Free Upload File Centre http://Www.fastuploadfiles.com...

Did he really say the drug companies have to go back to inventing more vaccines? We have a problem now with too MANY vaccines that need to be given. New ones in the last 10 years, just off the top of my head, Gardasil, Hep A, Rotavirus, Menactra, adult pertussis, shingles, pneumococcus, probably more that are out of my area of expertise…

jessie924 on June 22, 2007 at 8:43 AM

Right on, jessie. The number of ‘necessary’ shots out there is starting to look like they’re overdone.

Incidentally this is where many anti-vaccine groups get some of their ammunition. People will only stand being used as pincushions in their Doc’s office for so long.

Alright, I should get to bed, or else I might get sick and have to pay another whopping $30 to see my doctor and pay another exorbitant $15 for some medication, to go along with my horrific free college education, and mind-boggling 36% income tax.

I’m not impressed, Sexion. I pay 25% in federal income taxes, 8% in state sales taxes, and have health insurance via my current employer. In addition I have pursued both my undergraduate and masters degrees for free via my current and previous employers’ training programs.

Believe me, if I were “Emperor for a Day” I would do a lot to overhaul the current health care system. The real number of chronically uninsured Americans is only 25 million, not bad for a nation of 300 million, but that’s still unacceptable. I’d like to see more market mechanisms in place to control costs. Real medical savings accounts would be a good start. I’d also like to rein in the way drug companies game the system to extend their patents. This would give Americans access to cheaper generic drugs.

But there’s no way in hell I’m going to trust the same politicians who have been promising to “fix” the border for the last twenty years to radically overhaul the current health care system. Absolutely not.

The law is:42 U.S.C.A. § 1395dd.

pat on June 24, 2007 at 10:58 PM

And as I thought, the law is only talking about emergencies, and in those cases, the federal government will subsidize the hospitals for expenses incurred.

Too many hospitals were treating illegal immigrants (as required by Federal law), however they never got paid as a result they ran out of money…

F15Mech on June 24, 2007 at 2:00 AM

What federal law requires this? In any case, this should only happen in emergencies.

However a national health care system run by the government is not a “part” is it?

It will be part as long as private health care is still there. Perhaps a provision where anyone can get treatment at hospitals that they need, and if they cannot afford to pay, the government will step in to help. There are many different ways to achieve this goal, it just takes a bit of innovation and will.

I have no delusions about the Norwegian system, as is, working in the United States. It won’t. The US is too big, with too many people, with too much national debt, and too much pork in the budgets for that to be feasible. But that doesn’t mean that the general idea, of providing the uninsured with a safety net for health care, isn’t feasible in some way.

No wonder poor people vote for Democrats – the supposed “compassionate conservative” crowd would rather that they die of cancer than use tax money to help them. Instead of building bridges to nowhere, we could be saving lives.

1. Why can’t the government be at least part of the answer?

There is the problem…part of the answer is ok(see Medicare/Medicaid).

However a national health care system run by the government is not a “part” is it?

So is this supposed to be evidence that the current health care system is working…? Bankrupt hospitals = good system? Explain.

Long story short…

Too many hospitals were treating illegal immigrants (as required by Federal law), however they never got paid as a result they ran out of money…

Yep now I can afford my own insurance and can pay my bills, as a result I don’t have to have a hospital write off a debt.

That’s nice for you, but what about the less fortunate?

Also in 2003 77 hospitals in the SE border states went bankrupt according to this article. (I know of one in 2005).

So is this supposed to be evidence that the current health care system is working…? Bankrupt hospitals = good system? Explain.

I am saying that the govt is not the answer.
There are charities that provide food, shelter, clothing already. It is not the governments job to do it.

1. Why can’t the government be at least part of the answer? Just saying no isn’t an argument – that’s what anti-war liberals have been doing for 4 years now.
2. If its not the government’s job to ensure the well-being of its people, what exactly is the job of the government? What do you think Medicare is? What do you think welfare is? What do you think the public education system is? Bells and whistles? Charities are no guarantee.

