Be careful of any one who says this is good for you BUT not for me. 

You should really talk to more people then, because I'm on the verge of simply calling you an outright liar. Like Ben, I'm one of these people from a country with truly socialized medicine ('ObamaCare' isn't socialist in the slightest when compared to my healthcare), and there's really no major grips with the system. Infact, it's a source of national pride and any attempt to dismantle 'socialist healthcare' would result in an immediate election and a public revolt across the country. The same is true in most places where nationalized healthcare exists.

In fact, the founder of the Canadian healthcare system, Tommy Douglas, is actually considered the greatest canadian of all time according to polls . The UK's NHS founder, William Beveridge, is also widely loved in the UK.

Ancedotal evidence about how bad socialist foreign healthcare is doesn't work when you're talking to people who live with foreign socialist healthcare. My ancedotal evidence sample size is much larger than yours, perhaps try statistics?


"Socialised medicine might be okay for people who are basically healthy, who don't need anything beyond routine medical care"
---It's actually the opposite. Getting routine care can be a hassle, but when it comes to the serious stuff you can always rely on getting treated in time without worrying about the expenses. By comparison, in America around 50% of all bankrupcies are filed due to medical expenses.

Is the act of repeating continuously disproved falsehoods about Obama's health care bill considered a preexisting condition? I hope not so that all these people can get treatment for it.  Or maybe they could look up some actual facts about what's going on.

If you don't want to be accused of falsehoods, than prove yourself right.

I did read through that particular thread and a few things occurred to me. First of all, the thread itself up until that point does not really make mention of difficulty obtaining treatment, although there are some clues to its difficulty to begin with: first, there are a lot of posts recommending other posters to hospitals in different countries, which is always a private (read: you have to pay for it) endeavor. Second, the fact of this surgery I think is something we should consider. Any invasive surgery is already higher on the "We Won't Cover It" scale than any pharmacological or counseling-based therapy. And considering the fact that people in this thread are being referred to doctors in other countries to get the surgery done, it's obvious that it is something that requires a specialist, which would also put it higher on that scale. So I don't know what your point is. Just because it's hard to get treatment for extremely specialized surgeries to deal with rare conditions doesn't in any way reflect on the state of a country's health care system. It's like that everywhere and that won' change.

And then there's the part where the thread turns into a debate about whether this guy even needs the surgery or even has ET to begin with.

And there's also the part where this entire anecdote doesn't really prove anything about anything you were trying to say about health care.

Well I think the reason it's harder to go for a checkup is because the doctors are all off handling the bigger, more important cases. And also...your last statement doesn't make sense. Please clarify that.

No, no one wants socialized medicine. Which is why I'm glad we're not going to get it either way. Obama's plan isn't socialization, ok, it's just reform of the current system. "Socialized" is just a term the right likes to throw around to scare people into thinking that the person who proposed the plan is a radical. What Obama is proposing is very far from socialization. But again, why would the conservatives care? It serves their purposes better to scare people with ridiculous statements than actually understand what's going on.

Fun history fact: Conservatives now are comparing Obama's plan to socialism and Obama's character to that of Hitler. However, if we look back to the Eastern Front in World War 2 it's easy for us to see that Socialism and Fascism (of which Hitler is obviously the posterchild) are bitter enemies. So he's either a fascist, or he's a socialist. He can't be both, because those two ideologies are mutually exclusive.

"SEC. 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE.
(a) IN GENERAL.⦣8364;”Except as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of
3 high quality health care or related services.
(b) IMPLEMENTATION.⦣8364;”To implement the requirement set forth in subsection (a), the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall, not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, promulgate such regulations as are necessary or appropriate to insure that all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act are provided (whether directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements) without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services."

Doesn't say anything about covering illegal aliens. It could very well be established or argued that the person's immigrant status *is not* extraneous and could be a reason for witholding

Page 30, Section 123 ---- Government committees will decide what treatments and coverage you receive.
A government committee composed of health care professionals, industry leaders, government leaders, etc will put together what the public option plans look like. This means a team of experts design the plan. There is also a provision in there that mandates that they must allow for public input.


Page 58 ---- Provisions for a national ID card
Not seeing this. Page 58 seems to be about making sure billing systems are up to date, fast, and resourceful.

Page 59, Lines 21-24 ---- Government will have access to individual finances and accounts for electronic payment.
"( c ) enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance advice;"

Just saying that if you want to pay this way, the option should be available. I, myself, almost always prefer to pay electronically. I hate having to deal with writing and mailing checks.

Page 65, Section 164 ---- Subsidized plan for retirees and their families in Unions & community orgs (ACORN).
It's a subsidized plan for retirees and their families period. If your employer pays for your insurance, and you retire and aren't covered by any other plan, the government may help pay for your insurance. I'm not sure where the other half came from.


Page 124, lines 24-25 ---- No company can sue the government on price fixing. No judicial review.
Looks like it is discussing how much the insurance plan will be paying health care professionals for their service. It talks about giving them incentives for participating in the plan by paying them rates up to 5% higher than other insurance companies would. Exactly what these prices will be is determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and they are not subject to a judicial review.

