  Drdetroit Member Username: Drdetroit Post Number: 98 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 66.166.61.12 |
Is this a start. Or do we need national health care coverage for every American? http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll /article?AID=/20060511/NEWS11/ 60511008 | ||
Gambling_man Member Username: Gambling_man Post Number: 729 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 199.178.193.5 |
Say no to socialized medicine. Bring choice and competition back to medicine, and see prices decline for all. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 656 Registered: 10-2004 Posted From: 69.242.223.42 |
Rodham's ham-handed health-care plan brought down the Democrat party in 1994. Maybe its time has come again. | ||
Merchantgander Member Username: Merchantgander Post Number: 1768 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 150.198.150.244 |
G_M stick to casino info because what you said is wrong. | ||
Irish_mafia Member Username: Irish_mafia Post Number: 492 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.222.54.70 |
"She said because the $1.1 billion would come from federal and existing state funds for mental health, her health plan would not cost the state more money." ______________________________ ___________________ Is she crazy? | ||
Hagglerock Member Username: Hagglerock Post Number: 226 Registered: 03-2005 Posted From: 12.214.243.66 |
It's a start, these days individual states need to take in initiative in order to show big government if big ticket items like this work or not. Something has to be done as old age and soaring medical costs catches up with our fast food craving/ drive not walk mentalities. | ||
Gambling_man Member Username: Gambling_man Post Number: 732 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 199.178.193.5 |
Merchant, if you think our government can run ANYTHING more efficiently and at a lower-cost than the private sector, you couldn't be more wrong. | ||
Merchantgander Member Username: Merchantgander Post Number: 1769 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 150.198.150.244 |
Whether the gov runs it or not has very little to do with healthcare cost. If you want lower cost there are two option one everyone has insurance or two hospitals can deny service to people that don't have health insurance. The reason cost are so high is because of the large number of people without insurance and the large number of people that are underinsured (Medicaid and Medicare). | ||
Merchantgander Member Username: Merchantgander Post Number: 1770 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 150.198.150.244 |
The plan actually might reduce healthcare cost because more people will be insured. | ||
Mountainman Member Username: Mountainman Post Number: 39 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 69.144.84.154 |
Gamblingman, I fail to see your logic. America is the only of the major industrialized nations without a nationalized healthcare system. As far as efficency goes, the American model is the worst in comparision to the other countries with nationalized health care systems. Prices remain high because of the numerous middle-level and high-level management you need to have run the numerous insurance management programs. I actually used to work at U of M in one of their outpatient clinics. It was a nightmare. The more choice and competition you have the more you'll have to spend. If you make life-saving a for-profit operation, the only thing it can do is drive prices up. Those people that privatized health system leaves behind, in the end not only drive up the prices of your services but as the cost to the numerous residents of society. One major problem is that if certain operations or services bankrupt an even borderline fincially staple individual, who pays for them to merely survive? Often this comes in the form of much more expensive social welfare programs. I'm not saying that the government runs everything better, such is hardly the case. But in terms health care, its a no-brainer. Canadians may bit$@ about their system, but the one thing that Canadians excel at is bit$@ing. I should know, I'm one of them. This a great step in the right direction for Michigan. | ||
_sj_ Member Username: _sj_ Post Number: 1340 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 69.220.230.150 |
We also spend way more on health care than any other country, yet have the worst health. BTW, hospitals can not refuse service. It does not matter if you have insurance or not. (Message edited by _sj_ on May 11, 2006) | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1635 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 70.225.113.27 |
We already have lots of choice and competition in health care. Dozens of health insurance providers. Lots of privately-owned hospitals. All kinds of pharmaceutical companies. We have more choice and competition than any other nation on the planet. We in Michigan even when so far as to give drug companies complete immunity from law suits to keep them away from those nasty trial lawyers who keep ruining everything. Where's our price decline? | ||
Susanarosa Member Username: Susanarosa Post Number: 829 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 208.39.170.90 |
All the more reason to go to college, get a degree and get a good job with health care benefits. And to not piss off your parents in case you lose your job or your health care benefits and need a surgery they can still pay for it. Or get Cobra. | ||
Oliverdouglas Member Username: Oliverdouglas Post Number: 15 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 69.209.181.108 |
Gambling_man: Medicare's administrative costs are miniscule compared to private health plans. This is one of many government programs that DOES work. | ||
Bob Member Username: Bob Post Number: 968 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 64.12.116.204 |
The United States spends more on health care than most other countries, yet we are in the worst health. | ||
Merchantgander Member Username: Merchantgander Post Number: 1771 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 207.91.250.131 |
