Health Care

Image
    Abandon all sanity, ye who enter here!

Moderators: ᴶᵛᵀᴬ, Omphalos, Freakzilla

loremaster
Posts: 220
Joined: 18 Feb 2008 04:24
Location: Leicester
Contact:

Re: Health Care

Postby loremaster » 19 Oct 2009 06:15

Only post in a month and i want to echo what CL said. The care and quality of 99.99% of cases is first rate.

The problems people in the uk have with the NHS are in it's percieved lack of efficiency and "outsourcing" of cleaning contracts etc. I know of virtually no-one who disagrees with it in principle.

It's free at point of use, be that A+E, chronic or acute illnesses, inpatients, outpatients. Ambulance, Paramedics, GPs. We have NHS dental, the problem with which is that we HAVE SUCH A SHORTAGE OF PLACES people (i shit you not) queue overnight to get them.

People pay a small amount towards the cost of prescriptions if they are working full time, not disabled or a student etc. It can get significant, but IMO you always have the option of not paying..... people seem to forget that.

It's so firmly embedded in our society that even attempting to downsize it would be political suicide. Fuck, every year politicians pledge more to it. All this furore (sp?) over the pond has just galvanised people's opinion of the NHS even more. Though in truth i think it only works because we commit to it 100%. You couldnt have a "part time" NHS.

Take a chance. BUPA, AXA etc still make millions over here.
The HLP hasnt released Frank's notes yet, Brian hasn't got the handwriting quite right!

User avatar
chanilover
Posts: 1639
Joined: 18 Feb 2008 08:29

Re: Health Care

Postby chanilover » 20 Oct 2009 16:25

But...but...the NHS kills billions of people every day through unwashed toilet seats and all the doctors are terrorists from Indiastan and you have to wait 20 years for a heart transplant and then they give you the heart of a pig so you end up with swine flu and the government are terrible at running health all they had in the restaurant were soggy cheese and onion crisps and bland coffee and the NHS is social medicine so it turns everyone into commies and we'll end up speaking Russian and wearing bourkas.
"You and your buddies and that b*tch Mandy are nothing but a gang of lying, socially maladjusted losers." - St Hypatia of Arrakeen.
Image
Image

User avatar
A Thing of Eternity
Posts: 6090
Joined: 08 Apr 2008 15:35
Location: Calgary Alberta

Re: Health Care

Postby A Thing of Eternity » 20 Oct 2009 16:43

chanilover wrote:But...but...the NHS kills billions of people every day through unwashed toilet seats and all the doctors are terrorists from Indiastan and you have to wait 20 years for a heart transplant and then they give you the heart of a pig so you end up with swine flu and the government are terrible at running health all they had in the restaurant were soggy cheese and onion crisps and bland coffee and the NHS is social medicine so it turns everyone into commies and we'll end up speaking Russian and wearing bourkas.


I see you've hacked into FOX's news feed/magic 8 ball. :lol:
Image

User avatar
Freakzilla
Lead Singer and Driver of the Winnebego
Posts: 18164
Joined: 05 Feb 2008 01:27
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Contact:

Re: Health Care

Postby Freakzilla » 29 Oct 2009 09:52

2010 is an election year for 1/3 of the senate and 1/2 of the house of representatives. It would be nice if congress
got the message; the voting taxpayers are in charge now.


Propose this in 2009: START A BILL TO PLACE ALL POLITICIANS ON SOCIAL SECURITY.

SOCIAL SECURITY:

Our Senators and Congresswomen do not pay into Social Security and, of course, they do not collect from it.

You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable for persons of their rare elevation in society. They felt they should have a special plan for themselves. So, many years ago they voted in their ownbenefit plan.

In more recent years, no congress person has felt the need to change it. After all, it is a great plan.

For all practical purposes their plan works like this:

When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die.

Except it may increase from time to time for cost of living adjustments.

For example, Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives may expect to draw $7,800,000.00 (that's Seven Million, Eight-Hundred Thousand Dollars), with their wives drawing $275,000.00 during the last years of their lives.
This is calculated on an average life span for each of those two dignitaries.

Younger dignitaries who retire at an early age, will receive much more during the rest of their lives.

Their cost for this excellent plan is $0.00. ZIP!! NADA!!! ZILCH!!!

This little perk they voted for themselves is free to them. You and I pick up the tab for this plan. The funds for this fine retirement plan come directly from the General Funds; "OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK"!

