Obama Care 101, and other stuff

[Khadgars]

Steve Cook is going to work for Dave King, his former boss at MSFC.

Steve is far from being a liberal Democrat and- like Mike Griffin did- he probably saw the writing on the wall as President Obama is apparently preparing to strip NASA engineering to the bone for the sake of his vision of cradle-to-grave social engineering.

That's what the voters wanted when they went to the polls last November, so there is not much that we can do about it. Voters indicated that they wanted the same lifestyle enjoyed by much of Western Europe. The government will soon take care of all your health care needs and and all political protests will be labeled labeled as unruly mob behavior (Oh, that's already being done at the Town Halls and Tea Parties.) Welcome to Europe.

(Brush, floss, and use mouthwash after every meal or you might end up with teeth like Austin Power's)

<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CJason%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com<img src=" http:="" saturn.netwrx1.com="" rfischer="" images="" smilies="" redface.gif="" border="0" alt="" title="Embarrassment" smilieid="2" class="inlineimg"></o:smarttagtype>Wow Jim, not to turn this into a political debate but you've been drinking Right Wing Koolaid for way to long.

The whole debate about health care just boggles my mind. When Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh screams about how horrible health care is in <st1:country-region><st1></st1></st1:country-region>Canada that people are dieing in the streets waiting for a procedure or medicine and they give ONE example maybe two and you believe it? Canadians are laughing at Republicans.

Tell me this, how does it make sense for doctors to be paid per type of treatment given or medicine proscribed? It leads to exactly the excessive and wasteful practices not to mention harmful operations or neglect because a physician wants to keep his muscle relaxer prescription going that we see day in and day out. That is what happens when you make healthcare about PROFIT.

Not to mention I've been working since I was 13 years old, 28 now and for only 2 years of my life I have had healthcare. That is just plain wrong.

[spacefan]

<LINK href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CJason%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml" rel=File-List><?xml:namespace prefix = o /><o:smarttagtype class=inlineimg title=Embarrassment smilieid="2" alt="" border="0" redface.gif="" smilies="" images="" rfischer="" saturn.netwrx1.com="" http:="" namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com<img src="></o:smarttagtype>Wow Jim, not to turn this into a political debate but you've been drinking Right Wing Koolaid for way to long.

The whole debate about health care just boggles my mind. When Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh screams about how horrible health care is in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 /><st1:country-region><ST1></ST1></st1:country-region>Canada that people are dieing in the streets waiting for a procedure or medicine and they give ONE example maybe two and you believe it? Canadians are laughing at Republicans.

Tell me this, how does it make sense for doctors to be paid per type of treatment given or medicine proscribed? It leads to exactly the excessive and wasteful practices not to mention harmful operations or neglect because a physician wants to keep his muscle relaxer prescription going that we see day in and day out. That is what happens when you make healthcare about PROFIT.

Not to mention I've been working since I was 13 years old, 28 now and for only 2 years of my life I have had healthcare. That is just plain wrong.

Khadgars you are 100% right. Its not as if private medicine is any more efficient than a public option. Consider the shambles that is the US healthcare system, 47 million with no cover, insurers refusing to cover pre-existing conditions, having to fight the insurers to get the care you are entitled to.

This wonderful system costs america approx 16% GDP for the same money you could have something similar to france, one of best healthcare systems in the world. If that is still too much money to pay for just 8% GDP you could have a system like the british NHS.

[J.McDonald]

At risk of stoking this off-topic discussion, I'll just chime in and say that I've never been prouder of my country right now. If you guys think that living like Europeans is such a bad thing, more fool you.

[Rick]

At the risk of actually keeping this thread on topic, I am going to move the appropriate posts to the "Moonshot Bar and Grill. :)

[Rick]

Suddenly no one is interested in this raging topic? Odd, very odd.

[spacefan]

Suddenly no one is interested in this raging topic? Odd, very odd.

It is very odd. Whats even odder is I've probebly had as much to say as anyone, and it doesn't even effect me.

The impression i get is a a lot of folks in the forum are not obama fans and the issue is being seen through the lens of partisan preference. What may be a good thing, is for those who oppose reform to explain why the current system is best.

How about starting with you Rick?

[Rick]

I think part of the issue is that Obama's support of HSF is lukewarm, at best. I am not a liberal either, which compounds my agnst for some, no many of his policies, when enhance government control.

The US government works for its people, not the other way around, which is changing since the Presidents election.

[spacefan]

I think part of the issue is that Obama's support of HSF is lukewarm, at best. I am not a liberal either, which compounds my agnst for some, no many of his policies, when enhance government control.

The US government works for its people, not the other way around, which is changing since the Presidents election.

I guess everyone judges polititians and their policies against the values they hold dear. If Obama was more gung ho for HSF would this change your opinion of him? Would you then be willing to entertain some of his other ideas.