_sj_ I know that my point was we only have to option if we want to control and lower healthcare cost because our current system doesn't work. | ||
Oldredfordette Member Username: Oldredfordette Post Number: 708 Registered: 02-2004 Posted From: 68.60.177.56 |
B-R-R-R-A-A-A-A-C-K-K-K! Socialized Medicine! B-R-R-R-A-A-A-A-C-K-K-K! B-R-R-R-A-A-A-A-C-K-K-K! B-R-R-R-A-A-A-A-C-K-K-K! EEEEk! CLUCK CLUCK CLUCK Guess what kids. It must happen. Forget that old commie-baiting bugaboo. We need it, now. | ||
Tndetroiter Member Username: Tndetroiter Post Number: 52 Registered: 12-2005 Posted From: 149.149.4.199 |
Individual states do not have the resources to successfully pursue these kinds of programs. Tennessee has tried this sort of thing over the past 10 or so years with a program called "TennCare" and it almost bankrupted the state. Since 2002 democratic governor Phil Bredesen has spearheaded a legislative push that has cut the program rolls in half and slashed all benefits by about 40%. Wisconsin had similar problems when it attempted state-level health care and eventually turned the program back over to Medicare and Medicaid. The federal government is the only entity w/ the resources to pull off a program like this and seeing how poorly the current system works universal federalized health care can't come soon enough. | ||
Awfavre Member Username: Awfavre Post Number: 47 Registered: 08-2005 Posted From: 69.3.206.177 |
Interesting. The Federal Poverty Level for 2006 for an individual, however, is $9,800. 200% of that is $19,600. This plan won't help the working poor, unless their small business employers opt in a private health insurance pool. Still, it's a wonderful step in the right direction! | ||
_sj_ Member Username: _sj_ Post Number: 1341 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 69.220.230.150 |
We have come to expect too much from our health care systems. We have numerous elective surgeries to get them in under the deadline. Some are even lucky enough to have $5-10 perscriptions not noticing that is one of the problems of the high price of health care. To maintain our level of care and expectations a national health care system would need to contain rider private insurance to help cover the gaps and ensure timely visits. A 100% public funded health care system will not match our needs or expectations. | ||
Gildas Member Username: Gildas Post Number: 631 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 69.216.104.155 |
Another great plan for an election year. Like all of her other wonderful ideals to help Michigan, we need to wait until 2007. Coincidence? | ||
Irish_mafia Member Username: Irish_mafia Post Number: 495 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.222.54.70 |
Mountainman, You use other countries with lousy economies and outrageouly high taxes as a model for us to follow? No thanks! By the way...Canada's Health Care system sucks! I have an in-law who we had to ship back to UM Medical Center after she broke her hip at the Thames River (not enough doctors to see her...for a week!!) | ||
Hagglerock Member Username: Hagglerock Post Number: 227 Registered: 03-2005 Posted From: 12.214.243.66 |
and if we had a national heath care system it would probably suck too. If any of you have had to deal with US goverment health care providers in the military then you know exactly what I am talking about. If I or my wife ever had something serious, god forbid, we would in a heartbeat pay out of pocket for a non government salaried doctor. I'm not saying it's all bad, but we have dealt with many mistakes which never would have never been made in the private sector. D | ||
Mountainman Member Username: Mountainman Post Number: 40 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 69.144.84.154 |
Irish_mafia, quote: "You use other countries with lousy economies and outrageouly high taxes as a model for us to follow? No thanks!" If you look at the overall economic picture of the US, then sure its a powerhouse. Sadly, that money is not fair divided between the differing social classes. The countries I turn to, are regularly listed well above the United States in the overall populations standards of living. Countries such as Canada, Sweeden, Denmark, Britian, etc. regularly rank much higher in the standard of living for the average individual. I am temporarily relocated to Montana, a place with incredibly low taxes. As such, it has incredibnly poor infrastructure and social support systems. Ontop of this, it also has an outlandish percentage of the population in poverty. I do understand that the Canadian health system is far from perfect, as I have had a good number of my family members with bad stories as well. The deal is however, that whenever an emergeny arose, it DID NOT BANKRUPT them. As is often the case in America. The slippery slope to poverty is often paved by private health care. Even the poorest in nations such as Canada are permitted access to basic health care. The United States may be an economic powerhouse on paper. But it is merely on paper. Those in the upper echelons of society have no vested interest in universal health care. Not only does their wealth preclude them the fears of not having adequet health care (This is America, and money can buy everything except complete happiness) and its repells them from wishing to pay for that which may help others. Saddly enough this often translates it opinions that dissemented down to working class individuals who have no choice but listen, read, or watch information from their numerous media outlets. | ||
Irish_mafia Member Username: Irish_mafia Post Number: 496 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.222.54.70 |
