."

Just goes to show you don't know what policies I support, Aaron.

Out of all the Democrats' plans (those running for Pres.) I thought Obama's plan was the least desirable.

Based on my post and reading it in context, you should have realized I was referring to a system whose premiums and claims were separated from the employer and therefore did not affect the employer's cost.

Like they have in other countries that manufacture cars to compete for sales with our domestic companies.

You're exactly right Sherman, I thought your post was something it wasn't.

I apologize for my mistake.

And you're right, we likely wouldn't have $71 labor cost if we had universal health care.

We would pay 60+% tax rates but we wouldn't have $71 labor cost.

Aaron wrote:You're exactly right Sherman, I thought your post was something it wasn't.

I apologize for my mistake.

And you're right, we likely wouldn't have $71 labor cost if we had universal health care.

We would pay 60+% tax rates but we wouldn't have $71 labor cost.

http://wvgazette.com/Opinion/Editorials/200811170514

Please take time to examine all the costs in an objective way.

Remember those who are fighting tooth and nail against Universal Health care have a pecuniary interest in the status quo.

My interest is not pecuniary. My interest is the quality of care and the breadth of care I currently receive versus the neglect, waiting, refusals, and bungling I'm sure to get when the government takes it over.

Tied with Thailand my hind end! Why not ask someone with experience with Thai medical care how he thinks it stacks up to care in the US. Several months ago I posted about a fundraiser for our friend William "Baxter" Harrison who suffered a spinal injury as the result of a five story fall in Thailand. He and his mother both will tell you about the unsanitary conditions in the hospital, the shortage of skilled nurses, and other miseries he endured in a Thai hospital.

Fortunately, after a few agonizing weeks his mother was able to secure the medical flight required to bring him home. I'm happy to report every time we speak to him or a member of his family we are told about the great improvements he has made, including some movement in his legs. Surely much of this can be attributed to Baxter's inner strength and determination, but he never could have accomplished this without the first rate care and rehabilitation services he has received right here in the USA.

Well just like every other discussion of health care reform I have seen here or in any other venue, the opponents resort to anecdotal evidence.

As opposed to valid scientific research or methodical studies as presented in the linked reference above.

For example, the comparison of infant mortality rates cites facts and figures that can be measured or evaluated in an objective way and showed the U.S. far down the list, tied with Thailand.

However the objection raised to that scientific conclusion had nothing whatsoever with infant mortality rates.

Also OC when I made the observation about those fighting reform having a pecuniary interest, I am not referring to folks like ourselves just expressing opinions.

I am talking about the hi-rollers who are willing to spend million$ to perpetuate the current system.

i.e. if anyone read the linked reference objectively they would learn how big of a chunk of the health care dollar goes to the "middlemen" who provide no medical service whatsoever.

sodbuster wrote:Well just like every other discussion of health care reform I have seen here or in any other venue, the opponents resort to anecdotal evidence.

As opposed to valid scientific research or methodical studies as presented in the linked reference above.

Can we revert to first hand experience?

I'm not certain I can meet the high standards of debate required in every thread you start. So if we cut out the middleman, you're willing to forego universal health insurance?

No, the "middlemen" are just part of the problem.

The exclusion of so many is an even bigger consideration.

Also the health care costs of employees here in the US makes it nearly impossible for manufacturers and other employers to compete with foreign products.

The cost of their health care is not borne by their employers as it is here.

But not to worry OC, unless Obama makes major changes in his health care proposals those who favor the status quo really dont have that much to worry about.

So now Baxter Harrison has been downgraded from a human being to an anecdote? I don't think so.

There are many, many factors at play in infant mortality rates, not just the quality of healthcare. I'm interested to know things like the average maternal age and just how the statistics are gathered. In some countries infants that don't survive a certain number of hours, or perhaps a day, are not counted as live births.

So you can go on all you want to about your scientific studies but they're only valuable tools if the information reported is accurate. Perhaps the Thai standard of care is good enough for your family, but it isn't good enough for mine.

"So you can go on all you want to about your scientific studies ..."

See what I mean?

Your mind is made up so dont confuse you with the facts?...

I'm sure you are aware of the studies that show the long waits in countries like England and Canada for common procedures in America.

One example I've seen mentioned time and time again is a knee or hip replacement. In America, the average wait for this procedure is about 4 months while in England, it is almost 2 years.

Here is an interesting article that atest to the wait time the English model forces.

"Britons already in the queue for medical treatment will wait a total of one million years for care."

This is just the tip of the iceberg but like you said, "Your mind is made up so dont confuse you with the facts?... "

Here's a site that list some pros and cons of universial health care.

I should add, that of the 6 pro's listed, from my understanding of Barrack Obamma's plan, 3 of those will not apply as the current system is not being eliminated.

Of the 13 cons listed, only 1 would not apply.

"from my understanding of Barrack Obamma's plan, 3 of those will not apply as the current system is not being eliminated...."

Well I am holding out hope it will not wind up being his plan.

The way it's shaping up, with hil going to the State Dept., it will leave Ted Kennedy as the go to guy on health care reform.

It could be close in the Senate and maybe that's why they are kow- towing to Lieberman since they need his vote.

It could be billed as Kennedy's legacy.

He has been a proponent of health care for everyone for a long time.

First, even though you may think Hillary has a lot of power because of the support she had when running for Presidency and her name, the simple fact is in the Senate, she's pretty much a nobody. While she serves on 5 committee's, she isn't even close to chairing any. The Senate is big on giving out power positions based on seniority and she just doesn't have it.

She approached Obama about chairing a special sub committee on health care but as you mentioned, Kennedy came back and as a result, Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of which he is the chairman will take the leading role on health care.

Second, any reform on health care will be what Obama wants, not Kennedy. Obama showed the power he has when he didn't allow Reid to not only not throw Lieberman out of the caucus, but he didn't even allow them to take Joe's chair on Homeland Security away from him.

If you think Ted will get what he wants because of his name and his service, I do believe in the end, you will be proven wrong.

There's a new leader in the democratic party and he has all of 4 years service in the Senate but make no mistake about it, he's running the show, not Harry Reid or Ted Kennedy.

But none of that matters. Not even Obama will get health care passed thanks to the bailout you so vehemently supported as there is going to be no money for universal health care.

As they say, every dark cloud has a silver lining.

They'll offer universal coverage as an option and call it, "Play or pay". If you opt to stay with your private plan you'll have to pay for it, pay the tax, and watch as they price private coverage out of the market. Most employers will opt to go to universal. They cannot afford not to.

Sherm,

There has to be something seriously wrong with you for you to flat out deny the serious disadvantages to "universal" healthcare. From Canada to Great Britain to Australia major problems exist with universal healthcare. Everything from lengthy waits for procedures, rationed care, lack of equipment and beyond.

As I said before, that may be good enough for your family, but it isn't good enough for mine. Unfortunately, if our government does impose universal healthcare on us, my family will not be able to afford to opt out. That will be available only for the very wealthy, the elite. Ted Kennedy won't have to worry about being put on a waiting list for treatment for his brain tumor (which is very likely to leave him out of the picture btw). Barack Obama won't have to worry about obtaining care for his daughters and the very wealthy Edwards family will still be able to afford nothing but the best for their children. They won't have to wait, they have the financial means to obtain the very best.

No, it will be Jimmy and Aaron and I and the rest of us beating our heads against an inadequate bureaucracy lacking in equipment, supplies, beds, and staff. It will be our children that suffer, not those of the elitists who so desire to foist this upon us. Our options will be far fewer and far more costly.