From our own Social Security Plan,which you and I pay (or have paid) into, every payday until we retire (which amount is matched by our employer ), We can expect to get an average of $1,000 per month after retirement.

Or, in other words, we would have to collect our average of $1,000 monthly benefits for 68 years and one (1) month to equal Senator Bill Bradley's benefits!

Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made. That change would be to jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the Senators and Congressmen. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us.

Then sit back... and see how fast they would fix it!

Same goes for their healthplan.
Image
Paul of Dune was so bad it gave me a seizure that dislocated both of my shoulders and prolapsed my anus.
~Pink Snowman

Idahopotato
Posts: 103
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 13:06

Re: Health Care

Postby Idahopotato » 29 Oct 2009 13:17

Once upon a time, it made sense to install our political leaders with certain benefits above and beyond what the rest of us made so that they were less tempted by bribes and special interest graft. This is obviously no longer the case, as the lobbyists are more in control now than ever before. I honestly can't tell the difference from a Republican and a Democrat based solely upon their voting records. I can tell where they stand based on the campaign contributions they receive, which is pretty much identical for all of congress save a very few that don't take money. Without serious campaign finance reform I wouldn't expect this to change anytime soon.

I think you are spot on Freak. Congress should be subject to the same health care and social security as the rest of us. On top of that, each member of congress that votes in favor of a war must enlist a family member in that war. Any company that stands to make money off the war would also have to abide by the same rules. I wonder how many wars we would have after that?

The_Kat
Posts: 50
Joined: 20 Nov 2009 05:09
Location: Great Britain
Contact:

Re: Health Care

Postby The_Kat » 22 Nov 2009 11:49

loremaster wrote:Only post in a month and i want to echo what CL said. The care and quality of 99.99% of cases is first rate.

The problems people in the uk have with the NHS are in it's percieved lack of efficiency and "outsourcing" of cleaning contracts etc. I know of virtually no-one who disagrees with it in principle.

It's free at point of use, be that A+E, chronic or acute illnesses, inpatients, outpatients. Ambulance, Paramedics, GPs. We have NHS dental, the problem with which is that we HAVE SUCH A SHORTAGE OF PLACES people (i shit you not) queue overnight to get them.

People pay a small amount towards the cost of prescriptions if they are working full time, not disabled or a student etc. It can get significant, but IMO you always have the option of not paying..... people seem to forget that.

It's so firmly embedded in our society that even attempting to downsize it would be political suicide. Fuck, every year politicians pledge more to it. All this furore (sp?) over the pond has just galvanised people's opinion of the NHS even more. Though in truth i think it only works because we commit to it 100%. You couldnt have a "part time" NHS.

Take a chance. BUPA, AXA etc still make millions over here.


WHS^ .

Spot on. The only problem seem to be the perceived inefficiency, and even that i'd argue isn't as bad as the murdock media make it look. but that's another argument.

A friend of mine needed life saving surgery that would have cost millions privately , the service they received from the NHS was exemplary. Could not have been better!!
Ur lack of planning, isnt my emergency
Spree4.com

User avatar
Freakzilla
Lead Singer and Driver of the Winnebego
Posts: 18164
Joined: 05 Feb 2008 01:27
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Contact:

Re: Health Care

Postby Freakzilla » 06 Jan 2010 15:46

Speaker of the House Pelosi takes a jab at President Obama:

http://www.politico.com/singletitlevide ... 0493313001

By PATRICK O'CONNOR & GLENN THRUSH | 1/5/10 7:04 PM EST


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/01 ... z0brlS93vN


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, piqued with White House pressure to accept the Senate health reform bill, threw a rare rhetorical elbow Tuesday at President Barack Obama, questioning his commitment to his 2008 campaign promises.


A leadership aide said it was no accident.


Pelosi emerged from a meeting with her leadership team and committee chairs in the Capitol to face an aggressive throng of reporters who immediately hit her with C-SPAN’s request that she permit closed-door final talks on the bill to be televised.


A reporter reminded the San Francisco Democrat that in 2008, then-candidate Obama opined that all such negotiations be open to C-SPAN cameras.


“There are a number of things he was for on the campaign trail,” quipped Pelosi, who has no intention of making the deliberations public.

People familiar with Pelosi's thinking wasted little time in explaining precisely what she meant by a “number of things” — saying it reflected weeks of simmering tension on health care between two Democratic power players who have functioned largely in lock step during Obama’s first year in office.