No. Socialism is a failure. The United States continues to elevate people from lower income to higher income and offer more opportunity to do so through our extremely strong economy and a capitalistic system that rewards effort and ingenuity... no matter what class, race or creed you originally come from. Do some remain at the bottom? Yes, especially those that are a failure of their local school system and find themselves in homes that do not promote education nor promote success. Does that mean its a good idea to try to mimic a loser socialist model? No way in hell. You can make all the ivory tower arguments you want for greater taxes, greater government control of private sector activities, redistribution of wealth from those that are successful to beaurocrats...it does't change the fact that socialism is a losing economic model that implodes upon itself through the stamping out of incentive and the creation of bloated inefficient beauocracies that self-perpetuate after their initial birth. Its a losers game for those with the glass almost empty perspective. Of course, there is always the exception: Cuba was able to follow the communist model to generate extreme wealth... for Fidel Castro (recently named one of the richest world leaders). Don't forget to march in "A day without Socialists day" next week. | ||
The_rock Member Username: The_rock Post Number: 1239 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 68.42.251.225 |
Our Governor proposes a plan that is patterned after Mitt Romney's plan in Mass. That alone should make for Republican political fodder as the elections draw near. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 3688 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.185.208.252 |
Irish, how is America any different? Our wealth may be much better spread out compared to a Communist nations, but for a suppossed First World country, our poor are worse off than almost any other First World country, and that is not how it should be. It should definitely not be a point of pride. I don't care if half the country is doing very well. If the other half is living in, or close to, abject poverty than it matters not. We are only as strong as our weakest links. Of course you're going to disagree. To you, our system is pefect and needs no fixing. Socialism a failure? I think our own Capitalistic system has failed FAR too many Americans our existence, especially considering the VERY high, and egalitarian, ideals this country was founded upon. | ||
Mountainman Member Username: Mountainman Post Number: 41 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 69.144.84.154 |
Irishmafia, What stastics are you pointing to? I'd recommend you log on the united nations website for statistics. You're just throwing out broad generalizations. Communism and socialism are two vastly different things. This is basic first year college level stuff here. The reason why Cuba, Venezula, and Bolivia have moved to socialist governments are because ..... brace yourself ..... CAPITIALISM FAILED THEM. That's right capitialism has spawned terrible results in numerous countries around the globe. Take a look at Jamacia. Or a detailed examination of the 20th century history of Mexico. The "Lighting in A Blue Sky" is a great historical analogy to contemporary situations in Bolvia and Venezulua. Socialism works, and has worked throughout most of the industrialized world. How does Germany or Britian fit into your ideas of Socialisms failure. In regards to Canada. It is a member of the G8 (the eight largest economies in the world), and has a population 1/10 the size of the United States. The Canadian dollar is approaching level worth to the US dollar (91 cents last time I saw). This all from a "socialist" failure of a nation. Impressive. Well, guess you're right. Socialism is terrible. Go on, fire back you factless generalized statements. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 3692 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.185.208.252 |
I think there is room enough for a level of both economic concepts in this country. IMO, our Capitalistic system has run rough-shod over the greater American populace unfettered, and it's high time more socialists concepts were introduced to balance the country. There is nothing we should be proud about while the rich continue to get richer, and the poor more poor. If that is "success" in Capitalism, than those that want it can have it. | ||
Mcp001 Member Username: Mcp001 Post Number: 2167 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 69.14.135.95 |
Waitaminit? Isn't this the same state government that cannot make ends meet from year to year? "Won't cost us anything"??? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ! Just how stupid does this woman think we are (at least those of us who work, anyway)! | ||
Johnnny5 Member Username: Johnnny5 Post Number: 243 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 71.227.95.4 |
There is little chance of making this work on a state by state level, but a nationalized health care system in the U.S is long overdue IMHO. Currently our extremely high costs supplement the rest of the world. We bear the cost of research and development, medical training, marketing and litigation and the rest of the developed world reaps the benefits. It is a shame to see that it is going to take a complete collapse of the system before Washington puts the American public before profits. | ||
Mcp001 Member Username: Mcp001 Post Number: 2170 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 69.14.135.95 |
Good point. Only those with the abilty to pay (in full) should ever receive medical treatment. All others should be shown the door! | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 660 Registered: 10-2004 Posted From: 69.242.223.42 |
Johhny5: Medical care is very expensive here, probably over so. And the long arms of government and greedy tort attorneys (Granholm's largest contributors to her two campaigns, BTW) don't help either. Making it "free" will simply drive up the costs astronomically. In the former Soviet Union (and probably Russia today) a typical medical doctor was a woman who was paid less than a coal miner. So everybody in medicine (and pharmacy) is probably overpaid, at least on an international scale. Our populace is not the healthiest around either. | ||
Mountainman Member Username: Mountainman Post Number: 42 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 69.144.84.154 |
