"MioMyo" <USA_Patriot@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:MPG.226308b7493d476d989c5f@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> It's not about health care, it's about our duty to protect the for
profit
> system and the insurance companies. Even if we have to lay down our
> lives.
>
> Don't trust government. Look at Bush, the feeble old inbred southern
> hillbilly has ****ed up America beyond repair and if most of us have our
> way,
> will spend the rest of his life in prison along with all the others who
> hijacked the Republican party.
>
> Some say that anyone sup****ting insurance and its basic collectivist
> ideology
> is a socialist and deserve punishment. It's obvious that you're a
> collectivist. Why should I pay premiums to pay for your AIDS treatment
> just
> because you're a queer who takes cock in his ass?
>
> True individualists don't believe in insurance of any kind.
Nonsense. Insurance is a free market solution enabling one to mitigate the
risks posed by life. An "individualist" who dies prematurely without
insurance, leaving a spouse and children to struggle without his or her
income, gets "irresponsible" stamped on their tombstone.
JG
>
>
> Pay for your health care yourself, with cash, or blow your own brains
> out.
>
>
>
>
> <"Dennis" <no surrender@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> wrote:
>> Wa****ngton Times Op-Ed
>>
>> LEAD: Fictions don't become facts through repetition.
>>
>> Keep that in mind next time you hear a politician breathlessly decry
the
>> horrors of the American health-care system and then explain how he
>> intends
>> to fix it. Some of the most popular talking points in the health-care
>> debate
>> pass as the gospel truth simply because, well, they're popular - not
>> because
>> they're true.
>>
>> Below, I debunk the five most prominent health-care myths:
>>
>> (1) Forty-seven million Americans do not have health insurance.
>>
>> This figure comes from the U.S. Census Bureau. What most people don't
>> know,
>> however, is that the Bureau counts anyone who went without health
>> insurance
>> during any part of the previous year as "uninsured." So if you weren't
>> covered for just one day in 2007, you're one of the 47 million.
>>
>> That also includes 10.2 million illegal immigrants, and about 14
million
>> people who are eligible for public health-care programs like Medicaid
or
>> the
>> State Children's Health Insurance Program but have yet to enroll. And
>> nearly
>> 10 million of the "uninsured" have household incomes of more than
>> $75,000 -
>> so they can probably afford to buy health insurance but choose not to.
>>
>> (2) Universal health-care coverage can be achieved via "individual
>> mandate."
>>
>> According to the federal census, nearly two-thirds of the uninsured are
>> aged
>> 18 to 34. This makes sense - healthy people aren't going to pay for
>> expensive insurance they'll never use.
>>
>> Those who sup****t an "individual mandate" - like Sen. Hillary Clinton
and
>> several governors - believe by legally requiring all Americans to buy
>> health
>> insurance the young and the healthy will increase the size of the risk
>> pool
>> and therefore lower premiums for everyone. As a way to enforce an
>> individual
>> mandate, Mrs. Clinton has suggested garni****ng wages.
>>
>> But many states require insurers to charge everyone the same rate. So
>> young
>> people would end up paying far more in premiums than they should - or
>> could - pay. It's patently unfair to force people to purchase insurance
>> they
>> can't afford. Even in Massachusetts, which offers substantial premium
>> subsidies for low-income residents, the government had to exempt a
fifth
>> of
>> Bay Staters from the individual mandate because insurance was still so
>> expensive. And, the plan is already $147 million over budget.
>>
>> The real way to attract young adults into the insurance market is to
>> lower
>> premiums - not to impose draconian sanctions. This can be done by
having
>> states reduce costly mandates like coverage of in-vitro fertilization
and
>> by
>> allowing people to buy insurance across state lines.
>>
>> (3) Expensive prescription drugs are a big reason health-care costs
>> increase.
>>
>> The real price of prescription drugs is actually decreasing. In 2007,
>> inflation rose more than 4 percent, while drug prices increased just 1
>> percent. So in real terms, drugs were 3 percent cheaper last year than
in
>> 2006, on average.
>>
>> What's more, drug spending is but a small slice of total health-care
>> spending - less than 11 cents out of every health-care dollar goes to
>> prescription meds.
>>
>> And drugs actually reduce health-care costs in the long-term. Medicare,
>> for
>> instance, saves $2.06 for every additional dollar it spends on
>> pharmaceutical drugs, according to a paper recently published by the
>> National Bureau for Economic Research. Prescription drugs often obviate
>> the
>> need for expensive surgeries and hospital stays.
>>
>> (4) Drug im****tation will save patients a fortune.
>>
>> At most, according to the Congressional Budget Office, foreign drug
>> im****tation would save Americans 1 percent over the next decade.
>>
>> Brand-name drugs are cheaper in foreign countries because their
>> governments
>> impose price controls. Drug-makers can only afford to sell pills at
>> cut-rate, controlled prices in Europe and Canada because Americans pay
>> full
>> price.
>>
>> If American politicians allow foreign drugs to enter the U.S. market,
>> they'll in effect im****t price controls too. Such action will not only
>> create practical problems, like shortages but also deny firms the
return
>> on
>> investment necessary to plunge into the next round of research and
>> development into new cures.
>>
>> It takes nearly $1 billion to bring a new drug to market. Investors are
>> willing to make such a risky investment because the rewards of
developing
>> a
>> cure for Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, AIDS or diabetes are considerable. If
>> the
>> profit motive vanishes, the miracle cures for which America's drug
>> industry
>> is responsible would vanish.
>>
>> (5) The state-run health-care systems in Canada and Europe are better
and
>> cheaper than America's.
>>
>> People who make this claim usually note that life expectancy is higher
in
>> Canada and Europe. But life expectancy is influenced by a number of
>> variables aside from the quality of a country's health-care system -
like
>> diet, genetics, exercise, smoking, pollution and even marital status.
>>
>> A study published last year in the British medical journal the Lancet
>> suggests America is much better at treating cancer than Europe or
Canada.
>> Researchers found Americans have a better survival rate for 13 of the
16
>> most prominent cancers. An American man has nearly a 20 percent better
>> chance of living for five years after being diagnosed with cancer than
>> his
>> European counterpart.
>>
>> This study's findings tell us a lot more about the quality of a
>> health-care
>> system than life expectancy rates do, because the relation****p between
>> treatment and outcomes is tighter, clearer and more direct.
>>
>> Related Link: Miracle Cure: How to Solve America's Health-Care Crisis
>> and
>> Why Canada Isn't the Answer.
>> *********
>> It always comes back to the free market, competition, and capitalism,
>> doesn't!!
>>
>> Dionysus
>>
>>
>>
>>
|