I would say a government works for its people when it tries to improve thier lot. Obama's aims for health care reform is to reduce the cost to the consumer and to extend coverage to the uninsured by providing an affordable public option. This is not increasing government control because you would not be forced to take up the public option.

What is not on the cards is a british style NHS, in case you thought it was.

[Rick]

I guess everyone judges polititians and their policies against the values they hold dear. If Obama was more gung ho for HSF would this change your opinion of him? Would you then be willing to entertain some of his other ideas.

I would say a government works for its people when it tries to improve thier lot. Obama's aims for health care reform is to reduce the cost to the consumer and to extend coverage to the uninsured by providing an affordable public option. This is not increasing government control because you would not be forced to take up the public option.

What is not on the cards is a british style NHS, in case you thought it was.

Good questions.

Would I have voted for Obama if he was more gung ho regarding HSF? No. His opponent was a fan and supported of HSF, and would not have wanted to punish those who actually earned their money and became succesful.

I never thought this losing attempt of creating a national health care system was styled after the UK. The Canadian version isn't a good option in my opinion.

[JimMcDade]

I am not right wing at all, but I can see that some people posting here have bought into a certain popular fixed framework of political thinking. I have various leanings that fall onto either side of that contrived right-left demarcation that is so comfortable for people who don't want to think. Liberal sophistry (fascism) and right-wing simplicity (absolutism) are both alive and well.

I have plenty of friends in Europe and Canada who travel to the USA for quality health care services. I recall one point in the 1980s when the University of Alabama Hospital operated more MRI facilities than did the entire nation of Canada! The wait times and quality of treatment in the USA is unmatched by any of the nations with socialized medicine. Don't beleive the one-sided propaganda of SICKO.

It is true that horror stories of malpractice and poor treatment occur every day in US hospitals, but those problems are unrelated to this debate.

Most of the people who don't have health insurance today chose to forgo insurance for the same reason that I did back in my twenties. Nobody falls through the cracks here in the USA.

Hospitals cannot turn away a sick or injured person. For-profit hospitals transfer indigent or uninsured patients to our fine university and charity hospitals every day. We already have an effective system of socialized medicine that all citizens are paying for. That system is well regulated and is paid for by all of us. That system is more efficient and effective than any federal, universal health care plan could ever be.

A universal health care plan will bloat just like all of the other federal programs. It will become a badly managed, major jobs program with extremely slow service and incompetent leadership. Universal health care might work in some nations where public administration is generally more competent, but it won't work here.

The USA cannot afford to maintain a global military force, a robust space program and universal health care simultaneously without seeing a major reduction in our quality of life. Obama is running into major headwinds on health care and he will soon discover that significantly tampering with NASA might be more than he should willing to take on. He will have a very hard time rolling over the space constituency Democrats and Republicans in Congress.

[spacefan]

Rick consider the following scenarios

What if you are hard working but in a job with crap pay and your employer doesn't provide insurance you want health insurance but theres just no way you can afford it? In those circumstances would you support someone who could offer you an affordable public option? or would you say "no i just aint earned the right to health care if i die of a treatable cancer its just what i derserve"?

Heres another scenario. You have done very well for yourself you are a skilled worker, working for huge aerospace company as part of the "Nasa family". You work on america's next generation of manned launch vehicles, you are proud of your country and proud of what you do. Life is good. Then millions of your fellow citizens decide they would rather not keep up with their mortgage payments on account of not having enough money. The banks have more bad debts on thier books than they can cover. The banks stop lending and start going out of business the global economy is closely following them down the pan. Your new president digs out the dusty manual of Keynesian economics pumps trillions into bailing out wall street and stimulating the economy. Unfortunately there is no such thing as a free lunch and money really doesn't grow on trees he just cant make good the losses through taxes, its just not american. So as soon as he's able he starts trimming government expenditure. the space program comes up before him and he says "those *@$?@&%$ didn't vote for me anyway. Lets cut it!". Ah! life is not so good now, laid off, no health insurance and then you get ill and had to pay out of pocket. Your still solvent, but only just. After a lot of searching you finally get a job, but its low paying. Apply previous scenario above.

@ Jim McDade

You like Government space programs but not government healthcare. Interesting!

[JimMcDade]

@ Jim McDade

You like Government space programs but not government healthcare. Interesting!

Exactly. Exploration and management of large scale science is an appropriate activity for government. Providing free health care is not an appropriate activity.

My neighborhood is a mini United Nations. We have medical doctors (and medical researchers) who moved here from Russia, the United Kingdom, China, India, and Columbia. I went to a neighborhood association meeting and these professionals unanimously agreed that US health care is the best system in the world as it is. Nobody who seeks necessary treatment is ever denied treatment, whether they have medical insurance or not.

