US Goverment coul possible be able to shut down internet

The issue isn't the need but how it will be implemented.

Whole hospitals out here were shut down because of the line of people seeking regular health care at the ER, sometimes waiting hours or days. Yes it points up the need. But it also points up what the wait will be like once the system offers free everything.

Where is the money going to come from? Who will guard against fraud the way it happens already with Medicaid and Medicare?

Also there is no greater group of pencil pushing admins than the govt.!

Well, say that to the person who dies waiting for surgery because the govt. deemed their need to be lesser.

We are NOT those nations (I knew you'd say this, which is why I said that last time.) Our govt. is also totally different. We are capitalists (or were), not socialists.



Disagree with both statements. (And btw, law makers decide some of that - NOT private companies. LOL)



Excuse me - you are labeling my posts as fear and emotion filled, when you have only stated your own opinions as well. Where are your own stats? Saying that, I have to add: I do not want to see them. Lies, Damn lies, and Statistics.

I'm not in fear of the bill as it stands - just loathing. (A nice, emotion-filled word for you.)

i agree that i dont know the best solution...however what we have now is pitiful...i have a friend who went back to the netherlands where they pay almost 50% income tax because she said she would gladly pay that to have the peace of mind and care that the govt provides for life. no worries of insurance and health care, no worries of retirment funding, no worries of who will watch the children, longer vacations, and on and on and on.

seems like there are enough good workable programs in other countries that we should be able to figure one out. we can put people up into orbit around the earth but we cant figure out how to make sure we can all access good healthcare??? something wrong with this picture to me

Something IS wrong with the picture and has been for some time.

But why forbid people from choosing their own health care? Why not just supplement what they choose or have, the way employers currently do?

Why not work on getting costs down, why not regulate so only one or two of the exact same type of specialty medical center can be in a given area? So they don't constantly compete? I do have a lot of facts at my fingertips in fact but I don't want to bring RL into this too much.

I can only say, talk to those who make their living in the field, and get their ideas. Or to business owners like the CEO of Whole Foods - who was all but gutted in the public square for his reasonable suggestions.

The antithesis of capitalism is to have ONE anything.

Would be nice if we actually had a free market in health care.

As someone who uses the heathcare system as much or more than probably anyone else on this board, it scares me to death that the government will take over more of the system. I can get tests done the next day that require waits of weeks or months in other nations. I had surgery done two weeks ago, The surgeon wanted to schedule it the next day for me, but I had him wait a week due to other obligations. How long would I wait if a government panel was in charge?

Exactly, thank you Chris.

Actually we need more specialists, the bigger the supply, the lower the price. Competition drives prices down.

It's not what I'm told - although I will have to find out quite why, perhaps it has something to do with price fixing.

I was adding this to my last post and decided to make it a new one instead.

==

And then, cost-cutting. Tooth decay? Pull it. Lots of bills for in home care? Go to a nursing home. We will all get a standard of care pretty much on par with state prisoners.

We really want one entity to decide all this? What about the balance of power our Founding Fathers found CRUCIAL to freedom?

And, mental health care? Does anyone know about or remember 'state institutions' - not an admirer of their past work. Just read up on the history. All or most of those govt. run institutions were shut down for shabby or criminally negligent treatment of their patients.

We really want one entity to decide all this? What about the balance of power our Founding Fathers found CRUCIAL to freedom?

Imagine it beginning 'okay' and then eventually 'the State' literally decides who lives or dies? How easy would that be, once all competition is removed or even outlawed. Again, we are not other countries - as Europe keeps reminding us in any other conversation.

(And 50 percent tax is pretty much what it would take - Try selling that to Americans. Or, also, getting it from the millions who will soon be or are, out of a job.)

and on the flipside chris....in rl my hubby has to use syringes to administer the medicine he is prescribed and has a ton of health issues as well...routinely the insurance company denies his prescription for the syringes but allows his medicine. then we have to get a letter from the doc etc to get the ins company to allow the syringes...stupid part is...its the same meds and the same ins and the same doc. why does it get kicked out?? because it goes by a formula and not by someone who has a medical background to really evaluate the pieces and parts and make sense of them.

while you are able to get what you need easily...i can tell you story after story of people i know personally who have had tragedies because they cant get what they need in a timely manner because of the current system. i am more than willing to give a NEW system a chance and it seems the govt is the only group willing to step up and try to tackle this.

id be thrilled if the ins companies were on board and even were driving the reform...but that wont happen. in my mind anything the govt comes up with would be an improvement...and i have no idea what these "panels" are that everyone keeps referring to. if its anything that isnt an insurance company making medical decisions, then it will get my support.

