apple0154
MEOW
As more and more people become unsure of their job and the medical coverage that goes with it government medical will look better and better.
8 Facts That Prove the Tea Party Is Ignorant of the U.S. Constitution
- Thread starter poet
- Start date
As more and more people become unsure of their job and the medical coverage that goes with it government medical will look better and better.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
access to medical care is one thing. mandating someone purchase a product or service, whether it's health insurance or a handgun, is another thing entirely. It is you being silly by obfuscating the issue.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
having dealt with government medical/dental as a US marine and through the VA, you could not be any further from the truth.
poet
Banned
Having been an employee of a provider, for almost 20 years, and a biller for 2, you couldn't be further from the truth. The VA???? What a bureaucratic nightmare and piss poor provider that is.
Alias
Banned
You mean once you get people dependent on govt health care they will not want to change back. I agree with that. That's why we need to reverse the trend to be a nanny state and go back to being the land of the free. Govt running more of our lives does not make us more free or stronger as a nation. Just the opposite.
Alias
Banned
The VA is a microcosm of national govt run health care. In your own words......"What a bureaucratic nightmare and piss poor provider that is."
Thanks for proving our point.
poet
Banned
No it isn't...it's an offshoot of the military, which needs massive overhauling and curtailing of waste, itself. While Medicare and Medicaid work relatively well, and have been.
Your point was hardly proved. Thank you.
christiefan915
Catalyst
That's one site only. Here are a few more. Perhaps your pregnancy(ies) was different, but I have to go by what I experienced during mine.
Ultrasound
Although an unborn baby's heart starts beating in the fifth week of pregnancy, it is still too small to hear. At this stage, it can be seen on a vaginal ultrasound as a flickering light. The American Pregnancy Association states that the normal heartbeat at this stage is about 90 to 110 beats per minute. By the ninth week of pregnancy, the normal heartbeat range increases to 140 to 170 beats per minute and may be audible during a standard ultrasound.
Doppler
A Doppler is a handheld machine that bounces sound waves off the baby's heart and picks them up in a receiver, converting them into an audible heartbeat. Marjorie Greenfield, M.D., states that you may be able to hear an unborn baby's heartbeat during the ninth or tenth week of pregnancy and can hear it consistently by the twelfth week. At this stage, the normal heart rate will be between 120 and 160 beats per minute and may differ according to the baby's activity level.
Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/233232-at-what-age-can-you-hear-a-babys-heartbeat/#ixzz1fiixWpqV
The stethoscope is a common medical symbol. We have all had someone listen to our heart or our lungs with this special listening device that amplifies your internal noises. This trusty device is also good for listening to baby's in utero. Typically you can hear the baby's heart beat at about 18-20 weeks, depending on maternal and fetal factors (weight of mom, position of baby, location of the placenta, etc.).
The Fetal Doppler uses ultrasound technology to bounce sound waves off the baby and return a representation of the fetal heart beat. Some specialized devices can be used as early as eight weeks. Though 12 weeks into pregnancy is a more normal time frame. The sound is usually that of galloping horses.
http://pregnancy.about.com/od/prenatalcare/ss/listeningtobaby_4.htm
With modern Doppler devices, a fetal heartbeat can be heard from 10-12 weeks, although not hearing them up to 12 weeks is not particularly worrisome. With only a stethoscope you'd have to wait until about 18-20 weeks.
http://www.babyzone.com/askanexpert/hearing-fetal-heartbeat
poet
Banned
So that would mean that "Failias" is wrong, yet again. Sweet.
apple0154
MEOW
Everyone has to chip in. It's the same with SS. If the needy were helped everyone wouldn't have to contribute as much to SS. Unfortunately, some people are so selfish they won't help if there's nothing in it for them so governments are forced to implement national plans. If everyone agreed to a small tax increase to help the needy a government plan wouldn't be necessary. What the government needs to do is tax back the SS benefits from those who do not require them.
apple0154
MEOW
Are you implying no coverage would have been better?
apple0154
MEOW
There's no running of lives. If the people want it, if the people realize it's better than what they have now, why shouldn't government provide it?
People are dependent on insurance companies. Does buying medical insurance make one less free and the nation weaker?
The nanny state argument doesn't make any sense. Taxes are payment for services just as one would pay a plumber or doctor or carpenter or auto mechanic. Does paying a mechanic make one weak? Does paying a plumber weaken the nation?
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
I was at this networking breakfast where our esteemed former county exec was speaking to the business community. At the time he was a Democrat (though he later switched parties). He told this stupid joke about one man who goes to the government hospital to get his arm fixed, and it falls off, and the other who goes to the private hospital to get his arm fixed telling the other guy, you get what you pay for. I guess I was the only one in the audience wondering what you tell the poor bastard who has no money or insurance? Too bad about your arm? But this is how these people think.
What is even more amusing is they tell stories about their problems using the VA. Where do these people live? On another planet? Don't they know people who have horror stories about employee based HMO's??? Are they kidding me???
