Health Care for Everyone

  • Thread starter Danoff
  • 1,658 comments
  • 200,637 views
Or is it still purely an associative thing?
From Danoff's article:
The human papillomavirus (HPV), is found in most women who have developed cervical cancer.

Looks to be associative.

And if you pay close attention to the advertising for the vaccine in the US it only works on four forms of HPV (The one here appears to just be two), while 13 forms are associated with cervical cancer. So of course, if women still get cervical cancer they have an excuse to keep the vaccine from being blamed.
There are over 100 types of HPV but only 13 of these are known to cause cervical cancer.

The HPV vaccine will protect against types 16 and 18 which are the two most common types causing cervical cancer.

This is so far from the cure it is marketed as that it isn't even funny.
 
From Danoff's article:

Looks to be associative.

Aye, but I wouldn't be in a hurry to take that as fact. As I say, there were noises of a mechanism being discovered back in 98 - and it would have been a first for viruses and cancer.

And if you pay close attention to the advertising for the vaccine in the US it only works on four forms of HPV (The one here appears to just be two), while 13 forms are associated with cervical cancer. So of course, if women still get cervical cancer they have an excuse to keep the vaccine from being blamed.


This is so far from the cure it is marketed as that it isn't even funny.

Marketing is what you need when the truth doesn't cover all the bases.

Still, if those two forms cover 98% of cervical cancer cases, that's quite a chunk. Not that they do, but these things happen.
 
And again, I see someone promoting the idea of controlling what we eat as something that a health care plan should include.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/05/ruiz.obesity.tax/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Commentary: A fat tax is a healthy idea

SAN ANTONIO, Texas (CNN) -- I recently accompanied my family to one of the top-selling movies in America, "Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs."

All I could think of, aside from struggling ironically to keep my children from overindulging in junk food, was that members of Congress should watch the movie. It might inspire them to add an important dimension to health reform: smarter food policy.

See, people aren't even waiting for the system to be in place before they start describing how it should prevent everyday people from living the way they chose.

I truly believe that if we get a health care plan in place there will be large movements to regulate both tobacco and unhealthy foods in the name of the economy.
 
New sig to provide answers for these issues. Check out the link, and listen to Hoppe's lecture and Block's lecture .mp3s at the bottom.
 
The Switzerland comparison is disingenuous because their risk groups (population) are comparatively MUCH smaller than any of the other countries.
 
I see it lacks information on price regulation or lifestyle differences, which can play a large part in some of these figures.
 
So, it seems like Democrats are once a again fighting to prevent the bill from being available for more than a few hours before voting.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...st-posting-bills-online-8340658-63557217.html
Congressional leaders fight against posting bills online
By: Susan Ferrechio
Chief Congressional Correspondent
October 6, 2009

As Congress lurches closer to a decision on an enormous overhaul of the American health care system, pressure is mounting on legislative leaders to make the final bill available online for citizens to read before a vote.

Lawmakers were given just hours to examine the $789 billion stimulus plan, sweeping climate-change legislation and a $700 billion bailout package before final votes.

While most Americans normally ignore parliamentary detail, with health care looming, voters are suddenly paying attention. The Senate is expected to vote on a health bill in the weeks to come, representing months of work and stretching to hundreds of pages. And as of now, there is no assurance that members of the public, or even the senators themselves, will be given the chance to read the legislation before a vote.

"The American people are now suspicious of not only the lawmakers, but the process they hide behind to do their work," said Michael Franc, president of government relations for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

At town hall meetings across the country this past summer, the main topic was health care, but there was a strong undercurrent of anger over the way Congress rushed through passage of the stimulus, global warming and bank bailout bills without seeming to understand the consequences. The stimulus bill, for example, was 1,100 pages long and made available to Congress and the public just 13 hours before lawmakers voted on it. The bill has failed to provide the promised help to the job market, and there was outrage when it was discovered that the legislation included an amendment allowing American International Group, a bailout recipient, to give out millions in employee bonuses.

"If someone had a chance to look at the bill, they would have found that out," said Lisa Rosenberg, who lobbies Congress on behalf of the Sunlight Foundation to bring more transparency to government.

The foundation has begun an effort to get Congress to post bills online, for all to see, 72 hours before lawmakers vote on them.

"It would give the public a chance to really digest and understand what is in the bill," Rosenberg said, "and communicate whether that is a good or a bad thing while there is still time to fix it."

A similar effort is under way in Congress. Reps. Brian Baird, D-Wash., and Greg Walden, R-Ore., are circulating a petition among House lawmakers that would force a vote on the 72-hour rule.

