Scott Brown

I'll stand by my statement and use as proof your article link. I didn't say that there weren't people from the US that travel elsewhere if they were unsatisfied or had to wait. Originally Posted by fritz3552

I provided the link to prove your point...to an extent. As I mentioned, I didn't want people thinking I was just calling BS on them. If I saw something that validated the quote in question, I posted it. However, the fact that a larger number, with estimates of 1.5 million for 2008, far outnumbers the 60-85K the US sees from visiting patients. I think the numbers speak for themselves. But, part of my question, which I should have specified, is how do you know it is Canucks, Brits and Frenchies are the ones coming here? Is that speculation? I could understand the wealthy in countries with less developed health care coming here, but Canada, England and France are by no means third world countries with less than stellar health care. How do you know it is from having health care denied? I could understand the waiting issue, but I was just curious about the denial issue.

As an example of the waiting issue, I could understand that a patient that may need a hip replacement, which I would categorize as non-life threatening but extremely uncomfortable, as one that may come here for the surgery. Wait times may be a couple of months. I'm not saying I know if that has ever happened, but I would understand it. Although, I would think most would wait because of the costs associated with it.

One question I have, which I may look up later, is what type of surgeries Americans are getting overseas? Years ago I believe it was 60 Minutes that did a story on Americans going to places such as India for plastic surgery. The surgery was exceptionally cheap and the patients would go to seaside resorts during their recovery time. So they got surgery and a trip to the resort for less than surgery here.

Hasn't this thread moved way off target. Also should references be in APA format?

Hasn't this thread moved way off target. Also should references be in APA format? Originally Posted by dirty dog

No and no. The Scott Brown win directly affects health care which led to the debate. Also, citations should be in MLA form, not APA. Get with the times DD.

13. "Under the Democrat plan for universal health coverage, no one in the US would have had the option to go outside the system to have a denied procedure performed or avoid a waiting period. You would have been arrested, fined and/or taxed for opting out of the system - sounds a bit draconian to me." Posted by Fritz. No where in the article did it mention being arrested. Did you have any evidence of this? Sounds like a fear tactic to me.

Since the fines and taxes would be administered by the IRS, and the IRS has the power to arrest and jail anyone who does not want to pay fines and taxes, by extension, you would be arrested if you fail to participate in this plan.

Fritz, your statement suggests that if my insurance company denies coverage for a procedure I would not be able to go elsewhere to have that procedure performed. Even if I were paying out of pocket.

And if I did I would be prosecuted.

Your answered a question about being required to purchase insurance coverage, but it wasn't related to the above statement.

So I'm still curious where that information comes from.

No and no. The Scott Brown win directly affects health care which led to the debate. Also, citations should be in MLA form, not APA. Get with the times DD. Originally Posted by kcbigpapa

Would you please tell my professor that. I hate the APA format especially citations. Even when I use son of citation to format it they find something to bitch about.

Starry HR 3200 at one time stated that everyone would be required to have insurance or they would be subject to a fine. So following that logic if you fail to pay the fine you could be sent to jail, but I seriously doubt that would happen. I have not read HR 3200 for a while but I believe its in the responsibility section 301 I think.

This is obviously a power grab and power grab alone or else the GOP would be invited in to close a deal. Even many conservatives like Scott Brown are not opposed to healthcare insurance reform, but they are opposed to THIS bill. Originally Posted by john_galt

The GOP never intended to support a health care bill or engage in dialouge on one. Their tactic was to delay and stall.

Unfortunately, this would require a Constitutional Amendment. There are two ways that amendments can be proposed - one, through a resolution submitted by either house of Congress that must be approved by 2/3 of the membership of each house; two, through the calling of a Constituional Convention and amendments submitted by the members of the convention (there are pitfalls to a convention in that it would not be limited to one amendment). Then, the amendments would be submitted to the legislatures of the states and must be ratified by 3/4 of the legislatures within seven years of the amendment's submission.

The best way would be to elect representatives to each house that support term limits and have an amendment submitted by one of those representatives. Originally Posted by fritz3552

Congress, no matter what they say to get elected, will never support term limits. Once they get in, they realize what a great deal they have.

An amendment to charge the recent Supreme Court ruling to elimate corporate donations - will never happen - who do you think will be the biggest donors to political campaigns? The fat hogs in DC want to feed at that $$$ trough.

The GOP never intended to support a health care bill or engage in dialouge on one. Their tactic was to delay and stall. Originally Posted by BigMikeinKC

In the spirit of SS and BP do you have supporting documentation for this statement.

In the spirit of SS and BP do you have supporting documentation for this statement. Originally Posted by dirty dog

Just go to your search engine and type in GOP health care memo. Go back until you find the actual memo, not the spin either side is putting on it. Then decide for yourself.