Senior House Democratic leadership aides say Pelosi was pointedly referring to Obama’s ’08 pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class, which she interprets to include a tax on so-called Cadillac health care plans that offer lavish benefit packages to many union members.


The House aides, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Pelosi has been miffed with Obama’s tilt toward the Senate plan and his expectation that the House would simply go along with the Senate bill out of political necessity.

A Pelosi aide later downplayed the remark, saying, "It was a quip, not a jab at anyone."

“She’s setting up for the conference,” said a leadership staffer. “It’s strategic. She’s staking out her territory.”


It wasn't the first time she's done so.


Pelosi has repeatedly expressed her frustrations about the inclusion of the Cadillac tax in the Senate bill and has sparred with Obama about the issue during face-to-face meetings. Her hope now, House aides say, is to get the administration to accept a tax that starts on family plans worth $28,000 — $7,000 more than the threshold favored by Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).


The White House has shown a clear preference for the Senate product in the months-long, bifurcated health care debate. And Reid holds the two best trump cards in the form of Sens. Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman, two wavering moderates who have already threatened to vote against a final compromise if it deviates significantly from legislation the Senate passed late last year.


That means the speaker needs to play her cards wisely — even if it means directing some well-timed fire at the president.

All year, liberal Democrats have been clamoring for Obama to get more involved in the health care negotiations, hoping he would weigh in to push their top priority — the public option. The president is now promising to take a much more active role in these final negotiations — his staff will convene a meeting with House and Senate aides as early as Wednesday to start laying the groundwork for the talks. But that might not be a good thing for the speaker or her liberal colleagues because of the White House preference for the Senate bill.


During a White House meeting Tuesday, Obama told the speaker and other congressional leaders that he would like to see them approve a final bill by his State of the Union address, set for late January or early February. Earlier in the day, House Democrats weren't convinced they could meet that deadline — and seemed ambivalent about whether they even wanted to try.

Emerging from a Tuesday afternoon huddle with her leadership team and a quartet of critical chairmen, Pelosi seemed to concede the public option won’t be in the final bill, telling a clutch of reporters that “there are other ways” to increase competition and “hold the insurance companies accountable.”


And she has clearly set her sights on making sure the final bill provides sufficient subsidies for lower- and middle-income Americans.


“We want our final product — as I’m sure everyone in the House and Senate would agree — to insure affordability for the middle class,” Pelosi told reporters after her leadership meeting.

The House bill sets aside more than $600 billion in affordability credits for people who make less than 400 percent of the federal poverty poverty line — or roughly $43,320 for an individual and $88,200 for a family of four. The Senate bill offers those same people tax credits that cost $436 billion over the new program's first six years. The House also sets much lower caps on out-of-pocket expenses for people at the lowest end of this income spectrum.

Democrats in the House are intent on forcing their counterparts in the Senate to shift money from other programs to make mandatory insurance coverage more affordable.


“The key issue for us is to make sure people have affordable health insurance,” said Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, a member of the Ways and Means Committee who also heads the Democrats' campaign arm in the House.


Reid struggled for months to corral all 60 members of his caucus to move a health care bill through the Senate. That gave individual senators, such as Lieberman and Nelson, the influence to command major concessions from the rest of their colleagues. Their demands, particularly Lieberman’s insistence on scrapping the public option, rankled Democrats in the House.


At one point during the Tuesday afternoon press conference, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) quipped: “The Senate should know that we need 218 votes.”


But the fact is that House Democrats have little recourse to impose their will in negotiations with the Senate unless they make realistic demands.


Party leaders were even forced to break from the traditional means for negotiating with the Senate because it would create additional roadblocks for Reid — and give Republicans more chances to derail the bill.


On Tuesday, the speaker and her colleagues were both forced to defend charges from their own rank and file that these abbreviated negotiations betrayed their own campaign promises to make deliberations public.


“There has never been a more open process,” a testy Pelosi told reporters in response to repeated questions about a request by C-SPAN chief Brian Lamb to allow cameras in the House-Senate negotiations.


As the negotiations begin, House and Senate Democrats have plenty of differences to resolve, but both bills seek to achieve the same fundamental goals: expand health coverage to millions of uninsured Americans and impose new restrictions on the insurance industry that bar companies from discriminating against people who are ill.


Beyond that, differences abound.


The two chambers use different methods to pay for the final bill, and House Democrats seem willing to accept the Senate proposal to tax high-end health care plans as long as they can raise the threshold for plans that qualify.


