# GENERAL FORUM > IN THE NEWS >  Ted Kennedey is a Ded Kennedey

## sizerp

Anyone even notice he's gone? Must have had SOME kind of honest, prodigal bone in his body.

----------


## MuscleScience

I dont wish death on anyone, as I have said many times before. Hopefully the Socialist movement in this Country went with him, or at least has been slowed down.

----------


## sizerp

> I dont wish death on anyone, as I have said many times before. Hopefully the Socialist movement in this Country went with him, or at least has been slowed down.


 
God lets hope so.

----------


## Flagg

Ded Kennedy sounds like the name of a Garbage Pail Kid.

----------


## mho

Can't say I'm sorry to hear the lady killing coward is dead.

----------


## MuscleScience

> Can't say I'm sorry to hear the lady killing coward is dead.


But all of socialist america calls him a hero.... :Haha:

----------


## BgMc31

^^^waaaaa!!! Just because people don't subscribe to the conservative bullcrap that everyone who opposes them is a socialist doesn't make it so. Ted Kennedy has done much and he is a hero. And no I'm far from being a socialist. Anyone who supports bigotry, doesn't support equal rights, or anyone who supports government intervention in the private lives of citizens (opposition to homosexual marriage) are the real socialists.

----------


## thegodfather

Regardless of his political viewpoints, he is a patriot, and its a shame that he's dead. While I did not agree with his policies, I respect him as a politician..

----------


## MuscleScience

> ^^^waaaaa!!! Just because people don't subscribe to the conservative bullcrap that everyone who opposes them is a socialist doesn't make it so. Ted Kennedy has done much and he is a hero. And no I'm far from being a socialist. Anyone who supports bigotry, doesn't support equal rights, or anyone who supports government intervention in the private lives of citizens (opposition to homosexual marriage) are the real socialists.


I agree with his civil rights, gay marriage and things like that. Seriously who doesnt, I dont agree with his LBJ style of the Great Society politics. Plus he killed is assistant, drunk, left the scene of the accident, left her to die, lied about it, got away with it because of his families legacy, hero he is not. Coward he was for leaving her and trying to cover it up. Dont care what else he did in life.

----------


## Mooseman33

> I agree with his civil rights, gay marriage and things like that. Seriously who doesnt, I dont agree with his LBJ still of the Great Society politics. Plus he killed is assistant, drunk, left the scene of the accident, left her to die, lied about it, got away with it because of his families legacy, hero he is not. Coward he was for leaving her and trying to cover it up. Dont care what else he did in life.


great post...

see ya later Ted..

----------


## TITANIUM

> ^^^waaaaa!!! Just because people don't subscribe to the conservative bullcrap that everyone who opposes them is a socialist doesn't make it so. Ted Kennedy has done much and he is a hero. And no I'm far from being a socialist. Anyone who supports bigotry, doesn't support equal rights, or anyone who supports government intervention in the private lives of citizens (opposition to homosexual marriage) are the real socialists.


I respect that he was the longest running senator.

But, coming from Mass originally, I can't say anything really positive about him.

The whole family's fortune is built on the alcohol prohibition that there father was into. 

So, there is no love lost about his passing to me.

There is a laundry list of shit that goes on and on.

The more curious thing about the family is the name.

I saw an interview about this.

The Kennedy's don't even try to pretend where there $$$ came from.

I believe in free commerce.

But, The family could walk through a shit storm, they would get covered with shit.

And it all just went away because, in lue of the assassination of his brothers.

I'm not going to get into a debate about it with BgMc.

I respect you bro.

You know that by now.

It's just a personal thing I'm venting about.

----------


## Tock

He was as human as either you or me, and advocated legislation that made it better for everyone. Here's a few highlights gleaned from his career; compared to the 8 years of George Bush's Presidency, I think the USA could stand another 47 years of Ted Kennedy over another 8 years of George Bush.
----------------------------------------------------------------

From Wikipedia - - -
1960's
-----------------------------------------------------
Kennedy returned to the Senate in January 1965, walking with a cane and employing a stronger and more effective legislative staff.[21] He took on President Lyndon B. Johnson and almost succeeded in amending the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to ban the poll tax,[21] gaining a reputation for legislative skill.[17] He was a leader in pushing through the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which ended a quota system based upon national origin[17] and which, despite Kennedy's predictions at the time, would have a profound effect on the demographic makeup of the United States.[36] He also played a role in creation of the National Teachers Corps.[21][37]

1970's -- Kennedy became chair of the Senate subcommittee on health care and played a leading role with Jacob Javits in the creation and passage of the National Cancer Act of 1971.[

In 1973, Kennedy's son Edward Kennedy, Jr., was discovered to have chondrosarcoma; his leg was amputated and he underwent a long, difficult, experimental two-year drug treatment.[48][62] The case brought international attention both among doctors and in the general media,[62] as did the young Kennedy's return to the ski slopes half a year later.[63] His other son, Patrick J. Kennedy, was suffering from severe asthma attacks.[48] The pressure of the situation mounted on Joan Kennedy, who several times entered facilities for alcoholism and emotional strain and was arrested for drunk driving after a traffic accident.[48][64]
Meanwhile, Kennedy renewed his efforts for national health insurance. While proposing a single-payer solution favored by organized labor, he also negotiated with the Nixon administration on their preferred employer-based, HMO-oriented solution.[65] The two sides could not come to agreement, and Kennedy would later regret not seizing upon the Nixon plan.[66] In the wake of the Watergate scandal, Kennedy pushed campaign finance reform; he was a leading force behind passage of the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974, which set contribution limits and established public financing for presidential elections.[67][68] In April 1974, Kennedy travelled to the Soviet Union, where he met with leader Leonid Brezhnev and advocated a full nuclear test ban as well as relaxed emigration, gave a speech at Moscow State University, met with Soviet dissidents, and secured an exit visa for famed cellist Mstislav Rostropovich.[69] Kennedy's Subcommittee on Refugees and Escapees continued to focus on Vietnam, especially after the Fall of Saigon in 1975.[52

