Yuku free message boards

Actually we should start a special thread dedicated to this issue alone, Westside. If you want, maybe we should transfer your original post to which I responded then the two responses yours and mine and begin a thread on this
very important subject.

Let me start by pointing out perhaps the most important element of any discussion on this issue.

You have literal real world examples of the kinds of systems Obama is pushing for and they are universally bad. Bad in numerous ways. The first question is why are we not seeing ANY of the bad side covered by the media that loves and universally voted for Obama and sits only on one side of the political spectrum? Can you explain
why the public isnt getting nightly stories on the realities so they can decide for themselves? have you seen a single news item about wait times? Doesnt that alone make you suspicious?

You post a study. Thats good. Only one problem, the studies the Democrat H-Care lobbies are using come from groups funded by people like Soros and the Tides Foundation.people who want the Government to take over health care because they hate Insurance Companies. Do such orgs cook the stats? Yes.More on their
studiesd shortly. Lets start with the PR campaign. The polls.

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=49999

They call that fraud.

The advocacy network isnt broad based.

[[[If you believe the White House, there are 30 million Americans who support a government health care takeover. But if you look at the funding behind the Obamacare campaign, it's the same few leftist billionaires, union bosses and partisan community organizers pushing the socialized medicine agenda. Let's connect the dots.On Thursday, a national "grassroots" coalition called Health Care for America Now (HCAN) will march on Capitol Hill to demand universal health care. The ground troops won't have to march very far. HCAN, you see, is no heartland network. It is headquartered at 1825 K Street in Washington, D.C. -- smack dab in the middle of Beltway lobby land.

In fact, 1825 K Street is Ground Zero for a plethora of "progressive" groups subsidized by anti-war, anti-Republican, Big Nanny special interests. Around Washington, the office complex is known as "The Other K Street." The Washington Post noted in 2007 that "its most prominent tenants form an abbreviated who's who of well-funded allies of the Democratic Party. … Big money from unions
such as the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, as well as the Internet-fueled MoveOn, has provided groups like those at 1825 K Street the wherewithal to mount huge campaigns." ]]]

Then there is this conflict between what the study states as fact and what the Canadian Government states as fact

[[[Toronto, March 4, 2009 - Ontario wait times for Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) have improved since the provincial government's Wait Time Strategy began in 2004. But a study out of the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) has found wealthy Ontarians are now 38 per cent more likely to receive MRI scans than their poorer counterparts.

The study of 1,356,750 outpatient MRI scans done in Ontario between April 1, 2002 and March 31, 2007 found:

At the beginning of the study, before Ontario's Wait Times Strategy began, a gap in access to MRI scans based on income existed. Patients living in the richest one-fifth of Ontario neighbourhoods were 25 per cent more likely to receive MRI scans than those living in the poorest one-fifth of neighbourhoods.

During the next five years, during which approximately $118-million in Wait Times spending was injected for MRI services between November 2004 and March 2008, the annual number of MRI scans performed in Ontario doubled.

However, the increase in MRI use over the five-year period was largest for those in the wealthiest Ontario neighbourhoods, so that the gap in access to MRI between rich and poor widened. Patients living in the richest neighbourhoods are now 38% more likely to receive MRI scans than those in the poorest neighbourhoods.

So, while Ontario's Wait Times Strategy has improved access to MRI, the findings suggest the improvements in access have not occurred equally amongst all Ontarians.

"We already knew from previous work that there was greater access to MRI scans for richer Ontarians. This study shows that access has improved but it looks like it has not been shared equally," says principal investigator and ICES Scientist, Dr. John You. "It's well known that, on average, poor people have more health problems than the rich, so the trends go against what we would have expected.", says You, who is also an assistant professor of medicine and clinical epidemiology and biostatistics at McMaster University. "Although many of us pride ourselves on Ontario's universal hospital and physician services, our study highlights the need for simultaneous strategies that aim to improve the appropriateness of MRI scanning,
so that access is based on medical need."]]

So the study you mention seems to conflict with what the Canadians know. In this case undoubtedly that Government madde an attempt to improve a bad situation but only did so for the wealhy. So when your study seems to show that wait times are good in Canada, they obviously looked at only one sector of that problem and then they tout the entire system as superior to ours.

Does this sound like their system is better:

[[[More than 400 Canadians in the full throes of a heart attack or other cardiac emergency have been sent to the United States because no hospital can provide the lifesaving care they require here. Most of the heart patients who have been sent south since 2003 typically show up in Ontario hospitals, where they are given clot-busting drugs. If those drugs fail to open their clogged arteries, the scramble to locate angioplasty in the United States begins.

"They rushed me over to Detroit, did the whole closing of the tunnel," said Eric Bialkowski, 47, of the heart attack he had on March 14, 2007, in Windsor, Ont."]]]

I have tons of stuff like the above and its WORSE in England.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/inequities_in_socialized_healt.html

[[[The UK's National Health Service was created in 1948 and you would think by now they would have their act together but as any regular reader of this website knows, no one can outdo the British when it comes to health care horror stories. Here are just a few examples:
The conditions at Staffordshire General Hospital have been compared to a "third world hospital."

"UK's top cancer consultants warn that NHS drug "rationing" is forcing patients to remortgage their homes
to pay for treatment."

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence has effectively banned the use of two cancer fighting drugs for advanced breast cancer because it considers them too expensive.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1159506/Life-prolonging-cancer-drugs-banned-cost-much.html

Until recently patients with macular degeneration disease were forced to go blind in one eye before the government would pay for treatment in the one remaining good eye.

In 2007, 70,000 UK citizens flew out of the country to obtain needed medical care.]]]