But they would have to find a way to pay for the lost revenue. One idea being circulated is to raise the amount of money wealthy Americans would be forced to pay for Medicare. The Senate bill already uses the tax to raise that money, and it touches on the House plan to impose a surtax on people with the highest annual salaries.


Meredith Shiner and Carrie Budoff Brown contributed to this story.
Image
Paul of Dune was so bad it gave me a seizure that dislocated both of my shoulders and prolapsed my anus.
~Pink Snowman

User avatar
SandRider
Watermaster
Posts: 6163
Joined: 05 Oct 2008 16:14
Location: In the back of your mind. Always.
Contact:

Re: Health Care

Postby SandRider » 06 Jan 2010 21:55

chanilover wrote:But...but...the NHS kills billions of people every day through unwashed toilet seats and all the doctors are terrorists from Indiastan and you have to wait 20 years for a heart transplant and then they give you the heart of a pig so you end up with swine flu and the government are terrible at running health all they had in the restaurant were soggy cheese and onion crisps and bland coffee and the NHS is social medicine so it turns everyone into commies and we'll end up speaking Russian and wearing bourkas.



yeah, that sounds like the plan we sent to Barak last summer ...

sub "onion crisps" with "Ranch-style Doritos", and "burkas" with
"Huey Lewis & the News / Hip to be Square T-shirts" and it's ditto.

oh yeah, and sub "Russian" with "Chinese" .... still comrades tho, hey ?
................ I exist only to amuse myself ................
ImageImage

I personally feel that this message board, Jacurutu, is full of hateful folks who don't know
how to fully interact with people.
~ "Spice Grandson" (Bryon Merrit) 08 June 2008

User avatar
chanilover
Posts: 1639
Joined: 18 Feb 2008 08:29

Re: Health Care

Postby chanilover » 07 Jan 2010 06:43

"Onion crisps" :lol: Nah, it's cheese'n'onion. They make your breath stink.

Image
"You and your buddies and that b*tch Mandy are nothing but a gang of lying, socially maladjusted losers." - St Hypatia of Arrakeen.
Image
Image

User avatar
Freakzilla
Lead Singer and Driver of the Winnebego
Posts: 18164
Joined: 05 Feb 2008 01:27
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Contact:

Obama asks Supreme Court to rule on health care

Postby Freakzilla » 29 Sep 2011 09:47

President Barack Obama's administration asked the US Supreme Court to uphold his historic health care law, likely sparking an explosive legal showdown in the heat of the 2012 election.

The legislation, passed in 2010, fulfilled decades of Democratic dreams of social reform, but was fiercely contested by Republicans, and the law is likely to emerge as a key issue as Obama seeks reelection next year.

"We know the Affordable Care Act is constitutional. We are confident the Supreme Court will agree. We hope the Supreme Court takes up the case and we are confident we will win," said Stephanie Cutter, a top Obama advisor.

The Justice Department asked the Court to declare the key provision of the new law, requiring everyone to buy health insurance by 2014 if they can afford it, constitutional.

Republican opponents of the law say the government has no power to compel people to buy health insurance and have vowed to repeal the law in the courts and eventually replace it through new legislation.

But Cutter argued that such a view was "simply wrong" because people who do not buy insurance do not "opt out" -- but hurt everyone else because taxpayers end up subsidizing their care when they are taken to emergency rooms.

"Those costs -- $43 billion in 2008 alone -- are borne by doctors, hospitals, insured individuals, taxpayers and small businesses throughout the nation," she said in a White House blog post.

The White House also justifies the individual mandate by saying that without it, people would wait until they get sick to apply for coverage, which would cause insurance premiums for everyone to rise.

"We don't let people wait until after they've been in a car accident to apply for auto insurance and get reimbursed, and we don't want to do that with health care," Cutter said.

The White House move came after 26 states and small businesses called on the Supreme Court to strike down the totality of Obama's reform.

The petitioners also asked for a swift Supreme Court judgement, saying the "grave constitutional questions surrounding the ACA and its novel exercises of federal power will not subside until this court resolves them."

The move followed an August ruling by the Eleventh Circuit appeals court, based in Atlanta, that the individual mandate exceeded Congress's powers.

But the court ruled that the remainder of the health care law, which extended coverage to an extra 32 million people and was a long-held dream of Democrats, was within the bounds of the Constitution.

A number of other courts have struck down challenges to the law, making it inevitable that the Supreme Court would eventually be called upon to judge the law, possibly in 2012 amid the political heat of Obama's reelection campaign.

