Ok... Let's put partisan politics aside and talk about issues - Health Care?

Ok... Let's put partisan politics aside and talk about issues - Health Care Contrast the views of the two candidates regarding Health Care and tell which you favor and why. Asked by YoBob 38 months ago Similar questions: put partisan politics talk issues Health Care Politics & Law > Politics.

Similar questions: put partisan politics talk issues Health Care.

And yet the cry how hard their struggling, well it doesn't seem so to me, as evidanced by the bmw's and porches"'s and distinct lack of beaters in the lot, and the 5000 plus square foot homes on the water, and the insurance companies criing that they have to raise rates due to the rising coast of healt care, and they just keep battng us back and forth, and the last group who encourage this, and feed the fire, and seceratly fill their coffers no matter wyhich way it goes................the lawyers .

And yet the cry how hard their struggling, well it doesn't seem so to me, as evidanced by the bmw's and porches"'s and distinct lack of beaters in the lot, and the 5000 plus square foot homes on the water, and the insurance companies criing that they have to raise rates due to the rising coast of healt care, and they just keep battng us back and forth, and the last group who encourage this, and feed the fire, and seceratly fill their coffers no matter wyhich way it goes................the lawyers.

2 Both candidates missed two key points: the drug companies and malpractice suits. Between the two of them, that is approximately half of the cost of medical care -- covering drugs and the doctors' insurance rates. They evidently both want us all to afford the greed of the companies and the people who feel slighted by the medical industry (of course, when a doctor takes out an ovary, thinking it is an appendix, as happened recently, the woman has a right to legal recourse in my opinion).

Here are a few facts: statins are essentially worthless, but because the doctors get their primary post-PhD training from drug company reps, they are not aware of that. Innoculations for most things do more harm than good, especially when given under a year old. Cholesterol is NOT a problem (your brain and the rest of your body NEEDS the stuff!) unless it is oxidized, and eating right can eliminate that problem.

Heart attacks and strokes are far more connected to inflammation than cholesterol or triglycerides. Depression increases inflammation.So do most oils, with the strong exception of EVOO (extra virgin olive oil). Cancers subsist and grow on sugars.

There go a lot of drug company profits, though. And the American public needs to understand that doctors are not gods. They make mistakes.

When we ask any professional for help with ourselves, our cars, our homes, whatever, we are putting ourselves in the hands of other fallible human beings and we simply need to understand that, short of mistaking an ovary for an appendix, sometimes things happen.No, sponges shouldn't get left in people, but it can happen. Not good, but it can be corrected. On the other hand, drunk doctors should be fired NOW, as well as those addicted to whatever medications.

The medical profession needs to quit covering for them. A national data base would answer a lot of problems about repeated nonsense from the same people as they travel from state to state getting jobs in the medical field. Medical school costs need to be reduced to allow qualified applicants a chance as well as to allow them to reduce their later costs to their patients when they have less to pay back.In other words, there is a TON that can be done without ever discussing tax rebates or $5000 refunds.

You don't fix a problem by affording it, you fix it by FIXING it -- the problem itself. Both candidates and all of Congress seem to be missing this tiny little idea.

Both candidates missed two key points: the drug companies and malpractice suits. Between the two of them, that is approximately half of the cost of medical care -- covering drugs and the doctors' insurance rates. They evidently both want us all to afford the greed of the companies and the people who feel slighted by the medical industry (of course, when a doctor takes out an ovary, thinking it is an appendix, as happened recently, the woman has a right to legal recourse in my opinion).

Here are a few facts: statins are essentially worthless, but because the doctors get their primary post-PhD training from drug company reps, they are not aware of that. Innoculations for most things do more harm than good, especially when given under a year old. Cholesterol is NOT a problem (your brain and the rest of your body NEEDS the stuff!) unless it is oxidized, and eating right can eliminate that problem.

Heart attacks and strokes are far more connected to inflammation than cholesterol or triglycerides. Depression increases inflammation.So do most oils, with the strong exception of EVOO (extra virgin olive oil). Cancers subsist and grow on sugars.

There go a lot of drug company profits, though. And the American public needs to understand that doctors are not gods. They make mistakes.

When we ask any professional for help with ourselves, our cars, our homes, whatever, we are putting ourselves in the hands of other fallible human beings and we simply need to understand that, short of mistaking an ovary for an appendix, sometimes things happen.No, sponges shouldn't get left in people, but it can happen. Not good, but it can be corrected. On the other hand, drunk doctors should be fired NOW, as well as those addicted to whatever medications.

The medical profession needs to quit covering for them. A national data base would answer a lot of problems about repeated nonsense from the same people as they travel from state to state getting jobs in the medical field. Medical school costs need to be reduced to allow qualified applicants a chance as well as to allow them to reduce their later costs to their patients when they have less to pay back.In other words, there is a TON that can be done without ever discussing tax rebates or $5000 refunds.

You don't fix a problem by affording it, you fix it by FIXING it -- the problem itself. Both candidates and all of Congress seem to be missing this tiny little idea.