1980's
Kennedy staged a tiring, dangerous, and high-profile trip to South Africa in January 1985.[102] He defied both the apartheid government's wishes and militant anti-white AZAPO demonstrators by spending a night in the Soweto home of Bishop Desmond Tutu and also visited Winnie Mandela, wife of imprisoned black leader Nelson Mandela.[78][102] Upon returning, Kennedy became a leader in the push for economic sanctions against South Africa; collaborating with Senator Lowell Weicker, he secured Senate passage, and the overriding of Reagan's veto, of the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986.[102] Despite their many political differences, Kennedy and Reagan had a good personal relationship,[103] and with the administration's approval Kennedy traveled to the Soviet Union in 1986 to act as a go-between in arms control negotiations with reformist Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev.[78] The discussions were productive, and Kennedy also helped gain the release of a number of Soviet Jewish refuseniks, including Anatoly Shcharansky.[78][104]

Kennedy used his legislative skills to get passed the COBRA Act, which extended employer-based health benefits after leaving a job.[66][109] Following the 1986 congressional elections, the Democrats regained control of the Senate and Kennedy became chair of the Labor and Public Welfare Committee. By now Kennedy had become what colleague Joe Biden termed "the best strategist in the Senate," who always knew when best to move legislation.[78] Kennedy continued his close working relationship with ranking Republican Senator Orrin Hatch,[66] and they were close allies on many health-related measures.[110]

after prolonged negotiations during 1989 with Bush chief of staff John H. Sununu and Attorney General Richard Thornburgh to secure Bush's approval, he directed passage of the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.[66][118] Kennedy had personal interest in the bill due to his sister Rosemary's condition and his son's lost leg, and he considered its enactment one of the most important successes of his career.[66] In the late 1980s Kennedy and Hatch staged a prolonged battle against Senator Jesse Helms to provide funding to combat the AIDS epidemic and provide treatment for low-income people affected; this would culminate in passage of the Ryan White Care Act.[119] 

1990's
the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which expanded employee rights in discrimination cases, came at the cost of being criticized for compromising with Republicans and Southern Democrats in order to gain passage.[123]
In 1996, Kennedy secured an increase in the minimum wage law, a favorite issue of his;[146] there would not be another increase for ten years. Following the failure of the Clinton health care plan, Kennedy went against his past strategy and sought incremental measures instead.[147] Kennedy worked with Republican Senator Nancy Kassebaum to create and pass the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act in 1996, which set new marks for portability of insurance and confidentiality of records.[66] The same year, Kennedy's Mental Health Parity Act forced insurance companies to treat mental health payments the same as others with respect to limits reached.[66] In 1997, Kennedy was the prime mover behind the State Children's Health Insurance Program,[148] which used increased tobacco taxes to fund the largest expansion of taxpayer-funded health insurance coverage for children in the U.S. since Medicaid began in the 1960s. Senator Hatch and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton also played major roles in SCHIP passing.[

2000's
Kennedy was in his Senate offices meeting with First Lady Laura Bush when the September 11, 2001, attacks took place.[153] Two of the airplanes involved had taken off from Boston, and in the following weeks, Kennedy telephoned each of the 177 Massachusetts families who had lost members in the attacks.[153] He pushed through legislation that provided healthcare and grief counseling benefits for the families, and recommended the appointment of his former chief of staff Kenneth Feinberg as Special Master of the government's September 11th Victim Compensation Fund.[153] Kennedy maintained an ongoing bond with the Massachusetts 9/11 families in subsequent years.[153][158]
In reaction to the attacks, Kennedy was a supporter of the American-led 2001 overthrow of the Taliban government in Afghanistan. However, Kennedy strongly opposed the Iraq War from the start, and was one of 23 senators voting against the Iraq War Resolution in October 2002.[153] As the Iraqi insurgency grew in subsequent years, Kennedy pronounced that the conflict was "Bush's Vietnam."[153] In response to losses of Massachusetts service personnel to roadside bombs, Kennedy became vocal on the issue of Humvee vulnerability, and co-sponsored enacted 2005 legislation that sped up production and Army procurement of uparmored Humvees.[153]

----------


## MuscleScience

> He was as human as either you or me, and advocated legislation that made it better for everyone. Here's a few highlights gleaned from his career; compared to the 8 years of George Bush's Presidency, I think the USA could stand another 47 years of Ted Kennedy over another 8 years of George Bush. 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> From Wikipedia - - -
> 1960's
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Kennedy returned to the Senate in January 1965, walking with a cane and employing a stronger and more effective legislative staff.[21] He took on President Lyndon B. Johnson and almost succeeded in amending the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to ban the poll tax,[21] gaining a reputation for legislative skill.[17] He was a leader in pushing through the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which ended a quota system based upon national origin[17] and which, despite Kennedy's predictions at the time, would have a profound effect on the demographic makeup of the United States.[36] He also played a role in creation of the National Teachers Corps.[21][37]
> 
> 1970's -- Kennedy became chair of the Senate subcommittee on health care and played a leading role with Jacob Javits in the creation and passage of the National Cancer Act of 1971.[
> ...


Thats all damn good and well, but it doesnt discount who he really was. Its a shame that he was ever re-elected. There could easily have been another democratic senator that could have voted for all those things too and not been a drunk or liar or a coward.