FYI - I don't like the Health Care bill that's before Congress. But, there was no bipartisan effort to write one. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans reached across the aisle. But it has been ages since either has. Its not about the good of the country anymore, but who has the power and money.

"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." - Abraham Lincoln.

But if you really want to see where the country start to have problems with health care, lets go back to Nixon:

This is a transcript of the 1971 conversation between President Richard Nixon and John D. Ehrlichman that led to the HMO act of 1973:

John D. Ehrlichman: “On the … on the health business …”

President Nixon: “Yeah.”

Ehrlichman: “… we have now narrowed down the vice president’s problems on this thing to one issue and that is whether we should include these health maintenance organizations like Edgar Kaiser’s Permanente thing. The vice president just cannot see it. We tried 15 ways from Friday to explain it to him and then help him to understand it. He finally says, ‘Well, I don’t think they’ll work, but if the President thinks it’s a good idea, I’ll support him a hundred percent.’”

President Nixon: “Well, what’s … what’s the judgment?”

Ehrlichman: “Well, everybody else’s judgment very strongly is that we go with it.”

President Nixon: “All right.”

Ehrlichman: “And, uh, uh, he’s the one holdout that we have in the whole office.”

President Nixon: “Say that I … I … I’d tell him I have doubts about it, but I think that it’s, uh, now let me ask you, now you give me your judgment. You know I’m not too keen on any of these damn medical programs.”

Ehrlichman: “This, uh, let me, let me tell you how I am …”

President Nixon: [Unclear.]

Ehrlichman: “This … this is a …”

President Nixon: “I don’t [unclear] …”

Ehrlichman: “… private enterprise one.”

President Nixon: “Well, that appeals to me.”

Ehrlichman: “Edgar Kaiser is running his Permanente deal for profit. And the reason that he can … the reason he can do it … I had Edgar Kaiser come in … talk to me about this and I went into it in some depth. All the incentives are toward less medical care, because …”

President Nixon: [Unclear.]

Ehrlichman: “… the less care they give them, the more money they make.”

President Nixon: “Fine.” [Unclear.]

Ehrlichman: [Unclear] “… and the incentives run the right way.”

President Nixon: “Not bad.”

[Source: University of Virginia Check - February 17, 1971, 5:26 pm - 5:53 pm, Oval Office Conversation 450-23. Look for: tape rmn_e450c.]

Big Mike I agree with you 100%. The only way we are going to get our country back is o kick all of them out of office, without term limits, I think its going to require a reveloution.

Big Mike I agree with you 100%. The only way we are going to get our country back is o kick all of them out of office, without term limits, I think its going to require a reveloution. Originally Posted by dirty dog

I keep seeing this said by a lot of posters, but for the life of me how in hell will this do one little bit to help out the United States? We will still have issues (abortion, gun rights/control, corporate/social welfare, religious disagreements, environmental issues, LOBBYING, LOBBYING, LOBBYING, etc.) that not everyone will agree with. We will most likely not be happy unless the issues being supported by Congress are ones we agree with. So then the cycle begins again.

Do we just remove Congress until we are satisfied with the outcome? Impossible since "we" is hard to define. Is "we" the environmentalists or Christians or gun owners? The problem is that "we" the public have let so many issues drive a wedge into the national fabric of society. We need to understand that not everyone will ever be satisfied with 100% of the results of government and sometimes less than 50%. Unless we remove lobbying and enact more stringent ethical guidelines for Congress, we will not change a thing, even if we completely change the faces in Congress. The removal of special interests may make Congress think of the people of the United States and not the corporations of the United States. Punish the politician that spreads outright lies.

IMHO, without the removal of lobbying, term limits may do more harm than good. If a Congressman in the House knew he only had up to 3 terms (6 years), why do we assume their interest would be more for the people than special interests? The Congressman has to think of his future and if he thinks that removing regulations on insurance providers would net his a high paying lobbying job or insurance corporate gig, then he may feel obligated to special interests.

Any other ideas?

With revolution we can rid ourselves with the coperate ownership of the goverment..

"he thinks that removing regulations on insurance providers would net his a high paying lobbying job or insurance corporate gig, then he may feel obligated to special interests."

Well actually with its anti trust exemptions insurance companies have no government regulations per sey.

"he thinks that removing regulations on insurance providers would net his a high paying lobbying job or insurance corporate gig, then he may feel obligated to special interests."

Well actually with its anti trust exemptions insurance companies have no government regulations per sey. Originally Posted by dirty dog

That was purely used as an example. However, the end of regulation allowing them to be in all states is a form of regulation. I could have used a job with a large bank, a defense contractor, a highway construction company, oil company, etc.