The Supreme Court must first decide whether to hear the case. Many legal experts believe it will since lower courts are in conflict on the constitutionality of the law.

The central role of health care in the US economy and the life of the country would also likely weigh in favor of the court's nine justices taking on the case.

If the court does decide to weigh the case, arguments would follow and the justices would be expected to rule by the end of their term in June 2012, in a judgement likely to reverberate before the November general election.


http://news.yahoo.com/obama-asks-suprem ... 10039.html
Image
Paul of Dune was so bad it gave me a seizure that dislocated both of my shoulders and prolapsed my anus.
~Pink Snowman

User avatar
Freakzilla
Lead Singer and Driver of the Winnebego
Posts: 18164
Joined: 05 Feb 2008 01:27
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Contact:

Denmark Imposes the World's First Fat Tax

Postby Freakzilla » 06 Oct 2011 13:25

Are the Danish facing an era of dry toast? On Oct. 1, consumers in Denmark saw a sudden jump in the cost of many of their favorite bread-friendly products. The average price of a half-pound package of butter increased by 2.5 krone (or 45 U.S. cents). A pound of cheese rose from 34.5 krone ($6) to 36 krone ($6.50). And don't even think about lard. In a single day, the cost of a half-pound block of pork fat skyrocketed from 12 krone ($2.15) to 16 krone ($2.85) — a 35% increase. Thanks to a new fat tax, Danes are paying more for just about anything they might want to slather on a piece of bread.

Other countries have imposed tariffs on food and drink considered unhealthy, but Denmark is taking the "fax tax" appellation literally. In the name of reducing cardiovascular disease, obesity, and diabetes, the law that went into effect on Saturday specifically targets saturated fats — the fats found most commonly in animal products like butter, cream, and meat. But few outside the government seem to think it's a good idea — or even a healthy one. (Read: "Bypassing Obesity for Alcoholism: Why Some Weight-Loss Surgeries Increase Alcohol Risk.")

The tax, the first of its kind in the world, imposes a 16 krone (roughly $3) hike per kilo of saturated fat on any food that contains more than 2.3%. Given current Danish consumption — they eat a lot of butter and sausage in Denmark — that should amount to somewhere around 82 million kilos (180 million lbs) of fat subject to the tax.

"At the political level there was a high degree of consensus for this law," says Tor Christensen, chief consultant for Denmark's Ministry of Taxation. "There was wide agreement about trying to improve the average Danish lifespan, about trying to improve the health of the Danish people." The tax was approved by nearly 90% of the Danish parliament. (See pictures of obesity rehab.)

It's not the first time that the Danish government has taken to regulating less-than-healthy foodstuffs. Sugar has long been subject to higher tariffs, though in its original incarnation, the tax was intended to raise revenue rather than improve public health. In 2004, Denmark became the first country in the world to ban transfats — the solid fats commonly used in snack foods and industrially produced baked goods. Experts say that ban has played a significant role in reducing rates of cardiovascular disease by over 30% in Denmark in the past several years.

People within the food industry aren't happy about the tax, however. "It's very frustrating how this has been implemented," says Poul Pedersen, managing director of Thise Mejeri, an organic dairy cooperative based in northern Denmark. Its 83 farmers produce 2,500 tons of butter per year — and all of them are facing diminished revenues now that they've had to raise prices. "We don't know by how much yet because it's very complicated to figure out, but of course we expect sales to go down," Pedersen says.

The tax applies to all saturated fats equally, regardless of whether they are contained in a McDonald's hamburger or a quart of milk from grassfed cows. That provision has particularly incensed the country's dairy farmers, who bristle at a categorization of their products as unhealthy, and whose recommendations, says Pedersen, were ignored by the government. "Of course we want people to eat heathfully," he says. "And no one should be eating a kilo of butter per day. But we in the dairy industry know that we produce a good and healthy product when it's eaten in moderation." (Can FoodCorps get America to eat healthfully?)

Restaurants too will feel the pain of the increasing costs. Christian Puglisi, chef of Copenhagen's highly-regarded Relae, hasn't yet raised menu prices, but knows he'll have to once he has tallied his purveyors' new invoices. The bureaucracy worries him less, though, than the tax's impact on the organic farms with which he does most of his business. "Organic is already more expensive than industrially produced [food], and the tax will just make it more so," Puglisi says. "But organic producers can't absorb the price increase the way that industrial can, so fewer people are going to be willing to buy it."