----------


## Tock

> Thats all damn good and well, but it doesnt discount who he really was. Its a shame that he was ever re-elected. There could easily have been another democratic senator that could have voted for all those things too and not been a drunk or liar or a coward.


 The people of Massachusetts had the responsibility and opportunity to judge his character and suitability for his job. After the Chappaquiddick situation, he asked the citizens of the state if he should quit or not. They said he should keep representing them, and they returned him to the US Senate several times after that. 

So if you are not impressed with the representatives that the voters of Massachusetts send to the US Senate, your quarrell is with the voters, not with the elected officials.

That said, yes, I agree; they could have elected more sober representatives. But then again, they would not have had Ted Kennedy working for them.

----------


## Tock

> The whole family's fortune is built on the alcohol prohibition that there father was into.


Prohibition?

Last I checked, everyone on this board is expending considerable effort to get around a type of prohibition. 

Crazy and intrusive people started the alcohol prohibition. Smarter people lifted that amendment to the US Constitution so you and I could have a cold beer, away from the "Nanny State."

What good does it do to criminalize alcohol or steroids , or imprison bartenders and bodybuilders? Prohibition brought about bootleg liquor and underground labs, who both make sub-standard quality products. Bad booze could leave drinkers blind or dead, and bad AS can lead to infection, improper dosing, and bad advice on how to best use the product so as to avoid health consequenses.

Personally, I'd be happy to see someone start up a clean UGL that would provide customers with safe product, accurate labels, a safe and competant network of health professionals to provide the ancillary services that AS users ought to have. 

Instead, hysterical politicians have given us Prohibition. What good is that?

----------


## MuscleScience

> The people of Massachusetts had the responsibility and opportunity to judge his character and suitability for his job. After the Chappaquiddick situation, he asked the citizens of the state if he should quit or not. They said he should keep representing them, and they returned him to the US Senate several times after that. 
> 
> So if you are not impressed with the representatives that the voters of Massachusetts send to the US Senate, your quarrell is with the voters, not with the elected officials.
> 
> That said, yes, I agree; they could have elected more sober representatives. But then again, they would not have had Ted Kennedy working for them.


No one said that you had to be smart to vote.... :Wink/Grin:

----------


## Panzerfaust

> Regardless of his political viewpoints, he is a patriot, and its a shame that he's dead. While I did not agree with his policies, I respect him as a politician..



LMAO!

Ted Kennedy was a ****ing cockroach piece of shit..good ****ing riddance!

----------


## TITANIUM

> Prohibition?
> 
> Last I checked, everyone on this board is expending considerable effort to get around a type of prohibition. 
> 
> Crazy and intrusive people started the alcohol prohibition. Smarter people lifted that amendment to the US Constitution so you and I could have a cold beer, away from the "Nanny State."
> 
> What good does it do to criminalize alcohol or steroids , or imprison bartenders and bodybuilders? Prohibition brought about bootleg liquor and underground labs, who both make sub-standard quality products. Bad booze could leave drinkers blind or dead, and bad AS can lead to infection, improper dosing, and bad advice on how to best use the product so as to avoid health consequenses.
> 
> Personally, I'd be happy to see someone start up a clean UGL that would provide customers with safe product, accurate labels, a safe and competant network of health professionals to provide the ancillary services that AS users ought to have. 
> ...




You read me wrong.

I said I was for free commerce.

Never said I was for prohibition.

You guys know my political stance on things.

I don't like Obama, Or Busch, or Clinton, ect....

I find that people here say things that they try to defend because they seem to hide from the truth.

I find it hard to believe that my AAS brothers are ruled by ignorance or such things.

If you liked Kennedy, then that's OK by me.

Your entitled to your opinion.

But, there are few men that are Senators,Republicans, or Democrats, that I respect.

It is what it is.

The whole Governmental backdrop is so polluted and convoluted, it makes me sick.

And I never voted for Kennedy...

PS-And anyone that is not for believing in the Constitution of the US, they need to go.They swear an oath to uphold the constitution to get in office, and then proceed to dismantle it.

Peace.

Titanium

----------


## TITANIUM

> LMAO!
> 
> Ted Kennedy was a ****ing cockroach piece of shit..good ****ing riddance!


You always have that "special way" of describing how you feel!!!

If we put out human size cockroach traps, the goverments would disapear overnight.

Wait a minute, that's a good idea!!!!LMAO :7up:

----------


## Panzerfaust

> You always have that "special way" of describing how you feel!!!
> 
> If we put out human size cockroach traps, the goverments would disapear overnight.
> 
> Wait a minute, that's a good idea!!!!LMAO




I certainly do not always state my case the best, but I am so fed up with these scumbags that I just let it flow.  :LOL: 

TheGodfather however definately writes more PC than I do.

----------


## Kratos

Total scum-bag
Although I would have prefered he resigned a long time ago to death...I'm not sad he's dead.

----------


## Bull_Nuts

> LMAO!
> 
> Ted Kennedy was a ****ing cockroach piece of shit..good ****ing riddance!


^^^AGREED! 

LOL...He was the first victim of Obama's healhcare reform....

Obama- "Um...ugh...sorry about this Ted...but it looks like we're gonna have to pull the cord"

Obama had to pull the plug on him...he was using to many resources to stay alive...

----------


## TITANIUM

> I certainly do not always state my case the best, but I am so fed up with these scumbags that I just let it flow. 
> 
> TheGodfather however definately writes more PC than I do.


Bro, your fine.

Don't ever change the way you "let it flow".

I enjoy what you write and find it refreshing as well as educational.

Best

T

----------


## TITANIUM

> ^^^AGREED! 
> 
> LOL...He was the first victim of Obama's healhcare reform....
> 
> Obama- "Um...ugh...sorry about this Ted...but it looks like we're gonna have to pull the cord"
> 
> Obama had to pull the plug on him...he was using to many resources to stay alive...