Nearly every Republican has signed on, but the Democratic leadership is unwilling to cede control over when bills are brought to the floor for votes and are discouraging their rank and file from signing the petition. Senate Democrats voted down a similar measure last week for the health care bill.

The reluctance to implement a three-day rule is not unique to the Democrats.

The Republican majority rushed through the controversial Patriot Act in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks as well as a massive Medicare prescription drug bill in 2003 that added hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit.

For the majority party, legislative timing plays a big role in whether a bill will pass because support can be fleeting.

"The leaders use it as a tool to get votes or to keep amendments off a bill," said one top Senate Democratic aide.

But Baird warned of public backlash.

"Democrats know politically it's difficult to defend not doing this," he said. "The public gets this. They say we entrust you with the profound responsibility of making decisions that affect our lives, and we expect you to exercise due diligence in carrying out that responsibility."

And of course Republicans only want this for this bill, not all bills. Otherwise the Patriot Act and bank bailout wouldn't have passed. Politicians will admit that waiting three days and allowing people to read bills will kill support for them. If that is the case then why are you voting for the gorram thing!? To me, this sounds like a reason to make it law to always do this.

I suggest everyone write or call everyone of your legislators and make it blatantly obvious that you will openly support their next opponent during their next election if they do not support and vote for some form of Sunshine Bill for all of Congress. Personally, I am hugely in favor of one week.
 
And it's funny because most bills only need a page of literature to say what they mean to do. Like, Ron Paul's HR1207 is only 2 or 3 paragraphs and only refers to section D (another page's worth) of the federal reserve act.
 
OK, I will admit that I haven't read Pelosi's new bill yet, as it is 1,990 pages long and there is also a possibility of new changes. Those changes could mean that she breaks her promise to post the bill for 72 hours before voting (no surprise) or delays the vote (and why would that be a problem?) This 72 hours to read 2,000 pages things is still very laughable.

I suggest one day per couple hundred pages. It is an idea I got from Rand Paul when I met him in Lexington, KY. I don't remember what his length was, but he wanted a week per 1,000 pages if I recall correctly.


Anyway, that's beside the point. I did run across an article that brought attention to part of the bill that is very important. The penalty for failure to meet the mandate.

http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/06/committee-confirms-comply-with-pelosi-care-or-go-to-jail/

Committee Confirms: Comply With Pelosi-Care Or Go To Jailby Publius
From the House Ways and Means Republicans:



Today, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail. The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.



In response to the JCT letter, Camp said: “This is the ultimate example of the Democrats’ command-and-control style of governing – buy what we tell you or go to jail. It is outrageous and it should be stopped immediately.”

Key excerpts from the JCT letter appear below:

“H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.” [page 1]

- – - – - – - – - –

“If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…” [page 2]

- – - – - – - – - -


“Criminal penalties

Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:

• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.

• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” [page 3]

When confronted with this same issue during its consideration of a similar individual mandate tax, the Senate Finance Committee worked on a bipartisan basis to include language in its bill that shielded Americans from civil and criminal penalties. The Pelosi bill, however, contains no similar language protecting American citizens from civil and criminal tax penalties that could include a $250,000 fine and five years in jail.

“The Senate Finance Committee had the good sense to eliminate the extreme penalty of incarceration. Speaker Pelosi’s decision to leave in the jail time provision is a threat to every family who cannot afford the $15,000 premium her plan creates. Fortunately, Republicans have an alternative that will lower health insurance costs without raising taxes or cutting Medicare,” said Camp.

According to the Congressional Budget Office the lowest cost family non-group plan under the Speaker’s bill would cost $15,000 in 2016.
There we have it: Healthcare at gunpoint. Do it their way or else. And Pelosi doesn't understand why some protesters have compared her to a Nazi.


I can't say this enough: A mandate that forces everyone to seek some form of healthcare plan is a blatant violation of every citizen's Constitutional rights. If Obama wants to say it is not a tax increase he is either stupid (this is beyond simple ignorance) or the most dishonest politician to ever sit in the Oval Office. My hope is that if this passes a vote it is challenged in court and the Supreme Court lays a Constitutional smackdown on Pelosi and Obama that ruins their careers forever.
 
Much as I would love to see that come to happen, don't bet the ranch. Don't forget this is the same Supreme Court that blew off our eminent domain rights.
 
A leaky pipe won't kill you.
Music soothes the soul but not an infected wound.
A painting will make you feel somthing, as long as you're conscious.
You can walk, if your legs work.

Indeed, if one can compare the value of their life to concert tickets, they must not have very much to live for...

Health Care for everyone, we got it up here in Canada, and it works.
 