Jojo, why do you feel the govt. run care would be an improvement? They would have even more incentive to cut costs.

Also look how 'well' they budget other programs - military expenditure for example.

i think the govt has the potential to get something new and get the peeps in charge NOT to be insurance companies and drug companies out to make a buck.

as for previous mental health "institutions" many were actually MUCH better than what we have now. one of the largest and most successful had their patients grow their own food, raise animals for food, learn trades, help to clean and maintain the properties etc. it was much more therapeutic than medicating people into oblivion and tying them to a chair so they dont fall out 24/7. this all changed when the prevelance of heavy medicaitions and profit were injected into the system. and who makes the profits?? insurance companies and drug companies. it is more profitable for these folks to be strapped down all day than to have a somewhat productive life...cuz it costs more to do that.

the main problem with this argument is that we have not seen a real proposal to objectively evaluate. anything being tossed around right now is hype from either side. i will wait to make my judgements when i can read the plan set forth...until them i can only say what i think would be better....thank goodness the govt is at least trying to effect change.

From http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20080716/cancer-survival-rates-vary-by-country

"While Coleman and other epidemiologists have long known that cancer survival rates vary country by country, and even within a country, the study lends hard numbers to the fact. Still, there were surprises. 'I think the surprises were that the range in global survival is really quite wide,' Coleman tells WebMD.

'Survival in the USA is high on a global scale but varies quite widely among individual states as well as between blacks and whites within the USA,' he tells WebMD.

Cancer Survival by Country

Coleman and colleagues drew on data from nearly 2 million cancer patients, ages 15 to 99, whose medical information was entered into 101 population-based cancer registries in 31 countries. The patients had been diagnosed with one of four cancers: breast, colon, rectum, or prostate cancers during the years 1990-1994. They were followed up to 1999, with the researchers comparing five-year survival rates.

The highest survival rates were found in the U.S. for breast and prostate cancer, in Japan for colon and rectal cancers in men, and in France for colon and rectal cancers in women, Coleman's team reports.

In Canada and Australia, survival was also high for most cancers."

_______________________________

Not true for all types of cancer, and when it is true, not consistent by location or race, and not much better, even at its best, than some other countries. Not as impressive a statistic as it appears on the surface.

Also, cancer is only one disease. Overall, approximately 20 countries have better longevity and infant mortality rates than the US. Many of those countries never had a significant private sector medical insurance system, though most of them do have private sector supplementary insurance to compliment the government plans. In those countries "government meddling" has pretty much had only one effect--to improve health care and health care coverage for their citizens. One reason for that may be that people in those countries aren't paranoid about the government and tend to encourage, and cooperate with, the government's helpful activities, instead of trying to sabotage them.

They are all vibrant democracies, and many of them provide greater personal liberty than the USA does in areas of personal and private conduct. They should make libertarian hearts melt.

and one more point...there are many hundreds of thousands of people in the us who would be thrilled to get the same health care as those in prisions get...because right now they have none.

Why do so many Americans think that countries with universal heath care programs think that somehow it's the big bad government that decides on treatment options? Doctors don't have to call a 1-800 number and wait in a queue to decide if grandma can get tPA to treat her stroke. "Thank you for holding. Sorry but according to our records, Grandma is scheduled for the death squad this evening because she is too old. Have a nice day". The fear mongering on the issue is absolutely stunning.

Hm.. I think I want to see a government "public" insurance option because it would be another jockey in the race. The question is how is the winner going to be judge? Is it going to be the numbers of lives made better by the insurance? The savings to the people who use the insurance? Or is it going to be the savings to the insurances?

Right now, I think both are evil.. but having the alternative of a government run public insurance? It's the lesser of the two evils. And it doesn't necessarily kill the private insurances.

esqu and josh...you are both making rational factual statements....and i have NO clue why americans at the moment appear to be willing to act like sheep to the slaughter and believe any crap thrown out there about the evils of health care reform. i think of americans as well informed but they are woefully ignorant and being guided by people who are in the pockets of the insurance and drug companies. sighhhhh...make me sad that people are so gullible.

But that can be handled with reform, not eradication.



What Utopian pamphlet is that from? I had distant family, who for some reason were shuffled into those places, rather than an orphanage, when their mother was not well enough to raise them. The kids had nothing wrong mentally. Ever seen the film "Snake Pit" - it's more like a documentary. How about "Willowbrook?" I know of too many first hand stories like those, to think the propaganda is true.

Strap people down and medicate them to oblivion is EXACTLY what they did - and a lot else. Lobotomy, shock treatment, sexual abuse...from staff and from other patients under poor supervision.