See five reasons to visit Copenhagen

See if the world's best chef can teach Danes the joy of hay

Although Danes have historically shown themselves willing to accept higher taxes that they deem beneficial to society, Puglisi doesn't believe this one fits that criteria. "The government says it wants to make people healthier, but it's talking with two tongues. It's just going to push more people to buy cheaper industrially produced products, rather than good food. It's insanely stupid."

Even medical professionals doubt the salutary effects of the law. "You can't predict the health effect of a food by looking at a single nutrient in it," says Dr. Arne Astrup, professor of human nutrition at the University of Copenhagen. "Take cheese, as an example. It's high in saturated fat, but it also contains calcium and protein that seem to change the fat's effect on the body. You would think that people who ate a lot of cheese would have higher risks of cardiovascular disease, but research has shown that's not the case." (See more on the fat tax in Denmark.)

With just under 10% of the population classified as obese, rates in Denmark are lower than Europe's 15% average, and fall significantly below the U.S.'s rate of 33.8%. Nevertheless, the average Danish lifespan of 79 years is lower than that of other Western European countries like Sweden (81.5 years), Spain (81.8 years) and France (80 years), a statistic that the departing center-right government (a center-left government took power on Oct. 3) hoped to improve with the tax.

However, Dr. Astrup says the tax ministry that proposed the measure is working with outdated data. "They based their decision on a report written in 2001," he says. "In 2001 all the available evidence suggested that we could achieve significant benefits by cutting saturated fats. But it turns out that a lot of that benefit came from cutting transfats, not saturated ones."

Many in Denmark believe the government was motivated more by financial concerns than health ones. Dr. Astrup is one of them. "This fat tax didn't evolve from proposals by the nutrition council," he says. "It was created wholly within the Tax Ministry because they were 1 billion krone ($180 million) short. They didn't do it to cut down on cardiovascular disease, they did it to close a budget gap."

If government estimates are correct (and the tax ministry itself admits that its predictions are rough), those 82 million kilos (180 million lbs) of taxable saturated fats should result in revenues of 1.3 billion krone ($233 million). Yet ministry advisor Christensen rejects the claim that the tax was motivated by the economic crisis and the government's need to generate new income. "Actually, the aim of this program of tax reform is to reduce taxes on labor, to reduce income tax," he says. "But the government has to find another source to make up the financing that it lost with those reductions. Instead of keeping income tax high, It decided to tax the unhealthy things."

Although public sentiment seems to be running against the tax, Christensen's reasoning has a fan in Sebastian Sejer, a 34-year-old graphic designer who lives outside of Copenhagen. "I know it's unpopular," Sejer says. "But I think it's a way to actually achieve something good while reducing the income tax. I work in advertising and I know that these small changes can make a difference in consumer behavior." (See more on Arizona's flab tax.)

Research on countries that have imposed cigarette and soda taxes largely indicates that he's right: increased prices do lead to at least moderately reduced consumption. But are dairy-loving Danes ready to give up their wholefat milk and cheese? Sejer's own behavior raises some doubts. He went shopping over the weekend, and ended up buying the same butter he always does. "I know it's a contradiction. But it's not going to affect what I eat."
Image
Paul of Dune was so bad it gave me a seizure that dislocated both of my shoulders and prolapsed my anus.
~Pink Snowman

User avatar
A Thing of Eternity
Posts: 6090
Joined: 08 Apr 2008 15:35
Location: Calgary Alberta

Re: Health Care

Postby A Thing of Eternity » 06 Oct 2011 13:58

:clap:

I only read as far as fat tax though I'll admit, I'm busy right now! If they're going to tax my smokes and booze extra (especially in my country with the healthcare) then they damned well should tax unhealthy food as well, it all sends people to the hospital and costs the country money.

Then take the money generated and use it for healthcare and for giving low income families money to buy healthy food. Bam, done, better country.

I should really just be in charge. :D
Image

User avatar
Freakzilla
Lead Singer and Driver of the Winnebego
Posts: 18164
Joined: 05 Feb 2008 01:27
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Contact:

Re: Health Care

Postby Freakzilla » 06 Oct 2011 14:38

I'll vote for you.
Image
Paul of Dune was so bad it gave me a seizure that dislocated both of my shoulders and prolapsed my anus.
~Pink Snowman

User avatar
Freakzilla
Lead Singer and Driver of the Winnebego
Posts: 18164
Joined: 05 Feb 2008 01:27
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Contact:

Re: Health Care

Postby Freakzilla » 12 Oct 2011 12:41

OK, my new Obamacare SUCKS.