^Well in all seriousness I'm in favor of the bill because my parent's lost their jobs and they couldn't afford the proper coverage.

Now what's unfair to a person that is jobless and can't afford much...a "forced insurance" program that isn't really compulsory but is affordable compared to private insurance? Or private insurance which is more expensive and is prone to dropping people at the whim?

Unfortunately, my parents are at the mercy of the health care system. A system which is obviously broken with the current way it operates.

I'm for Obama's healthcare plan, but if the insurance companies can make something that is easily accessible and without high prices/costs, then I'll support them as well. But it seems they are more interested in the status quo by looking at the amount of money they spent lobbying against the plan.
 
I've been more or less following the ongoing healthcare discussion. But it was a thread on a very different topic that pointed me towards the importance of individual rights and absolute freedom for the US-American. Understandably, things like public healthcare are bound to not work on such a basis. Of course, the details of said plan play a role in that, too, but in the end, the absence of public systems and government intervention were one of the goals to be achieved and maintained with the foundation of the USA.

However, one major problem of the discussion is the extremely hard line between the pro and con sides of the story. In todays world, people should be able to come to a proper conclusion without shouting and throwing insults at each other. This is one of the major problems I see in politics nowadays: people become emotional, people take sides for the wrong reasons, people tend to ignore unconvenient arguments. An interesting mixture of instincts and intelligence for sure, but somehow sad, as it limits the possibilities of a system (political system that is) which could do much good.
 
^Well in all seriousness I'm in favor of the bill because my parent's lost their jobs and they couldn't afford the proper coverage.
So, forcing them to pay for something is better? What if they still can't this government option and pay for things like electricity? They choose between no electricity or jail.

Now what's unfair to a person that is jobless and can't afford much...a "forced insurance" program that isn't really compulsory but is affordable compared to private insurance? Or private insurance which is more expensive and is prone to dropping people at the whim?
Neither situation is fair. Look around, you will see that I do not support status quo, but this is not a fix.

I have no clue why you think this isn't really compulsory, you buy insurance (no the gov. option isn't forced, but some form is) or you pay a fine/go to jail. That is the definition of compulsory. It is health care at gun point. You do not get to choose to not be insured.

Unfortunately, my parents are at the mercy of the health care system. A system which is obviously broken with the current way it operates.
Yes, it is and a lot could be done to fix it by pulling back government restrictions.

I'm for Obama's healthcare plan, but if the insurance companies can make something that is easily accessible and without high prices/costs, then I'll support them as well. But it seems they are more interested in the status quo by looking at the amount of money they spent lobbying against the plan.
They could but the insurance companies are restricted. Try buying the same health care plan I have in Kentucky. You can't by law. Just imagine what would happen to insurance prices if they were nationwide companies and plans that could bring in people from all over. I bet it would be less than a year before you saw some Gecko or annoying woman trying to sell you a plan that fits your needs, not getting offered a plan limited to what your employer is willing to pay for. Currently it is tied to employers and confined within state boundaries. The insurance companies have been crippled for decades. Think HMOs are evil? They were pushed by Ted Kennedy, the same man whose name was used to help push through this current plan.

If you don't like the status quo (a broken bureaucratic system) you should be asking why they just gave you even more bureaucratic hoops to jump through, and took away your rights to choose to avoid it while they were at it.



Trust me, I understand where you are coming from. Look at some of my past posts (my bionic thread linked in my sig would be good). I could greatly benefit from the pre-existing conditions clauses. I would then know that if I just wanted to up and tell my boss to screw off one day that I could without fear of losing my coverage. But I don't support it. Why? Because, I stand by a set of principles that say that individual freedom is more important than anything else in the world, and I am not selfish enough to sacrifice my principals just to remove some stress from my life.

See the quote in my sig: "I swear by my life, and love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

That is a quote from a novel, a pledge that must be said by all men who wish to live free. When I put that quote in my sig I made that pledge to myself, and I will do every thing in my power to stand by that pledge.


But you know what: Personal principles aside, even the Constitution does not allow for this on a federal government level.
 
^You got some fine arguments there FoolKiller, and you should say that to my parents but I doubt they are gonna agree. As for me personally, I want to keep out of the this political squabble as much as possible because my school's insurance got me covered, and all this lobbying/congressional wrangling got me uninterested.

Diet and exercise is the best insurance I say.
 
I have no clue why you think this isn't really compulsory, you buy insurance (no the gov. option isn't forced, but some form is) or you pay a fine/go to jail. That is the definition of compulsory. It is health care at gun point. You do not get to choose to not be insured.
Given a goverment introduces public healthcare, this is a logical step. If you introduce a public system and then make it voluntary for everyone to participate, public funding simply won't work. So they need to make sure people will participate in it by introducing punishment if they don't.
 