Show me where in Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs does it say the government must provide for the “lowest rung”.

Did anyone order a Strawman? A Strawman anyone? I’ve got a fresh Strawman here!

I am not exactly sure but I would say it is greed (and not poverty) like you were trying to say.

Sure, there are those who commit crime due to greed. Generally, though, who commit crimes? Poor or rich people? Why is it that in countries where there are less poor people, there is less crime? Can you explain this phenomenon? Also, sticking with your greed theme, are you more or less likely to be consumed with greed if you are poor or not poor?

People in the US do not commit crime because they are starving, or need shelter or need medical care etc.

I think you’d be surprised to know that most crime is exactly due to this type of thing. Desperate people use desperate measures. That’s not to suggest that all crime is done for this reason, but once you remove poverty, a lot of crime goes along with it.

They commit crime because they want something (be it money, Plasma TV’s, Cars, Drugs, Sex etc) and are not willing to work for it.

Or maybe because they’re poor, because they can’t get/find a job?

Don’t get me wrong. I’ve known rich kids who jacked cars for fun. But they’re the exception, not the rule. (And they most likely got less fortunate people to help them with the promise of a quick pay-off…)

The text above is Seixon’s quotes.

The text in quotes is my response.

I am done (I took this thread completely off topic, sorry about that).

I am not exactly sure but I would say it is greed (and not poverty) like you were trying to say.

People in the US do not commit crime because they are starving, or need shelter or need medical care etc.

They commit crime because they want something (be it money, Plasma TV’s, Cars, Drugs, Sex etc) and are not willing to work for it.

Would that cause be alleviated if most people got the bare necessities and could focus on a fulfilling life?

No I don’t think so since the cause of crime in the US does not fit into the lower rung of needs you refer to. (I suppose rape does).

Seixon on June 23, 2007 at 7:56 PM

Show me where in Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs does it say the government must provide for the “lowest rung”.

But I guess so you’d rather pretend the people who are in that situation don’t exist?

Not at all.

I am saying that the govt is not the answer.
There are charities that provide food, shelter, clothing already. It is not the governments job to do it.

That was 15 years ago. Welcome to 2007.

Seixon on June 23, 2007 at 7:56 PM

Yep now I can afford my own insurance and can pay my bills, as a result I don’t have to have a hospital write off a debt.

Also in 2003 77 hospitals in the SE border states went bankrupt according to this article. (I know of one in 2005).

I for one do not want the government making sure I get food health and shelter. If that is all I need and the government provides it for me (socialism BTW) at what point do I become responsible for my own needs and what is the incentive for me to better myself?

I don’t know, why don’t you ask most Norwegians? For most people, barely scraping by on the help of the government isn’t exactly what one would call fulfilling. But I guess so you’d rather pretend the people who are in that situation don’t exist?

Familiar with Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs? Having the government ensure that the lowest rung of that is provided for everyone isn’t exactly “all” a human needs, but it’s the bare necessities.

And again, I will ask you as others, what is the leading cause of crime in the United States? Would that cause be alleviated if most people got the bare necessities and could focus on a fulfilling life?

Even when I was young and poor, I never had to worry about treatment in an emergency room. There is a hospital in Maine that wrote off a $5,000 debt approx 15 years ago because I could not afford to pay it. (makes me wonder if they take cash).

That was 15 years ago. Welcome to 2007.

Shelter, food, and health are the primary needs of a human being. The government must ensure that its citizens have access to these things.

I have to disagree with you 100% (And that also sent me into convulsions).

I for one do not want the government making sure I get food health and shelter. If that is all I need and the government provides it for me (socialism BTW) at what point do I become responsible for my own needs and what is the incentive for me to better myself?

Even when I was young and poor, I never had to worry about treatment in an emergency room. There is a hospital in Maine that wrote off a $5,000 debt approx 15 years ago because I could not afford to pay it. (makes me wonder if they take cash).

Entelechy,

It is always an honor reading your posts.