LMAO!!!


The Irony................ :7up: 

T

----------


## BgMc31

> ^^^AGREED! 
> 
> LOL...He was the first victim of Obama's healhcare reform....
> 
> Obama- "Um...ugh...sorry about this Ted...but it looks like we're gonna have to pull the cord"
> 
> Obama had to pull the plug on him...he was using to many resources to stay alive...


Another ignorant post by someone brainwashed by the Palin effect. Another victim of misinformation and/or a pathetic attempt at humor. :Aajack:

----------


## TITANIUM

> Another ignorant post by someone brainwashed by the Palin effect. Another victim of misinformation and/or a pathetic attempt at humor.


Bro,

Don't take this shit so personal.

I think we can all get along with no problem.

I love this forum.

It is entertaining as well as amusing.

Educational when you get down to it.

Peace.

T

----------


## BgMc31

^^^you're right brotha. So I digress. I just don't understand how people could be so gullible and fall for such misinformation. It makes them sound ignorant. I don't mind if someone doesn't like a politician based on his politics, but when people form their opinions based on misinformation it makes them look foolish and sheepish.

----------


## TITANIUM

> ^^^you're right brotha. So I digress. I just don't understand how people could be so gullible and fall for such misinformation. It makes them sound ignorant. I don't mind if someone doesn't like a politician based on his politics, but when people form their opinions based on misinformation it makes them look foolish and sheepish.


This is true BgMc.

I think alot of it is caused by the propaganda spin machine.

It's called the mainstream media.

Best

T

----------


## Bull_Nuts

> Another ignorant post by someone brainwashed by the Palin effect. Another victim of misinformation and/or a pathetic attempt at humor.


ok...well, i hope for your sake,you never need some specialty care that is classified outside of the governments defined scope of what they feel like treating.

So next time when you go into your ob/gyn's office for pelvic pain your government md is gonna just look at you and say "o not to worry...its just pelvic inflammatory disease". When all the while, had you been able to get a CT, MRI or biopsy immediately...you could have identified your ovarian cancer in a timely manner...you know...before it moved to your brain or other vital organ.

----------


## Bull_Nuts

The government couldn't even run a the best little whorehouse in texas

and for heaven's sake...if you can't sucessfully sell boo's and p ussy...what makes you think you can effectively manage healthcare

----------


## Flagg

> You always have that "special way" of describing how you feel!!!
> 
> If we put out human size cockroach traps, the goverments would disapear overnight.
> 
> Wait a minute, that's a good idea!!!!LMAO


That is a gold statement! Gonna have to remember that one

----------


## Flagg

> This is true BgMc.
> 
> I think alot of it is caused by the propaganda spin machine.
> 
> It's called the mainstream media.
> 
> Best
> 
> T



The Media is the single greatest problem in the West today, an entity that is entirely demegogue in nature!

----------


## TITANIUM

> The government couldn't even run a the best little whorehouse in texas
> 
> and for heaven's sake...if you can't sucessfully sell boo's and p ussy...what makes you think you can effectively manage healthcare


He does have a point here, I would have to agree with.

The governments advancements into the private sector of health care should be minimized, if not dismissed all together.

Now, this is not to say that the system does not need to be addressed, but to try to take away or even equalize privately paid for health care is wrong.


I know there is more to this subject than what everyone may or may not know, but you can see the problem on the horizon.

You can't make the system equal, so everyone gets the same as everyone else.

Most states have some kind of health care system in place for those who do not have health care at all.

Now, there could be numerous circumstances for this happening, but they would be to many to list.(job loss, income brackets,illegal immigrants, ect...)

So, the tax payers of the US are stuck with this ongoing problem of funding this with our taxes.

Now , I am not against doing this completely, due to the fact that, I may become one of those people in a similar situation and need health care I can't afford or ascertain.

But, I do have health care that I do pay for each week, and would rather not have it changed by federal legislation.

And the ramifications of this on the elderly are convoluted and not quite fully understood yet.

So, I think that if you have health care reform that takes away from some people to try to give to another, I feel that that is what the problem would end up as being the issue..

Health care is a business in the US, not a service, so to speak.

You can't really mix the two of them up together.Although the ideology of the thought sounds good and fair, making it work in harmony, I feel is unobtainable.

Best

T

----------


## BgMc31

> ok...well, i hope for your sake,you never need some specialty care that is classified outside of the governments defined scope of what they feel like treating.
> 
> So next time when you go into your ob/gyn's office for pelvic pain your government md is gonna just look at you and say "o not to worry...its just pelvic inflammatory disease". When all the while, had you been able to get a CT, MRI or biopsy immediately...you could have identified your ovarian cancer in a timely manner...you know...before it moved to your brain or other vital organ.





> He does have a point here, I would have to agree with.
> 
> The governments advancements into the private sector of health care should be minimized, if not dismissed all together.
> 
> Now, this is not to say that the system does not need to be addressed, but to try to take away or even equalize privately paid for health care is wrong.
> 
> 
> I know there is more to this subject than what everyone may or may not know, but you can see the problem on the horizon.
> 
> ...


While I understand what both are saying, you both fail to understand or see that Obama isn't trying to get rid of private insurance (although republicans would have you believe otherwise). He is merely offering a government option similar to that of the post office. FedEx and UPS are doing quite well. That is what I mean by the level of miscommunication that is being employed by politicians. Fear is the greatest political tool and I'll continue to say so. I saw exerts of one town hall meeting where an elderly woman stood up and said she was on medicare and then in the same sentence she said she didn't want the government interfering with her healthcare. I guess she doesn't understand that medicare is a government program. 