Given a goverment introduces public healthcare, this is a logical step. If you introduce a public system and then make it voluntary for everyone to participate, public funding simply won't work. So they need to make sure people will participate in it by introducing punishment if they don't.
And the logical next step is to go the route of the Postal Service and make it illegal for anyone else to compete with their main business structure.


Honestly, had the public option been setup based similar to the Postal Service, where it survives on its own profit, I would have no issue with it. But unfortunately they have to steal money from others to do it.


sumbrownkid, diet and exercise, as well as all preventative medicine is an excellent way to go. Unfortunately our current systems are setup primarily to find and treat problems, not find them. I would support insurance companies creating a plan where someone who meets a set schedule of preventative treatment and maintains a healthy lifestyle (annual physicals will show if you aren't) gets a cheaper plan with better treatment coverage. This current plan will unfortunately ignore preventative care just as much.
 
And the logical next step is to go the route of the Postal Service and make it illegal for anyone else to compete with their main business structure.

Honestly, had the public option been setup based similar to the Postal Service, where it survives on its own profit, I would have no issue with it. But unfortunately they have to steal money from others to do it.
Yeah, problem with that is that one of the ideas behind public health care is that there is no system of profit standing behind it all. Generally I support such systems, but in this case, it means that entities like hospitals would try to get the patients they receive a lot of money for and get rid of those where they don't. So you end up with a system of selected patients where the individual is judged by its monetary value to the healthcare institutions.

While I see the fundamental problem that lies within introducing governmental public healthcare in the US, I think it would be stupid of the government to not introduce it thoroughly with all consequences, one of which is the discussed punishment. Introducing the system now but watering it down to stop people from moaning would effectively screw it up even more and leave none of the parties satisfied.
 
I heard one of the reasons why costs are high is because hospitals don't really communicate with each other on what the patient has undergone. Such as taking another x-ray, or another blood test that the previous clinic/hospital already has done so.

Then again, hospitals are also trying to a make profit.
 
Yeah, problem with that is that one of the ideas behind public health care is that there is no system of profit standing behind it all. Generally I support such systems, but in this case, it means that entities like hospitals would try to get the patients they receive a lot of money for and get rid of those where they don't. So you end up with a system of selected patients where the individual is judged by its monetary value to the healthcare institutions.
Your problem here is in assuming that that business is more profitable when you only work with a select few for large sums of money. But that is wrong. It is much more profitable to service an extremely large number of people at a lower price because 80% of the population would fall into the group that doesn't have a lot of money.

I mean, look at businesses. Walmart makes way more money than a specialty custom shop that only caters to the very rich. Toyota and Ford make way more money than Lamborghini or Ferrari.

Hospitals would be infinitely more profitable if they catered to the lower and middle classes than just the upper class. The reason why they push through people now is the current system we have. A guy on insurance will get them less money than the rich guy without it (medicare/aid will get them even less) because the current system forces hospitals to accept. Every time I go to the doctor I get a statement from my insurance companies that shows what is charged and what is actually paid. My insurance often pays half or less, and I pay nothing. They can charge the rich guy the full cost. But if insurance wasn't set up the way it is right now they could charge what insurance is currently paying and they are obviously still making money. They also rush non-rich out the door because they have an insurance company or medicare/aid calling them up and telling them to.

Now, the next question should be; why do hospitals accept those insurance plans then? Because the rich guys alone don't bring in enough money to keep them afloat. In other words, hospitals have zero incentive to only cater to the rich.

Now, in case you think you can bring up those specialty offices that do home visit and charge out the wazoo: They are small one or two man operations with very little overhead and five patients. They aren't paying janitors, orderlies, and hundreds of nurses. They are the medical industry's equivalent of the specialty custom shop that Walmart doesn't even notice exists.

While I see the fundamental problem that lies within introducing governmental public healthcare in the US, I think it would be stupid of the government to not introduce it thoroughly with all consequences, one of which is the discussed punishment. Introducing the system now but watering it down to stop people from moaning would effectively screw it up even more and leave none of the parties satisfied.
But see nothing in the current government's plan is going to be a proper system. My idea isn't a watered down version of this, but the complete opposite direction. I only am focused on the mandate because it is the most blatantly obvious violation of freedom that can be pointed out. Considering that to not pay for insurance or the penalty is determined to be tax evasion you can receive up to five years in prison. That is the same as armed robbery.

Think about it: Failure to get health care is now considered as horrible as armed robbery by 220 House members.