Livernoisyard, Communism and socialism are two very different things. The USSR is not part of the contemporary comparision we are making. That was dictatoral government and unqualified failure. Socialism, which is what is being discussed here, is the experience of contemporary citizens of nations like Canada and Denmark. I agree the state level government would be rather ineffectual in the pursuit of social program engineering. What's required here is a fundamental switch in federal government policy. Which, under the present group of individuals that hold power in Washington, is about as likely GM switching to horticulture as its primary product. Granholm and Romney's state level administration are instead offering proverbial "foot in door" policies to lead America into a renewed social contract. Remember that was under FDR, that the modern social welfare state was created. Captialism and Socialism can clearly share the political scene within any society. I would go so far as to argue that only in balancing the two does a society become as phenominally successful as America has. Look at the heydey of the United States, it was approximately during the period in which social welfare and capitialism were on their closest footings. | ||
Mcp001 Member Username: Mcp001 Post Number: 2172 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 69.14.135.95 |
Still missing the part about where government has anything to do with providing health care? | ||
Pistonian_revolution Member Username: Pistonian_revolution Post Number: 2 Registered: 05-2006 Posted From: 69.136.139.115 |
gambling_man, you are a fat capitolist pig. whether the state or the federal government provides free health care- we need it! even if it is only for low-income and small business owners. free healthcare is one of the reasons why i would move to canada. i know first hand how difficult it is for a family who runs a small business to have health insurance. ideally, the government should be handling the cost of healthcare. ever hear of canada or any scandinavian country? they have universal healthcare. the USA is backwards in that respect. | ||
Mountainman Member Username: Mountainman Post Number: 43 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 69.144.84.154 |
The fundamental question comes down to why does government exist? This is of course a matter of individual ideas. By living under a society that is governed by a specific group of individuals, it is readily assertable that you agree that governments are designed to produce some order and benefits to individuals living under it. Social contract if you will. Take it a step further, and look at commonwealth governments of the former British Empire. Their primary purpose is Peace, Order, and Good Governance. (POGG for short. An element of maintain peace and order within society stem from the need to maintain a sort of economic balance between the numerous citizens. This doesn't mean that every one in that society makes the same amount of money, just merely that there is some sort of equalization of economic well being. That means that peoples basic needs are being meet. Why, well simply look at the last 2 centuries of the Roman Empire. Without basic needs being met, their were roving bands of impoverished farmers. They disrupted the peace and order of the empire. By equalizing the economic footing of people, you help to maintain peace and order. Take this to the next step, and apply to our present discussion of government run healthcare. It is one of the fundamental aspects of society that, without the assistance of government, would be completely unaccessable to the less than wealthy individual. It is a form of equalization between the classes. I'm not avocating the complete abolishment of classes. I really do believe that there are people who are either unwilling or unable to move themselves up in terms of material wealth. People should be rewarded for hardwork. Universal government run healthcare plays into the key aspect of any government to maintain peaceful and ordered society. I'm not saying without it, all of society would crumple into roving bands of maruaders. What am saying is that its part of the social contract that governments make with people to rule over us, and take our money. | ||
River_rat Member Username: River_rat Post Number: 113 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 71.126.175.26 |
Many years ago we embraced some inane idea that medical care is a "right". It should not be considered so. Although what will be said here will be repugnant to some, it remains the basis of our social system of freedom of choice and personal responsibility. Are food and shelter a "right"? If they are, show me where one can get food and shelter without paying for it in some manner ot another. True, there are charities that provide these necessities, but the overwhelming amount of these two rights are paid for through private funds or government subsidies. No one can go to a supermarket or landlord and expect to receive goods or services without paying for it in some way. This is not true for health care. An individual can not be denied health care on the basis of payment at any facility that receives any sort of federal monies. Herein is a problem. Why spend money on health insurance when you will get it for nothing? If you waste your food stamps on frivolous items you can't go back for more because the suprmarket won't provide without some form of compensation. Health care must be provided. The smoker gets his bronchitis treated,,leaves the hospital and lights up. What does the smoker care, he will be cared for in spite of his wasting money on cigarettes instead of health insurance. Is it moral and ethical to not provide health care to those unable to pay? Probably we all agree that it is not. But the mechanism to deliver the care to the medically indigent should be revisited. Before the "great society" of LBJ in 1966, the care of the medically indigent was provided by medical schools and government health centers. After the expenditure of about $9 trillion to achieve the "great society" envisioned by the social liberals who were going to end poverty and provide everything for everyone, what do we have? A very mediocre health care system and little change in the rates of poverty and social ills. Granholm's proposal is another well-intentioned and expensive program that will pour more money into social problems with the same poor results. Go ahead, waste the money. We do not need another expensive policy or a switch in government policy. What we need is the populace to assume personal responsibility for themselves. Realisticly, that isn't going to happen, because our collective community can not address why we have abrogated the concept of personal responsibility. Tha answer is, it is easier that way. And instead of taking the hard way, we will just spend the maney and look the other way. | ||