Instead of having co-pays we now have a high deductible plan.

Once the family meets the $3000 deductible then we have co-insurance which pays a percentage.

Well visits are covered and my company is going to contribute to a tax free Health Savings Account.

I guess that's the change I can believe in.
Image
Paul of Dune was so bad it gave me a seizure that dislocated both of my shoulders and prolapsed my anus.
~Pink Snowman

User avatar
trang
Posts: 1223
Joined: 06 May 2008 18:59
Location: Hot Tub Time Machine
Contact:

Re: Health Care

Postby trang » 12 Oct 2011 12:50

They are doing something similar at my work for the healthcare plan too. Its to confusing and complicated. I'm just gonna find a local voodoo witch doctor and an acupuncture specialist and get treated that way, its cheaper and less confusing.
"Long Live the Fighters", "Dragon.....the other white meat."

Image

User avatar
Freakzilla
Lead Singer and Driver of the Winnebego
Posts: 18164
Joined: 05 Feb 2008 01:27
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Contact:

Re: Health Care

Postby Freakzilla » 12 Oct 2011 13:14

I'm going to break one of my kids bones January first so I get my deductible out of the way. :roll:
Image
Paul of Dune was so bad it gave me a seizure that dislocated both of my shoulders and prolapsed my anus.
~Pink Snowman

User avatar
Freakzilla
Lead Singer and Driver of the Winnebego
Posts: 18164
Joined: 05 Feb 2008 01:27
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Contact:

Re: Health Care

Postby Freakzilla » 12 Oct 2011 15:11

I know one person who's going to be dropped from me health insurance. :P

Surely she can get her Mafia Wars goons to take care of her. :wink:
Image
Paul of Dune was so bad it gave me a seizure that dislocated both of my shoulders and prolapsed my anus.
~Pink Snowman

User avatar
Freakzilla
Lead Singer and Driver of the Winnebego
Posts: 18164
Joined: 05 Feb 2008 01:27
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Contact:

Re: Health Care

Postby Freakzilla » 12 Oct 2011 15:12

I'm thinking about dropping myself, too and just putting the kids on the corporate insurance.

I can go to the VA if I have to.
Image
Paul of Dune was so bad it gave me a seizure that dislocated both of my shoulders and prolapsed my anus.
~Pink Snowman

User avatar
Freakzilla
Lead Singer and Driver of the Winnebego
Posts: 18164
Joined: 05 Feb 2008 01:27
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Contact:

Re: Health Care

Postby Freakzilla » 28 Oct 2011 07:04

Image
Paul of Dune was so bad it gave me a seizure that dislocated both of my shoulders and prolapsed my anus.
~Pink Snowman

User avatar
Freakzilla
Lead Singer and Driver of the Winnebego
Posts: 18164
Joined: 05 Feb 2008 01:27
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Contact:

Supreme Court Will Rule This Year on Health Reform Law

Postby Freakzilla » 14 Nov 2011 12:02

http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-rul ... 06125.html

By Ariane de Vogue | ABC News – 45 mins ago

The Supreme Court announced Monday morning that it will hear a challenge to the Obama administration’s signature legislative achievement: the health care reform law.

In a paper statement the Court said it would focus on a case brought by 26 states, the National Federation of Independent Business and two individuals.

The case challenges the constitutionality of the law’s key provision, the individual mandate, that requires individuals to buy health care insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty.

A lower court struck down the mandate.

Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr urged the Supreme Court to take up the case and wrote in briefs that the lower court decision striking down the mandate was “fundamentally flawed” and “denies Congress the broad deference it is due in enacting laws to address the Nation’s most pressing economic problems.”

Verrilli argued that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) addresses “a profound and enduring crisis in the market for health care that accounts for more than 17% of the Nation’s gross national product.”

Paul D. Clement, a lawyer for the 26 states challenging the law urged the Supreme Court in briefs to step in and resolve the “grave constitutional questions surrounding the ACA”. Clement argued, “Time is of the essence, States need to know whether they must adapt their policies to deal with the brave new world ushered in by the ACA.”