Very few people want healthcare to be run totally and completely by the government. But the fact remains that our healthcare system, as its currently employed, WILL bankrupt us. It's needs to be overhauled. We spend more on healthcare than any other country in the world but are far from the best (37th in the world). All I ask is for people to make informed decisions. I admire your post T, you make valid points, but they are informed points, Bull Nuts posts are typical misinformed, republican spin.

----------


## Kratos

> While I understand what both are saying, you both fail to understand or see that Obama isn't trying to get rid of private insurance (although republicans would have you believe otherwise). He is merely offering a government option similar to that of the post office. FedEx and UPS are doing quite well. That is what I mean by the level of miscommunication that is being employed by politicians. Fear is the greatest political tool and I'll continue to say so. I saw exerts of one town hall meeting where an elderly woman stood up and said she was on medicare and then in the same sentence she said she didn't want the government interfering with her healthcare. I guess she doesn't understand that medicare is a government program. 
> 
> Very few people want healthcare to be run totally and completely by the government. But the fact remains that our healthcare system, as its currently employed, WILL bankrupt us. It's needs to be overhauled. We spend more on healthcare than any other country in the world but are far from the best (37th in the world). All I ask is for people to make informed decisions. I admire your post T, you make valid points, but they are informed points, Bull Nuts posts are typical misinformed, republican spin.


Can you plz cite examples of countries where gvmt healthcare and private insurance co-exist?

Also, can you explain the causes of the high cost of healthcare in America and how Obama's program will reduce those costs?

----------


## Kratos

I'll get you started BgMc

1. Our medical personnel cost vastly more than their counterparts abroad in almost every category. And nurses are still in shortage, and we need to import 25% of our doctors from abroad already.

2. American hospitals staff at very high levels. Doctors conduct an inordinate amount of tests. We use an expensive machine rather than watchful waiting. And often, those expensive machines catch conditions that never would have turned into anything, which we then treat.

3. We pay for procedures, not wellness...this is a huge problem because often we waste huge amounts of resources on people who are going to die anyway and the focus is not on preventitive care.

4. All medical decisions have to be made by a doctor because of medical regulations. Where often times a nurse would be good enough.

5. Doctors have their fees set by insurance companies and Medicare, so they can’t advertise low prices. Nor can they advertise higher prices but better service.

6.Bureaucratic medical billing. Each doctor has to hire people to submit his bills to the insurance companies, who have their own people who look for reasons to reject the claims. As someone on the inside of the cash for clunkers program, I can tell you the gvmt isn't going to change that. Most dealerships have only been paid on about 5% of deals so far and spent up to 1 day submitting just one claim.

7. Malpractice insurance. Many doctors have to pay more than $100,000/year for malpractice insurance. In fact many of the Neuro surgeons I knew personally had to pay up to 300k per year before they even did their first procedure.

8. Emergency medical treetment act. Often hospitals have to pass that on to paying customers. I know one hospital where they have a permanent resident that is too unhealthy to get discarged and has been there for 2 + years. They will have to eat that cost. The problem is not that medical care should be unavailible...but the law was made with no promise of compensation. Ie, you must take care of these people but we won't be paying you for it, you have to do it cause it's the law.

Care to explain where Obama's plan will have any impact on these costs or any other costs?

----------


## Kratos

http://www.vancouversun.com/story_pr...878506&sponsor

----------


## TITANIUM

> While I understand what both are saying, you both fail to understand or see that Obama isn't trying to get rid of private insurance (although republicans would have you believe otherwise). He is merely offering a government option similar to that of the post office. FedEx and UPS are doing quite well. That is what I mean by the level of miscommunication that is being employed by politicians. Fear is the greatest political tool and I'll continue to say so. I saw exerts of one town hall meeting where an elderly woman stood up and said she was on medicare and then in the same sentence she said she didn't want the government interfering with her healthcare. I guess she doesn't understand that medicare is a government program. 
> 
> Very few people want healthcare to be run totally and completely by the government. But the fact remains that our healthcare system, as its currently employed, WILL bankrupt us. It's needs to be overhauled. We spend more on healthcare than any other country in the world but are far from the best (37th in the world). All I ask is for people to make informed decisions. I admire your post T, you make valid points, but they are informed points, Bull Nuts posts are typical misinformed, republican spin.


Thanks

I try to learn what I can, and am always open to discussion.

I agree with the uninformed, or mis-represented information that people acquire from the media.

Fear is the biggest lever the government can pull, next to the electric chair.

Wars are won by mere intimidation alone.

Our government plays from the same deck of cards.

I'm not a republican, but believe in some of there values.

I'm not a democrat, but believe in democracy.

I like what some of what the liberals say, but it's the way they go about things.

I think I would categorize most of my views as conservative.

But, then again.....

So, I am registered as independent,

I consider myself to have core beliefs.

I'm pro constitutional for sure.

Best

T

----------


## TITANIUM

> Can you plz cite examples of countries where gvmt healthcare and private insurance co-exist?
> 
> Also, can you explain the causes of the high cost of healthcare in America and how Obama's program will reduce those costs?


OK, I'm now going to "tap out", and watch this post.

BgMc and Kratos are up up bat now.

I'm at the point where I have to read and research what is being said.

And I will.

I respect both of you, and what you are saying.

I'll chime in later, when I see what gets posted.

Like I said before, this forum is both entertaining and educational.

Just remember to keep it clean.

We after all are setting in example for others.

Best

T

----------


## BgMc31

> Can you plz cite examples of countries where gvmt healthcare and private insurance co-exist?
> 
> *Hong Kong and Australia to name two.* 
> 
> 
> Also, can you explain the causes of the high cost of healthcare in America and how Obama's program will reduce those costs?


