doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Presidential candidate supports INDIVIDUAL RKBA

Jack, you don't wish to continue the discussion because you've been backed into a corner requiring you to talk specifics rather than a "general proposition". You may not like either the Clinton or Obama universal health care proposals, but they are at least quite specific.

Imagine the following exchange in a debate:

McCain: "Senator Clinton, you support universal health care. Could you explain your plan in more detail?"

Clinton: "Senator McCain, it is well-established that universal health care is cheaper and results in a healthier population in many countries that have adopted such plans. How dare you challenge that general proposition!"

McCain: "I wasn't asking you about the general proposition, Senator Clinton. I was asking you to explain YOUR universal health care plan. I think the American voters have a right to know the details."

So do I, Jack.

On with the blinders and full speed ahead. If all else fails, insults often will stir the pot. Jake

Geez Larry, Jack presented apparent facts that indicate other western countries get better health care at lower cost than does the good ol' U.S. That's valuable information in my book, giving me pause to think maybe we shouldn't reject other countries' experience out of hand. I fail to see how not promoting a particular plan diminishes Jack's point. On the other hand, I have trouble finding a point in your insistence that the facts are without value unless he does.

Hello all, back again. This is the last week of bird season in Georgia so I have had to prioritize. I am glad to see the convesation get back to asking for specific improvements versus feel good generalities. Once again I am here to save the day with a specific course of action, although not a health plan.
This course of action starts with the implementation of a national retail sales tax. Employers no longer can deduct the cost of benefeits to employees because there are no more taxes on income or profit to be deducted from. Employer then says " I think I shall give every one of my employees a raise equivelent to the the cost of the benefeits I used to provide".
Cash in hand the employee now has the responsibility of providing for his or her own health care. Being the intelligent sort the employee seeks a high deductible plan and now has the power to negotiate with care givers because the employee has bankrolled the the difference between the cost of the new high deductible plan and their increase in salary.
Upon realizing that the Federal government has artificialy raised the cost of medical care through compliance mandates traded for grant money taken first from said employee, the employee insists that his congressman and senators let the free market rule and in addition require the severest form of tort control. Peter

Peter, Brilliant. Tort control is the answer. No one should have to be responsible for their own actions. It just ends up causing problems. Jake

Jakearoo if you had ever really looked at how malpractice suits work you would sing a different song. As is your comment is both reactionary and assanine. Peter

Peter, Thank you so much for calling me asinine. (I believe that is the proper spelling.)
By the way, I might know a bit more about malpractice than you think.
Jake

Jakearoo, my apologies. My comments were both reactionary and assanine.
I will now give some examples of how the malpractise system works, whith which I have first hand knowledge.
93 year old man is transported to hospital by ambulance. He has spent the last 12 years in a full care facility. The last 10 years he has been deaf, dumb and blind with no quality of life. Family members rarely visit. At hospital family insists every possible measure be used to preserve life. Man dies anyway. Family sues all physicians who hae seen man in previous 12 months, ambulance service, er physician, hospital and all nurses who paticipated in er. Guess who was paying for nursing home and hospital. Guess how much defense of this suit cost.
Woman is involved in fender bender near hospital entrance. She walks the 100 yards to the er entrance. She reports the accident, asks er to call police and send ambulance. The ambulance is for her so she can claim non existant injury in suit against other driver. Guess who paid for ambulance and er visit.
Woman is told in third trimester her unborn child will have cerebral palsy. Woman sues obgyn claiming the cp was caused during delivery. OBGYN loses big. Malpractise premiums skyrocket so she quits ob practise. Her partners malpractise premiums skyrocket so they quit all ob work to keep costs down. Women all over the area have to find new ob doctor. This is an all female practise. Guess who pays.
Now tell me about the fairness of malpractise law and how it effects the cost of medical care. Peter

Peter, I believe every word of it, result of an extremely litigious society and egregious court awards unlike anything else in the world. We know why it exists. Why it's tolerated is a mystery to me.

King, Jakearoo, Gunflint Charlie - thanks for the kind words. My purpose is not to convince, but simply to inform. Informed citizens will make the best decisions for the future of health care in America. Unless the uninformed continue to predominate.

If there's such a thing as open minds among the defenders of the status quo, they might find some enlightenment in this article* from Business Week: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_28/b4042070.htm

*WARNING: this article describes a specific plan.