See, you think this is a proper or thorough system, but any system that requires ripping away liberty is a broken system. It should say something when the only way the government can be sure they have the American people on board with them is to make it illegal otherwise.

Answer me this: If it is such a good idea, why does it need to be forced by threat of prison?

I heard one of the reasons why costs are high is because hospitals don't really communicate with each other on what the patient has undergone. Such as taking another x-ray, or another blood test that the previous clinic/hospital already has done so.

Then again, hospitals are also trying to a make profit.
Hospitals will also work out payment plans with you. Whenever I go in I read the stuff they give me and it has a number to call to discuss payment options before you are even admitted.

The main problem is that if you don't want health care insurance and opted to call around and price compare like you would for a car or furniture most doctor's offices and hospitals don't actually know what they charge and cannot give you a quote in advance. Try it sometime. Call your physician and ask them how much it will cost you to get a physical. You will eventually find out, but it will take them a while to find it. Now, call a auto dealer and ask them how much any car on the lot costs.

The current system discourages hospitals and doctors from even acting like a proper business. Which is why I say that we should go in the opposite direction. We are not anywhere close to a free market health care system.
 
But you know what: Personal principles aside, even the Constitution does not allow for this on a federal government level.

Here is the trick: Someone has to challenge it in the courts. As of yet, I haven't heard of any movement to do so. If I'm honest, I hope they do.
 
Here is the trick: Someone has to challenge it in the courts. As of yet, I haven't heard of any movement to do so. If I'm honest, I hope they do.
Even if they did the Supreme Court is lately less concerned about the Constitution and more so about what the international examples are.

The most recent eminent domain case is a prime example of how the Supreme Court has somehow managed to become a tool of statist corporatism.
 
Some what on topic and a bit comical.........



JOE LEGAL vs. JOSE ILLEGAL

You have two families: "Joe Legal" and "Jose Illegal".

Both families have two parents, two children, and live in California .


Joe Legal works in construction, has a Social Security Number and makes
$25.00 per hour with taxes deducted.


Jose Illegal also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number,
and gets paid $15.00 cash "under the table".


Ready? Now pay attention...


Joe Legal: $25.00 per hour x 40 hours = $1000.00 per week, or $52,000.00
per year. Now take 30% away for state and federal tax; Joe Legal now has
$31,231.00.


Jose Illegal: $15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600.00 per week, or
$31,200.00 per year. Jose Illegal pays no taxes. Jose Illegal now has
$31,200.00.


Joe Legal pays medical and dental insurance with limited coverage for
his family at $600.00 per month, or $7,200.00 per year. Joe Legal now
has $24,031.00.


Jose Illegal has full medical and dental coverage through the state and
local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has
$31,200.00.


Joe Legal makes too much money and is not eligible for food stamps or
welfare. Joe Legal pays $500.00 per month for food, or $6,000.00 per
year. Joe Legal now has $18,031.00.


Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for food stamps
and welfare. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.


Joe Legal pays rent of $1,200.00 per month, or $14,400.00 per year. Joe
Legal now has $9,631.00.


Jose Illegal receives a $500.00 per month federal rent subsidy. Jose
Illegal pays out that $500.00 per month, or $6,000.00 per year. Jose Illegal
still has $ 31,200.00.


Joe Legal pays $200.00 per month, or $2,400.00 for insurance. Joe Legal
now has $7,231.00.


Jose Illegal says, "We don't need no stinkin' insurance!" and still has
$31,200.00.


Joe Legal has to make his $7,231..00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, etc.


Jose Illegal has to make his $31,200.00 stretch to pay utilities,
gasoline, and what he sends out of the country every month.


Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after
work.


Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.


Joe Legal's and Jose Illegal's children both attend the same school. Joe
Legal pays for his children's lunches while Jose Illegal's children get
a government sponsored lunch. Jose Illegal's children have an after
school ESL program. Joe Legal's children go home.


Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same police and fire services,
but Joe paid for them and Jose did not pay.


Do you get it, now?
 
Joe Legal: $25.00 per hour x 40 hours = $1000.00 per week, or $52,000.00
per year. Now take 30% away for state and federal tax; Joe Legal now has
$31,231.00.

I like the concept, but folks around the country need to get this mistake through their heads - someone who makes $52,000 and has a wife (who doesn't work) and kids does not pay taxes. The rest of it holds true, they still pay SS, medicare, etc. but this silly notion that he pays 30% away for income tax is damaging. $52,000/year with 3 dependents is not particularly far from MAKING money on the tax code (ie: getting back more than you put in). One of my friends is in a very similar situation, makes $100,000 and pays almost nothing in tax.
 
Back