Andylinn Member Username: Andylinn Post Number: 45 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 68.40.195.233 |
It is my belief that nationalized healthcare will happen whether or not we have a conservative or liberal in the oval office. with numerous major corporations going bankrupt left and right, there are more and more middleclass voters off healthcare (and on cobra) this is not something that the federal governmant can take... I think our system will collapse, in part because of the bankrupt corps... and we'll all be better off (especially hurting cities such as detroit) .andy. | ||
Mountainman Member Username: Mountainman Post Number: 44 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 69.144.84.154 |
Riverrat, I can see what you're saying in regards to "rights" of man/the individual. Clearly nothing is provided for free within any given existence. There is always a struggle of some sorts, to attain food, shelter, and basic necessities of life. That is why we have, as a species, decided to organize ourselves under a government. Governments are political institutions that inherent in providing the basic necessities of society that we take for granted. Without them, you'd be walking down to the Detroit River, or local stream and pulling up water and fish to eat. You'd also be growing your own food, scavenging for building materials, etc. Governments provide the social structure to run capitialism. I'm not discussing a complete fundamental reshaping of how government works. Instead I'm looking at what it is intented to supply its citizens with, and extenting to maximize its potential and take of the people that lie at is very core of existence. That said, in order to fund a healthcare system, revenue must be increased and government bureaucracies streamlined. That's something the present federal government has yet to learn. We are a terrible financial crisis without the healthcare system. The problem is, and I agree with Andylinn, without nationalized healthcare the entire economic system we've come to rely upon collapses. Things will change, they have to. Unfettered captilialism is as bad as an equally uncontroled socialist system. If don't want any social network, fine. You can't drive your car on public roads, and you can't drink for public water systems. Just two examples, but I hope you get the drift. Private healthcare has begun to bankrupt many small companies and appears on the verge of doing the same to the big boys. | ||
Darwinism Member Username: Darwinism Post Number: 502 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 69.209.164.233 |
Let me just provide real life scenarios of people having healthcare problems ... Friend #1: A retired auto engineer, age in the early 70s. Served in the military during his younger years and have done all the right things in life. Married to the same woman all his life and sent each of his 3 children through college. Lives a humble and healthy lifestyle and trusted his pension and healthcare benefits to stay with him and his spouse until their last breaths - WRONG ! Corporate bankruptcy and voided contracts hit home. Now what is he going to do ? Friend #2: A private school teacher, age in the mid-30s. Married with 2 kids. Have been laid-off 3 times in the past 4 years due to increasing healthcare costs and the schools unable to contribute towards the full-time employee health insurance benefits. A good husband, a good father and an active volunteer in his church/community. So what ? What good does that bring him ? He can't afford to pay for his children to visit the pediatrics. What is he supposed to do ? IMO, America is at a crossroad ..... the segment of population considered the working poor is rising sharply. People who can't afford to be sick or to suffer any major diseases, people who are 3 or less paychecks away from getting evicted or having their home foreclosed, hardworking people who do their jobs with dedication and commitment but are being turned away by their employers when it comes time of dire needs ..... the rich are seeing their portfolio improving and their net worth rising, whereas the poor and the middle-class are seeing their wallet dwindling dry due to higher heating bills, electric bills, gas for their car, bread, meat, milk, and all the essentials including healthcare. Is this what Capitalism means to America ? | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 3693 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.185.208.252 |
The crossroads is fast approaching, and something is going to have to give. As the middle class gets increasingly pushed down further away from the wealthy ruling class, what will be considered working poor and middle class will swell. The wealthy ruling class would be smart to offer concessions to the rest of the country before they alienating any more of their upper middle class allies. This is a numbers game and one that the wealthy will really start to really lose if they don't get away from this "let them eat cake" attitude. Again, America isn't "successful" if the gap between rich and poor continually increases. It's ironic how our capitalist systems is quickly resembling that of communist regimes of old (and the few remaining ones), except we've stamped a big "democracy" sticker on ours. What a joke. | ||
Irish_mafia Member Username: Irish_mafia Post Number: 498 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.222.54.70 |