This is willful ignorance at its finest. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
And I do know a lot of people who use the VA, mostly from my time in the peace movement, where i met and became friendly with many VFP'ers as well as the IVAW'ers. Some of them have complaints (though I never heard a horror story like, they denied me coverage and I lost my house), and some of them have nothing but good things to say. There is no perfect system. There just isn't. So when liberals talk about universal health care we understand it won't be perfect. But it will be good. It will be better than what we have now where Americans are dying, Americans are suffering, Americans are unable to see a doctor. There's a reason why in every country they have universal health care, politicians of no party will come out for ending it, or even cutting it. It's political suicide. There's a reason why people in those other countries won't give it up.
But righties live in denial, and they lack empathy. So they claim no one dies in this country from lack of health care. The thing you have to understand about the right-wing mind is it's all about them. That's why Nancy Reagan is for stem-cell research, bucking her party. Because she lost her husband to a disease that she believes would be helped or cured by the research. That's why the one thing Dick Cheney ever bucked the base on was gays. His daughter is gay. So unless a righty loses someone they love to lack of health care, they don't care. They. Don't. Care.
We can either wait around for every Republican in the country to suffer such a loss, or we can move ahead and do the decent thing without them and in spite of their lies, their whining, and their staggering selfishness. I know which side I'm on. And no one I love has to die before I can feel something for the suffering of another human being.
But righties live in denial, and they lack empathy. So they claim no one dies in this country from lack of health care. The thing you have to understand about the right-wing mind is it's all about them. That's why Nancy Reagan is for stem-cell research, bucking her party. Because she lost her husband to a disease that she believes would be helped or cured by the research. That's why the one thing Dick Cheney ever bucked the base on was gays. His daughter is gay. So unless a righty loses someone they love to lack of health care, they don't care. They. Don't. Care.
We can either wait around for every Republican in the country to suffer such a loss, or we can move ahead and do the decent thing without them and in spite of their lies, their whining, and their staggering selfishness. I know which side I'm on. And no one I love has to die before I can feel something for the suffering of another human being.
apple0154
MEOW
I think there is a fundamental difference going unnoticed. Regarding the VA does the government pay a provider, an insurance company to run the program? If yes, then that is not the way universal government medical works. Universal or full government medical does not use a "provider".
For example, let's say broken legs are covered by government medical. Casts, if necessaary, are covered. Also stainless steel/titanium rods are covered, if needed. So, a person enters the hospital with a broken leg. While repairing the leg the doctor decides a rod should be used to help support the bone. The doctor installs the rod. He does not contact a "provider" or anyone else. He, and he alone, makes the decision.
That's why all the talk about government medical resulting in death panels was, in a sense, quite humorous. Government does not get involved in individual cases. Once a provider or middle man gets involved that's when all the problems start. Provider ABC will try to undercut Provider XYZ by denying certain procedures and that's why providers have to be removed.
I think the opposition to government medical would greatly lessen if it was properly explained. Perhaps the following example will help. Let's say there is a stay-at-home Mom and her husband gives her a credit card to pay for expenses. She purchases clothes for the kids, food, pays the utilities, etc. At the end of the month the husband pays the CC bill. (The analogy being the husband is the government and the wife is the doctor.)
When the husband pays the bill he does not check the kid's closet to see what clothes were bought nor check the fridge to see what food his wife purchased. If expenses have to be cut both husband and wife will discuss the matter and arrive at a dollar amount, however, the wife will decide what purchases to make. Whether she spends less on clothes and the same on food, or vice versa, she will be making the decision. The husband (the government) will not get involved to the point where he decides what clothes to purchase for his son (an individual patient) and what clothes to purchase for his daughter (another individual patient).
Finally, considering government medical has to cover the entire population more illnesses are covered than by any individual policy providing people with the greatest coverage.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
no, we don't. you are wrong. it's not the same as SS, at all.
it's not about 'selfishness', as the liberals have been trying to paint everybody as.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
at this point, yes. with everything that I need to get looked at and worked on right now, because of the ineptness and unaccountability of the military and VA, I would have to spend around 40k at a minimum. money i certainly don't have. so yes, no coverage back then would have been better.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
because they have no authority to do so.
now explain why we're dependent upon insurance companies.
strawman, total invalid comparison.
apple0154
MEOW
Are you saying mistakes or omissions by the VA have resulted in further health concerns?
apple0154
MEOW
So you're saying promoting the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty have nothing to do with the health of the citizens?
People wouldn't be able to afford major medical procedures unless they were insured.
It's not an invalid argument. You said having the government do things for people is not good.
The real problem is taxes. Let's face it if the government said medical care was free and could absolutely guarantee no tax increases no one would complain. The problem is how the taxes are spent. People have consigned themselves to accept governments that spend taxes any way they want and, therefore, don't want government involved in anything else and that's what Obama is trying to change.
Make medical care a priority. If national defence is a priority, the protection of people's lives, then surely medical care is a priority. Again, how many people have died due to terrorist attacks compared to the known 45,000 who die every year due to a lack of medical care?
Where is the logic? Well, the logic is the wealthy folks can afford medical insurance so that's not a concern to them. They will never die due to a lack of medical care so it's not a priority. They have a greater chance of dying due to terrorists than they do to a lack of medical care so that's why government policy is the way it is. However, those who can not afford medical care have many times the probability of dying from a lack of medical care than they due from a terrorist attack.