Page 145, lines 15-17 ---- Employer must auto enroll employees into public option plan. No choice.
Flat out wrong. A little later on page 147 it says the following:
"(1) IN GENERAL. The requirement of this subsection with respect to an employer and an employee is that the employer automatically enroll suchs employee into the employment-based health benefits plan for individual coverage under the plan option with the lowest applicable employee premium.
(2) OPT-OUT.⦣8364;”In no case may an employer automatically enroll an employee in a plan under paragraph (1) if such employee makes an affirmative election to opt out of such plan or to elect coverage under an employment-based health benefits plan offered by such employer. An employer shall provide an employee with a 30-day period to make such an affirmative election before the employer may automatically enroll the employee in such a plan."

This protects against people who miss the deadline for enrollment for some reason and are left for a year without health insurance. I've seen it happen. It sucks.

Page 253, lines 10-18 ---- Government sets value of Doctors' time, professional judgement, treatment and ultimately your life.
It says that it is amending Social Security (not the public health care option) to say that the Secretary of Health and Human Services should establish a procedure for re-evaluating the value of certain services should they become over or under priced. Basically it's saying that Social Security's plan should keep up with the times. It also doesn't say that the Secretary can do whatever they want willy nilly. The procedure has to be established in general, not in specific.


Page 425, lines 22-25 ---- Government provides approved list of end of life resources
Or rather, in an advanced care consultation the doctor must show the patient a list of resource provided by the national and state governments. Not approved by, but provided by. It's nice to know what resources you have available to you, and then you can decide to disregard them if you want.


Page 429, lines 13-25 ---- The government will specify which Doctors can write an end of life order.
No. The government only specified what the definition of doctor was. And it also allows for nurses and some other health care professionals to sign it as well. And just to be clear, an end of life order is just a document that states what your preference is on pulling the plug/sustaining life. It can be for either preference.


Page 430, lines 11-15 ---- The government will decide what level of treatment you receive at end of life.
Again, flat out wrong. It says that it is determined by sub paragraph A, which is the one about you writing up a document with your preference in it. It's saying that your preference can be for full support or you can choose to limit treatment to only *certain* interventions. It's up to you.

Page 472, lines 14-17 ---- Mandatory monthly payment to a community-based organization (ACORN)
This actually says that if a high needs person who is receiving government funds for health care opts for medical home services through a community organized or charity organized medical service provider, that the government will make one payment to that medical service provider and one to the primary health care provider. There is also a whole section on how these organizations can become accredited and therefore covered.

So, no ACORN. Sorry.


Anyways, that was just a quick lookup in the actual text. Took me about 45 minutes. But I guess it's nice to be able to pull random parts of the bill, take them at really horribly biased face value in a deliberate attempt to proclaim that we're up against some pure evil plot. But a simple reading and just a *tiny* bit of context shows that these are completely baseless. It's really too bad that right-wingers are being too lazy to figure out the truth and would rather spread fear and lies. What could be an actually productive debate is turning into a circus.

Seriously, it's okay to argue against it. Just do it with respect for the real facts, and not the ones the right has made up in order to demonize the left.

sometimes, all it takes is a little context.

Oh, and if Obama himself came out and made those statements above, I wouldn't swap sides. I would work towards impeachment. Why? Because the reason I voted for him is because he seemed to be able to cut through the crap and misinformation, he seemed authentic. If he posted the above, I would be proven wrong.

Also, if he actually said that's what he was going for (what you posted), I would also jump ship. Good thing he's not.

True.. but, its partisan politics in plain sight. Democrats try to justify their budgets whilst GOP justify their own as well. Since neither party will truly show much of a wish to end this spend and borrow system..  

I just dont want to see people believing things that arent true
about the health-care bill.. thats all. (;

I mean this in a nice way, but if you still believe that my assertions about the bill are incorrect, then go ahead... prove me wrong.

you have played your hand, lightshineon... you have played your hand.

I'm not going to be a drama queen, or backbite with you any more.

Now, after reading a lot of the posts by some people, it seems that when one side of a debate presents facts, and evidence to back them up, and such, people who disagreed with them would rather engage in slander, hate, and soundbites, instead of focusing on the actual argument in hand.


It seems as tho some people have this.. image in their head, that every-single Christian should have certain political views. And some people cant stand the fact that the stereotype isnt true. Maybe that assertion is right, maybe its not.. but for the time being, it sure seems like it.

So, bye. And.. congratulations. I hope you're happy.

It has come to my conclusion that this.. Christian Forums has members with significant disrespect for President Obama, whom God has put in charge of us (yes, if we dont like the president, we still have to respect him.. not call him ludicrous names. It sure shows how much people trust in God when He gives people a prez they dont like... spending time saying that you hate him, and bashing him doesnt do anybody any good).

And, in addition to that, some of the things said to me, in PMs and as well as in public threads, leads me to think this forum should be considered ANYthing but Christian.

Why hasnt anyone here acknowledged the Obvious?

Obama is a PR guy. A Puppet.
He doenst call any shots or make policy.

Those decisions come from his Senior Advisors, Rahm Emmanuel and David Axelrod.
Rahm is the son of Israeli terrrorists.

This was even reported on Drudge.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2009/10/68500951/1