Pistonian, Pack your bags and move your ass to Canada and quit whining. Don't "threaten" to ...its not a threat to those of us who have to pay taxes for your latest "right". If you want healthcare get a job and pay for it slacker. | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 4115 Registered: 02-2004 Posted From: 141.217.174.223 |
Noe that's a GREAT IDEAL to kick-off health care coverage in Michigan. Why can't DeVos thought of it. Oh Yeah! He's so busy attacking Granholm about ecomony. | ||
Irish_mafia Member Username: Irish_mafia Post Number: 499 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.222.54.70 |
Not a difficult attack to make Danny | ||
Pacypacy_ Member Username: Pacypacy_ Post Number: 14 Registered: 05-2006 Posted From: 136.181.195.84 |
You mean Jennifer Grandstand is pitching a program to help people? Must be an election year. Do what needs to done Jenny, don't govern by what a popularity poll says you should do. yeesh! | ||
Jfre66_77 Member Username: Jfre66_77 Post Number: 32 Registered: 01-2006 Posted From: 12.15.1.161 |
Simple plan to fix the problem... have everyone without healthcare insurance move to "... Countries such as Canada, Sweeden, Denmark, Britian, etc...." I had a relative in Canada who desperately needed heart bypass surgery. Had to come over to Detroit to have it done because Canada's great system was at it's quota and they wouldn't be able to fit him in for 9 months. The population of Canada is what, about the same as the state of California? Big difference in the amount of people that the government would be providing health care for. Probably a lot higher cost too. (Message edited by Jfre66_77 on May 12, 2006) | ||
Andylinn Member Username: Andylinn Post Number: 46 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 68.40.195.233 |
Jfre66_77: Yes, canada has problems, but seriously, can a person really feel comfortable when within a mile there are thousands of people who wouldn't be able to have ANY lifesaving surgery? does anyone know the % of detroiters without healthcare coverage? Irish_mafia: obviously the number of companies able to supply healthcare is shrinking... A company CANNOT compete nationally if they are paying essentially twice that of other countries... e.g. American companies must pay both a union salary AND healthcare costs... While, for example canadian companies have no healthcare worries... this is NOT a fair fight... Finally... my sister is nearly 30, has a college education, is getting her masters... works three parttime jobs to make ends meet... there have been NUMEROUS cases where she needed to go to the damn doctor... but no heathcare... she's NOT a slacker at all... but somehow healthcare eludes her... .andy. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 663 Registered: 10-2004 Posted From: 69.242.223.42 |
Frank Beckmann during his WJR program today accused a suspected, planted seminar caller of being on Granholm's staff when she stated that Granholm's health-care plan would not involve any taxpayer funding. Frank said he would confront this claim, probably next week, and said that Granholm or her handlers could come on his show and inform him and his audience just how "free" Granholm's plan would be. In short, Frank Beckmann wasn't buying any of that nonsense of inexpensive health care [more campaign noise]. (Message edited by livernoisyard on May 12, 2006) | ||
Mountainman Member Username: Mountainman Post Number: 45 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 69.144.84.154 |
Jfre66_77, Numbers don't make sense man. If you have more people paying into a system, them more people can be covered. It's all relative. I am a Canadian citizen who is living in America. Save your anything but intelligent cliche comments, I assure you I've heard nearly all of them. People such as yourself frequently use "horror" stories from Canadians who have had to wait for medical care. These are the exception, and not the rule. Why don't you balance your comments with stories about Americans who have been bankrupted by their care? Or by individuals you have been turned down for coverage on specific life-saving operations by their private insurance. I've worked in a hospital, and this happens much more frequently them you'd like to think. | ||
Oldredfordette Member Username: Oldredfordette Post Number: 710 Registered: 02-2004 Posted From: 68.60.177.56 |
A Canadian friend (you can pratically see her house from downtown D) has breast cancer. Her chemotherapy was administered in her home, by a very nice government employed nurse, who was able to make her comfortable during the procedure and only left when he determined that she was going to be okay. As the treatment progressed and she became weaker the nurses efforts stepped up. This care continued until she turned the corner and got stronger. She's fine, and credits her recovery on the fine free care of her beloved system. Another friend, walking down the Windsor streets, began to feel funny, then not so funny. He called his partner, who called his doctor, who directed him to the closest hospital. Within 12 hours he was on a plane to Toronto, where he received an emergency bypass. He wants you all to know that if you have surgery that can wait, the system will have you wait. But if you need it now, you get it. He'd be happy to show you his scar and will remind you that the entire procedure cost him no more than the taxes he happily pays. You might have to wait for surgery in Canada, but you'll never hear of anybody chosing between paying their heating bill and heart medicine. Americans with health care can posture all they want. Until you don't have it and need it, you are only mouthing right-wing platitutdes written by the pharmeceutical companies. | ||
Darwinism Member Username: Darwinism Post Number: 503 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 69.215.30.34 |
Mountainman and Oldredfordette, thank you for sharing real life stories. I have Canadian and Australian friends who tell me wonderful stories about their national healthcare system. I witnessed a few of these stories with my own pair of eyes. For example, maternity care in Australia is absolutely terrific, and I saw the whole process in person. We sure wish we could be even half as thorough with our private choice-ridden system here in America. Sad to say, but in regards to healthcare, America is way behind. | ||