These arent studies. These are statistics from the Brit HC system. Now reflect back on my question. We have laws that mandate all sorts of warnings and siclosure on Cigarette packs. Where is the full disclosure on the true realities of the Socialized health care systems? where are the stories in the media and on the big TV Nets about US Citizens flying to Britain or Canada for treatments that they have to wait too long here to get? there arent any except possibly in the
alternative cancer treatment area because the FDA wont approve them.

In my prior post I linked to a NY Times article that clearly shows that the best ideas to improve the system arent even getting allowed into the mix. Dont you wonder why they arent? Does that make sense?

Then there are the World Socialist Movement groups that are purporting to represent "everyone" but doing it with tons of money from very few billionaires.See link above.

But the most glaring omission is what I presented in the other link about EXISTING programs that today are financial disasters and care disasters already, having violated every single promise they were allowed to be created because of, and you are seeing ZERO reflection on any of them.

So whats going on isnt informing the public. Its misinforming the public. When a tobacco company does it it warrants prosecutions of executives. But when the Government does it and administration support groups do it somehow its allowed.

This is the biggest reason why I question all the motives of the single payor movement. Obama has declared war on the private sector. Hes nationalized entire industries. The studies you offer all make it sound like "the world" is better off than here. There is literally no indigeneous givernment statistics that uphold the studies that selectively cherry pick the statistics they want.

The debacles of the UK and Canadian systems are headlines in THEIR papers. They are censored out of ours.

My final point is that critical measures have already been put into the system with ZERO discussion or debate.

http://townhall.com/columnists/AustinHill/2009/02/15/democrats,_health_care_reform,_and_your_duty_to_die

[[[Obama was praising the nationalization of health records, and the "conversion" of health records to electronic formats, noting that managing electronic data is less costly than managing hardcopy documents. But unfortunately, the creation of a nationalized health records database also creates another means of "cost cutting" - - namely, the denial of medical treatments to severely ill and elderly patients.

Language in the health care sections of the "stimulus bill" stipulates that the Department of H.H.S. will provide "appropriate information to help guide medical decisions at the time and place of care," and also allows for "penalties" to be assessed to physicians who "spend too much" on individual patients. Essentially, we now have the beginnings of a governmental agency that eventually will, by force of law, determine which persons will be eligible for health care, and what treatment they will receive.

As noted in a recent Bloomberg news article, the way in which the Office Of Health Information and Technology is being expanded emulates the plans put forth in "Critical: What We Can Do About The Health Care Crisis," a book authored by former Senator (and would-be HHS Secretary) Tom Daschle. In the book, Daschle praises the Western European nations for, among other things,
the ways in which they have "nationalized" health care, and have 'contained" health care costs.

Yet, not surprisingly, Western Europe's utopian ambitions to "insure everybody" and make healthcare"free" have by no means been realized. In fact, the nationalizing of healthcare in Europe has led to worsening government deficits, and increased healthcare costs, and efforts to contain those costs have resulted in the denial of treatment to those persons not expected to live much longer - - that is, the elderly and the seriously ill.

This "need" to deny people health care has frequently, in Europe, been cast in terms
of one's "duty to die." ]]

If you read the very last part of my post (and Im very sorry for the havoc that fonts and coding from the excerpts cause in the posts) you see perhaps the most ominous aspect of this whole issue.

Last night Barak Obama in the ABC (All Barak Channel) infomercial actually said that the Government WOULD, under his plan, decide that you are not entitled to care and that maybe instead of surgery, you would have to take pain pills and live with the problem.

That isnt waiting, thats "deal with it Pal".

The more that this "reform" gets looked at in detail the more my Nazi analogy gets closer to being a mirror OF the "reform" being proposed.

And to think that the "duty to die" has already been placed into LAW, is frightening. Frightening.You didnt comment on that Westside.

Barak Obama says China "gets it" by controlling everything. China executes 10,000 plus convicts in mobile execution chambers every year. China enforces a policy that literally will execute your newborn infant if you have a second child.
Have you ever heard this President say a discourageing word about Chinas government?

This is the President who had the "duty to die" clause put in a bill he gave no time to the Congress to even read.

When perfectly sensible, economically superior, bipartisan measures are being thrown out without any consideration (see my prior link to the NY Times article), then the question becomes whether this is about "health care" at all. It is growing in its clarity to only be about Government control over the population.Control that appears to include extermination.

As for me mentioning Soros so frequently.

Let me tell you three things about Soros.

First is he has in fact bankrolled an entire network of left wing political groups with tens of millions of dollars.In doing so he set up an identical network of groups in every country he targets. Dozens of groups. They happen to be here and now at the very front of, and tightly coordinated with, the Democrat National Committee and this Adminsitration. In fact these groups are setting policy for this Nation through this Administration. Not some amorphous disparate groups. Soros funded groups. Housing. Health care. National Security.and on and on.ACORN. there isnt a single area these groups are not mobilized and activist. And they get all their money from either him or the network of groups he fnds. What he does is literally money laundering.

The second thing is George Soros has made his billions doing one thing. Convicted in two countries. He undermines countries by funding groups that push for socialistic policies which destroy the economy of those countries. After he has shorted the economy via the financial markets.

The third thing you need to know is that as a boy, during the war, he collaborated with the Nazis. Hes a jew. Let that sink in.

His influence is broad and deep in the Democrat party. There is much you could not even discuss without discussing George Soros and the groups he has created and funded. So far from the frequency of his mention illustrate Marcels obsession with Soros; the frequency of his mention simply highlights the degree to which this intruder is orchestrating so many things. Good Democrats should be concerned. Seems at one time long ago and far away Democrats always claimed Republicans favored "special interests".There has never been anything bigger in this regard than Soros.

He hasnt changed. think about what that means for this country.