*1. Information sharing is burden on the US healthcare system. Streamlining the process would be cost effective. This has been proposed by Obama. A more efficient system could save as much as 360 billion.

2. The underinsured and no insurance people are a drain on the system. These people tend to shy away from preventative care and end up in emergency rooms with ailments anywhere from minor headaches to major illness. These emergency room visits are 10 times more costly than normal doctor visits and the average tax payer ends up paying the enormouse expenses. Insuring more people and emphasizing preventative care (which Obama has proposed) will lead to lower costs.

3. Unnecessary care. Because of the pay per service system currently employed, a whopping 500-700billion (according to the AARP) annually is spent on unnecessary services. A reform of this type program is necessary. A happy medium can be found.* 

Seems I didn't read your last post, Kratos. My apologies, but we see the same problems and the three I listed do have reform measures in Obama's plan. Whether or not other bills proposed by the Congressional Dems and Republicans include these reforms, I'm not quite sure.

----------


## Kratos

On Hong Kong,

October 2007 
Hong Kong, arguably one the jewels of Asia, is world renowned as a city that is both extremely affluent and cosmopolitan. With a large number of multinational corporations making Hong Kong the location of their Asian headquarters, the city’s proximity to China, and the veritable cornucopia of tourist sights (including all the discount markets, and historic locations), it is no wonder that Hong Kong has become one of the world favorite destinations. In the years immediately following the city’s transfer back to China (1997), there was, justifiably, some concern as to Hong Kong’s future; however with the city bouncing back from the Asian financial crisis, weathering the dual medical emergencies of both SARS and Avian Flu Hong Kong has again resumed its position as the worlds freest economy and one of the major players in the international development of Asia as a whole. 
As Hong Kong continues its development more and more individuals are choosing to either visit or permanently relocate to the city, and one of the main issues that concerns the ever increasing number of foreign nationals and expatriates who are moving to Hong Kong is the state of the city’s healthcare service. Hong Kong departed from the UK style National Health Service in 1990 with the creation of the Hong Kong Hospital Authority. The Hong Kong hospital authority, in conjunction with the Department of Health, oversees the management of all public healthcare facilities in the City. 

It has been argued, recently that having these two departments working on the same problems (i.e. healthcare oversight) has caused more problems that not. The Public healthcare system in Hong Kong has been criticized in terms of the quality of service that it is able to provide. *While there are a number of Public hospitals in the city, more often than not, these medical facilities are continually packed with patients. The large number of individuals who seek treatment at these facilities has lead to increased need for qualified doctors and nurses who, unfortunately, are not being trained fast enough.* This has lead to more and more patients choosing to receive their treatment at the city’s many private healthcare facilities. However, it must be stated that while the private medical facilities in Hong Kong (hospitals such as the Adventist or Matilda) are able to offer treatment options and care levels that are much higher than those found in public hospitals, these medical facilities are much more expensive. 



Even though Hong Kong diverted from the UK system of healthcare in 1990, the Hong Kong government remained committed to offering low cost healthcare to its citizens. Typically individuals possessing a Hong Kong permanent identity card will only have to pay a fee of around HK$ 60 per night if they are hospitalized into a public ward at a public hospital. Now while this figure may seem extremely low from a USA or UK viewpoint it must be remembered that this “hospitalization” fee does not include the costs of any surgeries or treatment outside of the individual merely occupying a bed. Local and foreign patients alike quickly discover that receiving treatment in a “cheaper” public hospital will often end up costing the same amount as a shorter stay, with better care, at a private medical facility. 
*Hong Kong is notorious for having some of the highest healthcare costs in the world.*  The city is ranked, along with Israel, as having the second highest costing healthcare system in the world behind the USA. This ranking includes both the private and public healthcare facilities and in this case it becomes evident that paying for medical treatment in Hong Kong is not something you would want to do out of pocket. This situation has only worsened further since the start of 2007. With an increased number of mainland Chinese opting to use the city’s superior healthcare services the hospitals and clinics around Hong Kong have had an entirely new level of stress placed on them. Because of this the government of HKSAR is in the process of instituting new price reforms, and some of these have already been put into place. 

Due to the large number of mainland (People’s Republic of China) women who are entering the city in order to give birth the Hong Kong Hospital Authority has implemented a blanket price rise for maternity costs around the region. Since 1997 Hong Kong has seen a huge rise in the number of Chinese women crossing the border from China for one reason; to give birth. This can be attributed to a number of factors, but the leading reason for this trend is the fact that any child who is born in Hong Kong receives the right of abode in the city and the chance of a much better life than they would have on the mainland. Every year thousands of Chinese mothers cross the border to give their children the chance of a better life or to avoid the PRC’s strict one child policy. 

In response to this influx of pregnant women the Hong Kong government raised the minimum delivery cost in the city to almost US$ 6000. It is important to remember that this is the basic cost and does not take into account any anesthetics or “complication of pregnancy” charges. Obviously this price tag is beyond the means of many mainland families, and even local Hong Kongers, but it extends further than that. This general increase in maternity costs apply to any woman who has not had pre-natal check ups with a Hong Kong doctor or who have not booked a bed at a local hospital; so rather than just targeting women from mainland China, this cost rise affects any pregnant woman entering the territory. 