Would rather not see the reincarnation of such places. Would rather not let some bureaucrat with hundreds of cases a day, decide if I get a crown, or a tooth pulled. Or be put last on a list for an operation for some dubious reason.

I agree with you that A LOT of reform is needed.

I went to the ER a while back for stomach pain and ended up with a CAT scan. Insurance was charged $10,000 for that alone. WHY? Now that should be reformed - absolute price fixing and gouging. But that does not seem to be the primary focus. I'd say, reform first, get experts in and set up a system that will transition smoothly and follow common sense and fairness to all.

How likely is that to happen.

Which is why communist USSR beat those greedy basterds back in that cold waarrr . . oh, they didn't? Dang. And they don't exist any more? Whoa.

Russia, being Russia, is now authoritarian again, but that is neither here nor there.

Who do you think enables such poison pills to go to market, Jojo? Govt. run FDA. Crooked as it gets.

How many drug lobbyists influence politicians?

Why do you think more govt control will lessen this?

Wrong, Josh. There is a system to decide who is next on the list for surgeries. The fact that there IS a list should be cause for pause.

LOL i used to work at that "institution."

My info is not from a movie or from third parties....it is from the people who worked with these folks...developed and administered the programs at this mental hospital and were quite sad that things actually were worse for their patients than they were before the advent of heavy medications as standard practice. This program was well respected in the US and influenced that change from "snakepit" methods in many hospitals in the US. But this was in the 40;, 50's and 60's that things were actually therapeutic. Once the medications were pushed so hard by the companies making money off them, things changed and those programs that worked so well will probably never be seen again on as large a scale. too bad its about profit now and not health.

Did Rush Limbaugh (however that fat twerp spells his name), joined Fox? When was this? If not, why the heck do people keep mentioning Fox and then immediately Rush comes up?

clarissa i have not used the words "govt run" in any of my statements...what i am hoping for is reform not control. i have seen no evidence so far that absolute control will part of any govt plan....esp since i have not been able to see a final version of the plan since one doesnt exist.

btw...there are plenty of lists NOW for who gets surgeries, organ transplants, etc...there have been for many years. and even now some lose out...as my sister did when her name did not come up quick enough to prevent her death.

i am looking for improvements and i do not fear govt involvement in mandating reform.

I don't care to get into the Health Care Debate, but the above quote by Clarissa hits the nail on the head. Unless you have lived in a country that 'provides' government health care and experienced your teeth getting pulled instead of a root canal or crown because you don't have enough money to bribe the dentists to do what's right, you don't have a clue what is coming at you. Dental care will especially get the back seat - who cares about your teeth? Not the Government!

Now, for the original post, yes, the government has had the ability to do anything, especially monitoring the internet for a long time. Not just the U.S. government, but any government that has either mandated such requirements to ISPs or just wants to do it anyway. Cisco and Juniper have had modules for such features in their routers for at least 3 or 4 years. These features are 'transparent' to network admins, they don't even have the access to the level of monitoring being acquired.

On chronic disability:

I work in a Center for Independent Living, some of what I do there is policy analysis. On Chris's points: Most people with disabilities in the USA get their medical coverage through one or more of Medicaid, Medicare, or the VA. If Chris is getting it from private insurance, he's the exception, not the rule. But people served by all of those government systems in the USA do not have long waits for surgery or other treatments. The quality of Medicaid coverage varies by state but at least in some states, Medicaid pays not only for doctor visits and hospital stays, but prescriptions, homecare, and durable medical equipment, with no deductibles and only small co-pays. Medicare--I won't defend Medicare; with its huge deductibles, co-pays, and treatment limitations, it sucks. But Medicaid does NOT suck.

On pencil-pushers:

The administrative rate for Medicaid and Medicare, both government programs, is about 8%. The average administrative rate for private medical insurance is around 20%.

On the current plans under discussion in the USA:

None of them would create major changes in the health care system. The people who wanted major change were locked out of the process early on. The stuff that's on the table now, at its most radical, looks like the system already in place in the state of Massachusetts. Since that would require everybody to have coverage, it's not likely to pass. What's likely to pass is: some form of requirement to have electronic medical records in order to prevent things like different doctors prescribing incompatible medications to the same patient; a requirement that insurance companies can't deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions; some form of expansion of eligibility for Medicaid; possibly some form of co-op group coverage that individuals could buy into, a la what Hilary Clinton proposed in 1993 and got slammed for. That's it. No socialism, no tyranny, and, ultimately, very little impact.

I loath it too--for entirely different reasons.