Under normal circumstances the court will schedule oral arguments for the case this spring, and decide the issue by early summer, just months before the next presidential election.
Image
Paul of Dune was so bad it gave me a seizure that dislocated both of my shoulders and prolapsed my anus.
~Pink Snowman

User avatar
Freakzilla
Lead Singer and Driver of the Winnebego
Posts: 18164
Joined: 05 Feb 2008 01:27
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Contact:

More Americans than not want health law repeal: poll

Postby Freakzilla » 16 Nov 2011 14:11

Reuters – 1 hr 28 mins ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to review President Barack Obama's healthcare reforms, more Americans want to it repealed than want to keep it, a poll released on Wednesday shows.

A Gallup survey of more than 1,000 U.S. adults found that 47 percent favor the repeal of healthcare reform, versus 42 percent who want the law kept in place. Eleven percent had no opinion.

But the survey also showed that 50 percent of Americans believe the federal government has a responsibility to make sure everyone has health coverage, compared with 46 percent who do not.

The results, which have a 4 percentage point margin of error, suggest a sharply divided U.S. public as the Supreme Court prepares to begin hearing legal arguments next March from 26 states and an independent business group that want the law struck down as unconstitutional.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act would extend health coverage to more than 30 million uninsured Americans by expanding Medicaid and establishing special state-run insurance markets called exchanges.

The law is Obama's signature domestic policy achievement, and a high court decision to overturn the reforms could deal a severe blow to his re-election prospects in the middle of the 2012 presidential campaign. A ruling to retain it could help his campaign.

The Supreme Court would be expected to rule by July.

Obama, a Democrat, is opposed by a field of Republican candidates who want the healthcare reform law repealed as a symbol of an intrusive government seeking to raise taxes and burden businesses with new regulation.

Public opposition to the law, particularly among the elderly, helped Republicans wrest control of the House of Representatives from Democrats in the 2010 midterm elections.

But advocates of the reforms say the law will reduce the soaring growth of healthcare costs over time and provide medical care to millions of families who currently have no protection.

The November 3-6 Gallup poll also showed a small reduction in public support for private insurance as the basis for gaining medical services in the $2.6 trillion U.S. healthcare system.

The findings said 56 percent of adults continue to prefer private insurance versus 39 percent who would favor a government-run system. That compares with a 61 percent to 34 percent margin a year ago.

http://news.yahoo.com/more-americans-no ... 52816.html
Image
Paul of Dune was so bad it gave me a seizure that dislocated both of my shoulders and prolapsed my anus.
~Pink Snowman

User avatar
Freakzilla
Lead Singer and Driver of the Winnebego
Posts: 18164
Joined: 05 Feb 2008 01:27
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Contact:

Postby Freakzilla » 29 Nov 2011 10:21

Image
Paul of Dune was so bad it gave me a seizure that dislocated both of my shoulders and prolapsed my anus.
~Pink Snowman

User avatar
Freakzilla
Lead Singer and Driver of the Winnebego
Posts: 18164
Joined: 05 Feb 2008 01:27
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Contact:

Re: Health Care

Postby Freakzilla » 09 Feb 2012 15:07

I get free prostate screenings! :D
Image
Paul of Dune was so bad it gave me a seizure that dislocated both of my shoulders and prolapsed my anus.
~Pink Snowman

User avatar
Omphalos
Inglorious Bastard
Posts: 6636
Joined: 05 Feb 2008 11:07
Location: The Mighty Central Valley of California
Contact:

Re: Health Care

Postby Omphalos » 09 Feb 2012 15:38

Freakzilla actually wrote:I get free prostate screenings! :D


Freak should have wrote:Mooooooon Riiiiiiiver!!!!

Hey Doc! Did'ja ever do time?


Now you're wondering why you ever married a woman in the first place? :D

User avatar
Freakzilla
Lead Singer and Driver of the Winnebego
Posts: 18164
Joined: 05 Feb 2008 01:27
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Contact:

Re: Health Care

Postby Freakzilla » 09 Feb 2012 15:49

My new healthcare is in effect now and today I was trying to warn my wife not to go to the ER if she could avoid it. Going to the family doctor for an earache is going to cost &95, going to the ER will cost $700.

That is, until we meet our $3000 yearly deductible, then we pay a co-pay until meet the yearly max of $8000, then everything is covered.

However, preventative care, like mamograms and PROSTATE exams, are cover 100% all the time.

SO, I've got THAT going for me. Which is nice.
Image
Paul of Dune was so bad it gave me a seizure that dislocated both of my shoulders and prolapsed my anus.
~Pink Snowman


Return to “˱”