Gambling_man Member Username: Gambling_man Post Number: 736 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 199.178.193.5 |
Oldredforette, "He'd be happy to show you his scar and will remind you that the entire procedure cost him no more than the taxes he happily pays".........and boy oh boy do they pay for it.......Nothing is free in this world people, NOTHING...... | ||
Jsmyers Member Username: Jsmyers Post Number: 1701 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 209.131.7.68 |
Of course. But many things are priceless. I'm sure that for a lot of Canadian's not worrying about healthcare is one of them. We should really be looking at this largely from the standpoint of what is going to be most effiecient for society as a whole. I haven't seen really solid evidence from either side. | ||
Mountainman Member Username: Mountainman Post Number: 46 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 69.144.84.154 |
Gambling_man. Do you have health insurance? I have reason to believe you do. That's the only way I can account for your attitude. | ||
Treelock Member Username: Treelock Post Number: 115 Registered: 03-2005 Posted From: 68.77.166.98 |
Several have made the assertion that Granholm is cynically using this proposal as a banner election-year issue. I'm not going to try and debunk that, because that's an argument that can always be about any proposal made in an election season. But I don't think it's a cynical election-year ploy, either. I think it's a good idea. For starters, even if it went through, it wouldn't be instituted until 2007, when it's possible Granholm is no longer in office. If DeVos wins this November, he could very well scrap the whole thing, even though I think he'd be a fool to do so, especially as a supposedly savvy businessman who once headed a large company. No. 2, Massachusett Gov. Mitt Romney, a front-running, populist candidate for the GOP nomination for president in 2008, just signed off on a similar plan pushed by healthcare advocates and Democratic lawmakers in his home state. No. 3, if we can provide more people with health insurance in this state, it drives down the cost of health insurance for all. Right now, swelling Medicaid rolls and the rising cost of delivering care are the biggest spending pressures on our state's $9 billion general fund (That's the same general fund that would be cut by one-fourth under calls to repeal the Single Business Tax, but that's another thread altogether). Fourth, these arguments that the private sector can work its alleged magic are ludicrous. Companies in Michigan and across the nation, as many have noted here, are buckling under the weight of providing the world's most expensive healthcare benefits to employees. And you're saying there's a solution to be found in this model? Lastly, it is true that the plan may not work and could cost the state more money than it currently spends. But at this point, can we afford not to try something? | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 665 Registered: 10-2004 Posted From: 69.242.223.42 |
If her medical scheme was so important and not just a campaign promise, then why the timing just before the election? Why not four years ago? Any betting man knows why... | ||
Morena Member Username: Morena Post Number: 412 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 69.136.150.132 |
Political campaign rhetoric! | ||
Themax Member Username: Themax Post Number: 11 Registered: 09-2005 Posted From: 69.246.123.118 |
The car companies love the Canadian health systhttp://www.caw.ca/campaigns&is sues/ongoingcampaigns/jointlet ter.aspem. "General Motors, Ford and DaimlerChrysler have all signed letters together with the CAW urging that Canada's national health care system be "preserved and renewed..." from the letters: "The public health care system significantly reduces total labour costs for automobile manufacturing firms, compared to the cost of equivalent private insurance services purchased by U.S.-based automakers; these health insurance savings can amount to several dollars per hour of labour worked. Publicly funded health care thus accounts for a significant portion of Canada's overall labour cost advantage in auto assembly, versus the U.S., which in turn has been a significant factor in maintaining and attracting new auto investment to Canada... The erosion of publicly funded health care - through measures such as the delisting of currently-covered services, the imposition of user fees, the failure of the public system to keep up with the changing nature of health care, and new costs such as prescription drugs and home-care, - will impose significant costs on automotive employers and undermine the attractiveness of Canada as a site for new automotive investment. For both employers and workers in the auto industry, it is vitally important that the publicly funded health care system be preserved and renewed, on the existing principles of universality, accessibility, portability, comprehensiveness, and public administration." (Message edited by themax on May 14, 2006) (Message edited by themax on May 14, 2006) (Message edited by themax on May 14, 2006) | ||
Karl Member Username: Karl Post Number: 2333 Registered: 09-2005 Posted From: 68.230.22.99 |
I've been reading this thread for some time. Before commenting further, perhaps a stretch and some exercise - this is heavy stuff, alot is at stake. Before deeming that it is our govt who should do this heavy lifting, that it will be relatively easy, and less expensive, consider the following: What would the implications be for you, for Detroit, and for Michigan (we'll limit it to that for now) if the govt was urged, and agreed, to supply automobiles for all residents who needed them in the State of Michigan? Who would get the cars? What kind? How often would they be changed? What about old folks - especially if they repeatedly wreck them? How should they be cared for? Gasoline? Maintenance? How should folks who leave their car parked in the garage and for health reasons choose to walk/bike everywhere they go, seldom using their car? What of folks who drive everywhere - after all, it is free. Oh yes - as innovation improves, should everyone get a new car immediately? Cars are pretty predictable - especially for folks from Michigan. I would contend that if Michiganders cannot get their arms around a car scenario, they as taxpayers will regret the day the State of Michigan (or the Feds) got into providing healthcare for all. Of course, if you pay no tax, bring on the healthcare - and the car(s)! I propose that cars (or the argument for/against) may be easier, more defineable, and easier to predict than healthcare. If you don't believe me, give it a try. Happy Mothers Day, everyone, especially all you mothers! | ||