While I love this country, after reading your posts I somehow feel…like a slug, it makes me realize I do not appreciate the US as much as I should.

For that I thank you.

Seixon, I help them get treated and paid for every single day of my life, in ways you can’t even imagine.

And for every one of them, there are countless others that don’t get it.

This is the last comment from me to you, as calling me a liar based on your ideology, and nothing else, and claiming that I cause suffering and deaths, makes it futile to continue.

My ideology? So you deny the FACT that many millions of Americans cannot afford health insurance, health care, and thus have no way of being treated?

You stated: “Every person here, rich or poor already get healthcare.”

This is untrue. False. You know that it is. Thus, a lie. I’m sorry if that offends your sensibilities, but defending your ideology with lies is not something I take lightly to.

p.s. I never claimed that Norway is the end.

OK, so if Norway isn’t nearing its end, why would the US near its end if it adopted some of the health care practices from Norway?

p.s. I never claimed that Norway is the end.

Every person here, rich or poor already get healthcare. The cluster-bleep here is not on who gets it and who doesn’t (all do), it’s on how it gets paid, or ‘eaten’ by the hospital as a charity, the administration, conflicting regulation, insurance, and much more. I work with this every single day. The rest is made up socialist filth, supported by blind- media and ideology.

This is just a blatant lie. If someone needs health care and can’t pay for it, they are more than likely not to get it. That’s just like saying anyone can get themselves a house or a Ferrari – if only they’d put themselves into many thousand dollars in debt they can! Yeay! Ferraris for everyone!

Riddle me this, someone who makes less than $15,000 per year, and cannot afford health insurance, if they get cancer – how are they going to pay for treatment? They can’t.

What in the hell is wrong with you people? I will say it again and again, do we want to live in a nation where people need to steal from each other to stay alive? Because that’s what’s going on now, and you, the typical Hot Air reader, might one day end up being robbed or murdered because of it.

Your indifference costs many people their lives every day.

No need to spar ad infinitum. We’ll just politely agree to disagree. You keep yours and we’ll work hard to improve ours. Our differences, Europe and here, are greater than healthcare – it’s an entire philosophy and way of life, individual and as a society. When the U.S. goes that way, it will be the End.

Yes, because Norway is nearing the End. Oh wait, not it’s not. Oh well. It’s not like you care about the truth or facts. Keep the faith!

You get convulsions from every man, woman and child being able to get health care no matter if they are rich or poor?…

Seixon on June 23, 2007 at 12:02 PM

No, I get convulsions from socialist- and communist- leaning drivel, every single time. I lived it to the bone for too long.

Every person here, rich or poor already get healthcare. The cluster-bleep here is not on who gets it and who doesn’t (all do), it’s on how it gets paid, or ‘eaten’ by the hospital as a charity, the administration, conflicting regulation, insurance, and much more. I work with this every single day. The rest is made up socialist filth, supported by blind- media and ideology.

No need to spar ad infinitum. We’ll just politely agree to disagree. You keep yours and we’ll work hard to improve ours. Our differences, Europe and here, are greater than healthcare – it’s an entire philosophy and way of life, individual and as a society. When the U.S. goes that way, it will be the End.

Seixon, with respect, I’m from Europe, the former communist one. Your commentary today gave me convulsions. These two worlds will never meet. I, for one, will see to it.

Entelechy on June 23, 2007 at 2:00 AM

That’s great, but I don’t live under a communist system, so what’s your point? You get convulsions from every man, woman and child being able to get health care no matter if they are rich or poor?

Awesome question.

Yakko77 on June 23, 2007 at 11:35 AM

Yes, strawmen questions are awesome. Golf clap.

Moore complains that we’ve gone from 30 pharma companies developing drugs and vaccines to only 5 and this is the reason why new vaccines aren’t being developed. My question for Moore, is if 5 pharma companies are less innovative than 30, just how innovative does he think having a single, government controlled pharma company will be?

rokemronnie on June 22, 2007 at 3:39 PM

Awesome question.

Physician, heal thy bloat!