As one would expect, many foreign expats living in the city, and even Hong Kong nationals, turn to insurance to help them cope with the high costs associated with quality medical treatment. In this regard people usually have two options; Local or International health insurance. While these options may seem, at first glance, remarkably similar they are extremely different. A local Hong Kong insurance plan will adjust premiums according to the current medical costs in the city, as well as penalizing any claims that an individual makes by increasing the plan’s premium accordingly. In addition to this local health insurance plans will not work outside of the country in which they were obtained. In the modern world, where people are prone to more international travel than ever before, this poses a difficult problem, as they can never be guaranteed the coverage that they need while overseas without purchasing an additional travel policy. Local health insurance policies will also usually have a date whereby they can no longer be renewed, this means that the policyholder is not guaranteed coverage in the future in the event that they contact a serious illness or suffer from a major injury. 

International health insurance plans are more versatile in their nature, and while they are not specifically designed with the Hong Kong market in mind they will typically afford a policyholder higher levels of coverage than are usually associated with a local health insurance policy. International health insurance plans are community rated; this means that premiums are not calculated on an individual basis but rather on the rate of global medical inflation. By providing plans that are community rated, international health insurance plans are guaranteeing their policyholder that they will always be paying the same premium as everyone else in their age group, regardless of the individuals claims history. In addition to this international health insurance plans are globally portable, so even if the policyholder relocates away from Hong Kong their coverage will travel with them. 

Hong Kong is an extremely modern and fascinating city; this however does not stop the healthcare service there being extremely broad, complex, and expensive. In reality all the issues that are currently inherent in the Hong Kong healthcare system are far too varied for a single article and require that large amounts of attention be paid to them. If you are planning on moving to or visiting Hong Kong, you should consult a professional and understand what options you have in regards to protecting your health and the health of your loved ones. 

http://www.escapeartist.com/efam/96/HK_insurance.html

----------


## BgMc31

^^^I got my info from the same source Kratos. I concede there are problems with their system but no system is perfect. But the two do coincide with each other much better than the US's current healthcare system.

----------


## Kratos

The Aussie system has it's problems as well.

It isn't really a public and private system. There are tax incentives for the wealthy to get insurance...but the insurance only is for elective procedures done in private facilities.

Do we really want the gvmt owning most of the hospitals? Idk, I find it strange though.

almost 70% of all healthcare expense is gvmt.

They have a gross shortage of doctors as well.

----------


## Kratos

> *1. Information sharing is burden on the US healthcare system. Streamlining the process would be cost effective. This has been proposed by Obama. A more efficient system could save as much as 360 billion.
> 
> 2. The underinsured and no insurance people are a drain on the system. These people tend to shy away from preventative care and end up in emergency rooms with ailments anywhere from minor headaches to major illness. These emergency room visits are 10 times more costly than normal doctor visits and the average tax payer ends up paying the enormouse expenses. Insuring more people and emphasizing preventative care (which Obama has proposed) will lead to lower costs.
> 
> 3. Unnecessary care. Because of the pay per service system currently employed, a whopping 500-700billion (according to the AARP) annually is spent on unnecessary services. A reform of this type program is necessary. A happy medium can be found.* 
> 
> Seems I didn't read your last post, Kratos. My apologies, but we see the same problems and the three I listed do have reform measures in Obama's plan. Whether or not other bills proposed by the Congressional Dems and Republicans include these reforms, I'm not quite sure.


1. Plenty of work is already being done to computerize patient records.

2. There is a lot of research on preventative care over the last couple of decades. With the exception of vaccination and smoking cessation, its almost all nonsense. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...cut-costs.html

3. And how do you eliminate those unnessicary procedures...by denying more claims?

----------


## TITANIUM

I Agree that the health care system needs some reform.

I often wonder what happened to the 850 billion dollars that the US borrowed from abroad.

I know that we are somewhat in the range of 3 to 4 trillion dollars in deficit.

I know Ninja had made a point of the banks and other needless loans made.

Maybe some of that $$$ should have been used to help out the health care system.

My personal belief is that to stimulate the economy, you need to ramp up consumer spending.

Maybe if everyone received, say $5000.00 for a stimulus incentive, that would in return, put money back into the system.

But it needs to be put back at the taxpayers level.

Which is what helps recessions and worse, depressions.

Let's do some fuzzy math:


There are approximately 300 millon people in the US.

850 billion dollars was borrowed.

300,000,000 X $5,000 == 1.500000000e+12

I think that's right.

So, if you just do the math, they could have gave $5000 to every tax payer and still have a extra $$$.

In fact, it would be a very small dent in comparison.

OK, I went off on a tangent, but you see my point.

Governments do not handle things well.

Especially money.

Best

T

----------


## wantmoremass

> Can you plz cite examples of countries where gvmt healthcare and private insurance co-exist?


They do co-exist here in Canada. Although the health system is funded and administered by government, anyone with a job with decent benefits has private sector insurance. I guess you could say the lowest common denominator support of the system is the government model, so regardless of what private insurance covers, if there is no surgery booking available, you're fvcked. Private insurance is mostly for topping up the basics (e.g. private room instead of shared in hospital, some level of coverage of pharmaceuticals - i get 90% coverage, paramedical expenses like optometry, massage, chiropractic, etc.). Some procedures can be administered privately (e.g. my mom sped up her knee replacement by paying privately). It's really a mixed bag here.

----------


## BgMc31

> The Aussie system has it's problems as well.
> 
> It isn't really a public and private system. There are tax incentives for the wealthy to get insurance...but the insurance only is for elective procedures done in private facilities.
> 
> Do we really want the gvmt owning most of the hospitals? Idk, I find it strange though.
> 
> almost 70% of all healthcare expense is gvmt.
> 
> They have a gross shortage of doctors as well.


Like I said before, no system is perfect. You asked for examples of private and public systems co-existing and I provided them. Now obviously fault can be found with any system, but surely you cannot argue that our system is best. Even a flawed system like australia's is better than our current system.