Oldredfordette Member Username: Oldredfordette Post Number: 717 Registered: 02-2004 Posted From: 68.60.177.56 |
Health care is being talked about right now because the situation is becoming critical. With every job lost in the state, it's another person or family who will be without health insurance. We need to do something YESTERDAY. | ||
Goat Member Username: Goat Post Number: 8456 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 70.53.96.156 |
A car and healthcare are two different things. Like comparing an apple to a jumbo jet. BTW: Happy Mother's Day everyone, especially all you mothers? Isn't Mother's day only for Mothers? Why to everyone? | ||
Andylinn Member Username: Andylinn Post Number: 51 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 68.40.195.233 |
karl - I normally respect your posts, but this car vs. healthcare is nonsense. I fully support mass transit for all. It needs to be there and be affordable, however cars should be an *OPTION* for those who can afford it... similarly I fully support healthcare in the public sector. people fall under extreme illness and pain without... cars are a luxury, healthcare is an essential. .andy. | ||
Mountainman Member Username: Mountainman Post Number: 51 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 69.144.84.154 |
Cars and healthcare. That's a stretch. Especially considering we have other models to follow and look to when it comes to universal healthcare. What is absolutely fascinating is if you look at this thread, and then go back and look at the previous battles fought over women's suffrage and slave enamicipation. Both, thankfully, were enivitable changes (and great ones) to American society. Both had inane arguments against them, quite often built upon contrived facts and twisted realities. This whole government sponsored universal health care issue seems to be the same deal. Just a thought. | ||
Karl Member Username: Karl Post Number: 2340 Registered: 09-2005 Posted From: 68.230.22.99 |
Now that we see the leftie/libs won't even try to take a stab at providing cars for everyone who needs one, any conservatives care to comment? If Detroiters can't come up with any plan for gov't funded cars for everyone, I'm dyin' to see what they come up with for healthcare for everyone. If you think it thru, you will see the parallels. But I understand, it's Sunday, a couple of mimosas with Mother's Day brunch......... Maybe tomorrow? | ||
Mountainman Member Username: Mountainman Post Number: 52 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 69.144.84.154 |
I think the mimosas's may help to shrink the intellegence level. You're right. If I start drinking now, I may be able to bring myself down enough to see your comparision as a equal. Heck, after a few its hard to tell the difference between John Stockston and Ben Wallace. | ||
Oldredfordette Member Username: Oldredfordette Post Number: 721 Registered: 02-2004 Posted From: 68.60.177.56 |
Sunday or Monday, Karl has gone mental. Go scare a pregnant teenager, willya? June 10 at McCarthy's Bar in Detroit (Fort at Seventh) come to a fundraiser/consciousness raising event for HR676 or any viable health care for all Americans. Music by the Cat's Pajamas (swing, tin pan alley, django-style stuff). Brought to you by the Committee for Health Care. | ||
Karl Member Username: Karl Post Number: 2344 Registered: 09-2005 Posted From: 68.230.22.99 |
OK, so there's a solution that's brewing in a bar. Any others? | ||
Jfre66_77 Member Username: Jfre66_77 Post Number: 35 Registered: 01-2006 Posted From: 12.15.1.161 |
Mountainman -forgive me for some of the sarcasm in my earlier post. I was halfway through a lousy day at work, and having re-read my post, it definitely showed through. I have many other relatives in Canada who think the health care system is great, I was relating one particular experience. Not having lived as a Canadian citizen, I'm probably not qualified to comment much further than that. Do I think our healthcare system here is perfect? No - far from it, and I agree that something needs to be done. However, that said, I have very little faith that the government can do what it takes to fix it. I guess my irritation at the issue is that most politicians only tend to talk about it around election time, which tends to make me believe that they are only paying lip service to the issue to try to garner votes. As far as a plan to fix it, your guess is as good as mine. I spent some time working in the health care sector, for a company that did insurance billing. All I can say is that it is a mess of bureaucracy when it comes to hospitals/doctors getting reimbursed for services that they have provided. My cynicsm makes me think that additional government involvement would only add to the problem. | ||
Mountainman Member Username: Mountainman Post Number: 58 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 153.90.110.121 |
You're very right to doubt any government's ability to successfully run the program. This particular installment of the federal government has been anything but stellar. I think I'd be more terrified to have them implement and run a system, than to go without for a little bit longer. Maybe if we took away government health care for our illustrious representatives some headway might be accomplished on the issue. Remember, they still serve by our will. Saddly, very rarely in our interest. |