4 For comparison on health care policies of both candidates, the last issue (November) of Consumer Reports magazine has a detailed article. On top of general comparison, it lists 5 real life scenarios and see which policy benefis them more. Go and buy one, good read.

For comparison on health care policies of both candidates, the last issue (November) of Consumer Reports magazine has a detailed article. On top of general comparison, it lists 5 real life scenarios and see which policy benefis them more. Go and buy one, good read.

5 This is a tough question. There's a lot to commend McCain's plan. I dislike employer-related health insurance: it's a hack from World War II to work around the salary caps.

There's no real reason to tie your health care to your job. But McCain's plan is a scary jump for a lot of people. In theory, all of those people who lose their employer-sponsored health care have their salaries increased by the amount that the employer isn't spending.

But that's hard to fit into a sound bite, especially since you know a lot of employers would take it as a opportunity to cut net compensation. The total effect would be a free market in health care, and there's a lot to be said for that, if it could be sold. I just think that ultimately health care is not something that capitalism would handle well.

The problem is that health care has some infinities that throw off the calculations. If you get leukemia, most people don't run a calculation that says, "Nah, I think I'll just die instead. " You can't negotiate over the cost of a pill unless you're willing to say, "That's too much, I'd rather die."Another problem is that a free market in health care would act something like the free market we're experiencing in housing: people would take risks that they don't entirely understand.

And the consequences aren't just bankruptcy, but death, or the necessity to go to a massively expensive emergency care facility. People would be tempted to under-buy insurance because they don't want to spend money they don't have to, which is reasonable, but your health risks are not something you're really in a position to judge. Finally, I have a problem with a little-noticed provision in McCain's plan that is for me the crux of the problem.

If the health care companies get to decide who they'll insure, they'll elect to insure only people who don't actually need any health care. That leaves a gap, which McCain fills with a GAP, the Guaranteed Access Plan. But that's the thing that contains all of the actual sick people.

In other words, it's universal health care, but only as an afterthought. It's the economic equivalent of Microsoft Windows trying to build a security model in after the fact; it's a hack that is both overbearing and incapable of solving the real problem. If we're going to have universal health care, we need to make treating the actual sick people the fundamental part, and that IS everybody: we're all at risk of getting sick.

We need to form truly universal risk pools, and that only works with mandatory health insurance, which is Obama's plan. Obama's plan is NOT national health insurance, or socialized medicine. I'm not going to discuss the plan with anybody who is just going to spit out what got forwarded to them by their cousin Dave in an email.

This is a tough question. There's a lot to commend McCain's plan. I dislike employer-related health insurance: it's a hack from World War II to work around the salary caps.

There's no real reason to tie your health care to your job. But McCain's plan is a scary jump for a lot of people. In theory, all of those people who lose their employer-sponsored health care have their salaries increased by the amount that the employer isn't spending.

But that's hard to fit into a sound bite, especially since you know a lot of employers would take it as a opportunity to cut net compensation. The total effect would be a free market in health care, and there's a lot to be said for that, if it could be sold. I just think that ultimately health care is not something that capitalism would handle well.

The problem is that health care has some infinities that throw off the calculations. If you get leukemia, most people don't run a calculation that says, "Nah, I think I'll just die instead. " You can't negotiate over the cost of a pill unless you're willing to say, "That's too much, I'd rather die."Another problem is that a free market in health care would act something like the free market we're experiencing in housing: people would take risks that they don't entirely understand.

And the consequences aren't just bankruptcy, but death, or the necessity to go to a massively expensive emergency care facility. People would be tempted to under-buy insurance because they don't want to spend money they don't have to, which is reasonable, but your health risks are not something you're really in a position to judge. Finally, I have a problem with a little-noticed provision in McCain's plan that is for me the crux of the problem.

If the health care companies get to decide who they'll insure, they'll elect to insure only people who don't actually need any health care. That leaves a gap, which McCain fills with a GAP, the Guaranteed Access Plan. But that's the thing that contains all of the actual sick people.

In other words, it's universal health care, but only as an afterthought. It's the economic equivalent of Microsoft Windows trying to build a security model in after the fact; it's a hack that is both overbearing and incapable of solving the real problem. If we're going to have universal health care, we need to make treating the actual sick people the fundamental part, and that IS everybody: we're all at risk of getting sick.

We need to form truly universal risk pools, and that only works with mandatory health insurance, which is Obama's plan. Obama's plan is NOT national health insurance, or socialized medicine. I'm not going to discuss the plan with anybody who is just going to spit out what got forwarded to them by their cousin Dave in an email.

" (17 answers) "Ok... Let's put partisan politics aside and talk about issues - Energy Independence" "Anyone here ever been active in politics?" "Tell me about Arizona ... (this isn't about politics! )" "Ok... Let's put partisan politics aside and talk about issues - The Economy" "In politics what does the "rule of four" mean?

Does anybody in politics really care about health care or are people who die or suffer.

Ok... Let's put partisan politics aside and talk about issues - Taxing policy.

Ok... Let's put partisan politics aside and talk about issues - Energy Independence.

Tell me about Arizona ... (this isn't about politics! ).

Ok... Let's put partisan politics aside and talk about issues - The Economy.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.