----------


## BgMc31

> 1. Plenty of work is already being done to computerize patient records.
> 
> 2. There is a lot of research on preventative care over the last couple of decades. With the exception of vaccination and smoking cessation, its almost all nonsense. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...cut-costs.html
> 
> 3. And how do you eliminate those unnessicary procedures...by denying more claims?


The answer to no 3 isn't denying more claims, it putting in place practical processes for implementing those procedures. Sure some people will cheat the system as no system is fool proof, but clearly defining needs is the 1st step in the process without using the scare tactic of "death panels"

----------


## MuscleScience

Our system is the best in the world hands down. We put out the best research, we attract the best health care providers from around the world. We also have the best schools, and also attract the best students from around the world. We spend many times the amount of money on biomedical research than any other country. Our trouble centers around that we focus on treatment and not prevention.

We do need some sort of reform, what exactly that reform should be is a matter of debate. Certainly I do not want to pay for the 20% of Americans that dont have health insurance. Right now I do when they cant pay for care. I also do not want to pay the Federal Government to take care of these people. Its really a no win situation because I am certain that the way it is now is better than what the Government could do.

----------


## Kratos

> Like I said before, no system is perfect. You asked for examples of private and public systems co-existing and I provided them. Now obviously fault can be found with any system, but surely you cannot argue that our system is best. Even a flawed system like australia's is better than our current system.


so clearly defining needs and deciding more people don't meet those requirements...aka denying more claims.

----------


## BgMc31

> Our system is the best in the world hands down. We put out the best research, we attract the best health care providers from around the world. We also have the best schools, and also attract the best students from around the world. We spend many times the amount of money on biomedical research than any other country. Our trouble centers around that we focus on treatment and not prevention.
> 
> We do need some sort of reform, what exactly that reform should be is a matter of debate. Certainly I do not want to pay for the 20% of Americans that dont have health insurance. Right now I do when they cant pay for care. I also do not want to pay the Federal Government to take care of these people. Its really a no win situation because I am certain that the way it is now is better than what the Government could do.


If our system is the best 'hands down' then why do we rank 37th worldwide with shorter life expectancy and higher costs than just about any other industrialized country on the planet?

----------


## Kratos

> If our system is the best 'hands down' then why do we rank 37th worldwide with shorter life expectancy and higher costs than just about any other industrialized country on the planet?


This for staters




> I'll get you started BgMc
> 
> 1. Our medical personnel cost vastly more than their counterparts abroad in almost every category. And nurses are still in shortage, and we need to import 25% of our doctors from abroad already.
> 
> 2. American hospitals staff at very high levels. Doctors conduct an inordinate amount of tests. We use an expensive machine rather than watchful waiting. And often, those expensive machines catch conditions that never would have turned into anything, which we then treat.
> 
> 3. We pay for procedures, not wellness...this is a huge problem because often we waste huge amounts of resources on people who are going to die anyway and the focus is not on preventitive care.
> 
> 4. All medical decisions have to be made by a doctor because of medical regulations. Where often times a nurse would be good enough.
> ...





> If our system is the best 'hands down' then why do we rank 37th worldwide with shorter life expectancy and higher costs than just about any other industrialized country on the planet?




You want more reasons? 

Look down about 2 posts about fried butter being featured at the texas fair.

Adults in the United States have one of the highest obesity rates in the world. Nearly a third of U.S. adults 20 years and older are obese, while about two-thirds are overweight, according to the National Center for Health Statistics.

Shit hole states in the South where hicks chew tobacco and bang each others sisters have a much lower life expectancy then average (about 5 years).

Lowest life expectancy state is DC where black people offing each other.
In fact Black people are pulling down the average quite a bit.
Black American males have a life expectancy of 69.8 years, about the same as if you were born in Iran. Infant mortality is quite high for blacks too. The U.S. rate was 6.8 deaths for every 1,000 live births. It was 13.7 for Black Americans. It just shows the harsh circumstances blacks are born into. Insurance isn't going to change that.

But as far as medical care, being a white male in the northeast, I can be confident knowing I'll outlive my Euro counterparts, at least statistically.

----------


## bass

> LMAO!
> 
> Ted Kennedy was a ****ing cockroach piece of shit..good ****ing riddance!


Exactly...

----------


## MuscleScience

> If our system is the best 'hands down' then why do we rank 37th worldwide with shorter life expectancy and higher costs than just about any other industrialized country on the planet?


Because vs Europe our population has a lot more uneducated and impoverished people. China for example under reports its infant death rate. In England A person is 4 times more likely to die of breast cancer in females and prostate cancer in males than their American counter-parts. The doom and gloom about our medical system is based of bias and mis-representation of the overall facts. Most people in the know laugh at the rating our system gets of 37th because they know its nothing more than BS. 

Its also like saying our educational system is failing, Even though we pump out many more scientist, doctors, professionals ect. Everyone comes here to study and all the top Universities by any measure of ranking are all here. 

The sky is not falling is all I am saying.

----------


## TITANIUM

> This for staters
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want more reasons? 
> ...


I was actually going to write a thread about this. But you beat me to it.

It's true. We have more diseases and other afflictions due to the diets of certain people, and the preservatives they put in the food we eat.

I have an excellent diet, as I'm sure everyone that's into BB has the same type of diet.

I'm enjoying these posts, and find them very interesting.

I don't always believe in statistics, do to the fact that they may be squed to a certain degree.

But it seems that we are all on the same page, for the most part.

Interesting post this turned out to be.

Best

T

----------


## j4ever41

people are going to live the way they want and that means eating a crappy diet,smoking,drinking in excess then after doing this for years will be demanding treatment for the consequences of their actions,when they get discharged following their quadruple bypass they will pick up where they left off,you are not going to change behavior.

----------