Most treatment decisions in the USA are left up to the patient and not a board or panel that decides how to ration the resources of a socialized medical system. Only a patient or a family can decide if a patient is placed on DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) status.

The myth of poor Americans dying in alleys or suffering for years without access to a doctor has been uncritically accepted by millions of people who have never worked in the medical profession. A hospital would be severely punished by several regulatory bodies (and the law) if staff just shoved a sick person out of the door.

Back to NASA; large exploration, engineering and science projects that are financed or backed by the government have been a part of the American tradition since the early decades of this nation's history. Lewis & Clark, The Pacific Railway Act of 1862, TVA, The Manhattan Project, and NASA are all parts of that tradition.

The government presently supports the medical community and medical reserach through programs such as Medicare and the National Institutes for Health. Medicare is a mess as it is and should serve as a warning that the federal government of the US is not an effective or efficient manager of basic health services. Medicare reformation should be certainly addressed before the government leaps into socialized medicine. That system is well on the way to insolvency.

I don't know what citizens have to pay for their so-called FREE health care in the UK, but I do know that the tax rates are sky high over there. Nothing is actually free. We have to pay one way or another. The middle-class always to seem to bear most of the tax burden since the rich and the poor typically don't pay any, or much, tax. (Poverty is actually a profession for some clever individuals that I have encountered over the years. Some people are quite skilled at playing the system for money and goodies- even while running illegal gambling, drug or prostitution operations for non-taxable cash income. I knew one unemployed dialysis patient who drove a new Mercedes came in for treatment in a Brooks Brothers suit. He often gave advice to fellow patients on how to play the hospital social workers for cash and assistance. BTW- Dialysis treatments are already free for the uninsured here in the USA.)

Perhaps the UK could have it's own human space flight program if taxpayers didn't have to bear the full cost of providing health services for all. Personally, I prefer to keep working and paying for my own care.

[spacefan]

My neighborhood is a mini United Nations. We have medical doctors (and medical researchers) who moved here from Russia, the United Kingdom, China, India, and Columbia. I went to a neighborhood association meeting and these professionals unanimously agreed that US health care is the best system in the world as it is.

And well they should they make a much better living in US than their own countries. I have no doubt for those with the means are able to get first rate care in US.

US health care system is not the best according to WHO they ranked you guys at No.37 although they make the point America spends more as a proportion of GDP than any other country.

Most treatment decisions in the USA are left up to the patient and not a board or panel that decides how to ration the resources of a socialized medical system. Only a patient or a family can decide if a patient is placed on DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) status.

All health care is rationed, even in the USA Insurers refusing to cover certain conditions or treatments is rationing. The UK provides good evidence based medicine
not everything available in US is in patients best interests. Regarding DNR orders
if a patient is competent they are able to decide if not the consulting physician will decide based on the patients best interests, and after consulting the family. Patients are able to make living wills instructing doctors what to do in the event they lose capacity.

Nobody who seeks necessary treatment is ever denied treatment, whether they have medical insurance or not.

Glad to here it. Tell me who pays for this uninsured treatment. Would the Hospital seek to recover costs from the patient? Would they only recieve stabalising treatment?

The myth of poor Americans dying in alleys or suffering for years without access to a doctor has been uncritically accepted by millions of people who have never worked in the medical profession. A hospital would be severely punished by several regulatory bodies (and the law) if staff just shoved a sick person out of the door.

Presumably they put off going to the doctor because the cant afford pay the fees out of pocket. They may not shove out the door but they are going to try and recover the costs somehow. It would be interesting to know how many people actually become bankrupt as a result.

I don't know what citizens have to pay for their so-called FREE health care in the UK, but I do know that the tax rates are sky high over there. Nothing is actually free. We have to pay one way or another.

The NHS is free at the point of need ie the user doesn't have to pay to use the service. The service is funded from general taxation. I've only ever lived in the UK and have not found taxes particularly onerus. However we do demand that our government provides high quality public services and recognise they must be adequately funded. Personaly i would vote against any party offering tax cuts .Thats not just me thats the political reality in the UK. According the WHO report quoted above the UK spent just 6% of GDP on healthcare. Government healthcare can be a cost effective option.

The middle-class always to seem to bear most of the tax burden since the rich and the poor typically don't pay any, or much, tax.

When you add in VAT and fuel duty etc the poorest workers in the UK pay more tax as a proportion of thier income than the middle class of whom it can be accurately stated enjoy complaining even when they have nothing to complain about.

Perhaps the UK could have it's own human space flight program if taxpayers didn't have to bear the full cost of providing health services for all. Personally, I prefer to keep working and paying for my own care.

We could probebly play a greater part in esa but choose not to. <!-- / message --><!-- sig -->