I want to have that guys voice when I'm old, seriously.

Who was the last President NOT called Hitler? FDR?

FDR was compared to Stalin.

I love how this stuff is somehow not biased, but Fox News is.

That woman was a whole load of crazy. I mean Obama is not directly linked to the genocide of 12 million people, I would be extremely insulted if someone compared me to Hitler in any way... especially one as tenuous as this.

-edit-

This thread has reminded me of how the republicans who are anti-healthcare really are drawing on strawman arguements to win this debate at this point. It's actually really kinda sad, I have a lot of respect for the few free thinking republicans who are for it or are willing to debate real reasons for a better reform.

Well, its not just the Republicans who are avoiding a "Straight-Up" debate on healthcare reform ...

Part of the problem that the Democrats now face is that they have a massive bill which is (nearly) impossible to explain, is full of clauses which can be interpreted in many ways, at a time when they have erased most of the trust voters had with them, and the party has several people in positions of influence who have written (mostly academic) arguments which are out of step with the beliefs of average Americans. The people who are opposed to this plan don't have to try particularly hard to make this reform look dangerously bad, and the implications presented by opponents can easily be converted into unrealistic claims about what the bill is really about.

The Democrats have responded by attacking their opponents through mocking and minimizing them ("Teabaggers" comes to mind) or by portraying them as militant racists; and they have gotten a lot of help from certain "Friends" in the media, even to the extent of MSNBC portraying a black man who carried an assult rifle to a town hall protest as being a racist who objects to the Obama presidency.

Now, the thing I have noticed with the strategy the Democrats are taking is that it is backfiring on them and their supporters from the media as more moderate opponents (or people who just want to see this debated and well understood before it is voted on) are insulted by their generalizations about the protesters. Whether you agree with the numbers represented by Rasmussen reports, the longer this debate goes on the less support people show for the reform, the lower people's approval of the president becomes, and the higher the Republican's are favoured in the generic congressional ballot; and I suspect a large portion of that comes from the Democrats insulting independants and conservatives Democrats in a way to push this bill forward.

A lot of house Democrats are worried this is Clinton Healthcare reform all over again.

At least according to Anderson Cooper who is anything but a fan of the Republicans.


For non American posters. Clinton's healthcare plan ended up in flames and cost the democrats tons of seats in house.

Most people with healthcare in this country are more then satisfied with it... and when you start touching their healthcare... they get upset....

and the one thing nobody has figured out is "How to pay for it."


Another worry is... if it passes. It's going to cost at minimium 1 trillion over 10 years. (probably a LOT more)...

and no changes are expected to be noticed until 1013. (Per actual bill.)

Come election time, hundreds of billions of dollars will have been spent with no current noticable changes... except 3 things.

1) Everyone will be forced to own insurance or pay a penalty.  (Not seen positivily by those who won't qualify for subsidies yet don't have insurance... and the subsidies may or may not be in effect right away.  This might not come in effect right away.)

2) You can't discriminate based on prexisting conditions.  (Which will raise healthy peoples insurance as the companies need to offset the risk.)

3) Depending how they pay for it, taxes may be higher, company insurance may be higher or some dropped, or some other way we'll be paying for this will be in effect.

In otherwords.... a lot of money will be spent with no changes and there will be a couple elections where republicans can say "Billions spent and there is no change in your healthcare."

And even then there is no guratnee the plan will work since the whitehouse made a deal with big Pharm to make sure Congress can't negotiate drug prices.

It's weird.  Since all anyone needs to do to refute a method like the UK is to point to the fact that the US has higher surivival rates for both Cancer and Cardio Vascular Disease.  The two biggest killers and two biggest healthcare problems.

Even with as uneven as it is... the American Healthcare system is just better.

Even in "universal" healthcare countries the poor seem to have lower surivial rates for just about everything for some reason.

But the average life expectancy in the UK is 79.01 years where as in the USA it is only 78.53. Even though the disparity is small statistically you are still more likely to live longer in the UK than in the USA (source). And it's not just the UK national system that beats the US's largely private system, other social systems have much longer life expectancies such as.

• Hong kong - 81.86
• Australia - 81.63
• Canada - 81.23
• France - 80.98
• Netherlands - 79.4
• Germany - 79.26
• Finland - 78.97

I mean if national healthcare is so bad in rich countries then why are the life expectancies so good? I tell you why, because the rich countries can afford to give a reasonably high standard of medical care to anyone in their country in an even way. Admittedly poorer countries suffer from national health because it is hard to maintain, but USA is not a poor country by any means.

I wouldn't even want to think about what the USAs life expectancy would be without Medicaid and Medicare for 60% of it's population to rely on.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) agrees with me too. They rank the USA at 37th best system in the world, where as the aforementioned are ranked.

• France - #1
• Netherlands - #17
• UK - #18
• Germany - #25
• Canada - #30
• Finland - #31
• Australia - #32

(The top 30 is pretty much social healthcare systems)

All higher than the USA's ranking, and yet again I don't want to think about what would happen if the USA didn't have medicare and medicaid to support the lower 60% of the population if they require it. The ranking would surely slip even further as millions are left with no access to medical care. 

Face it the USA's system needs reform and that's what Obama wants to do and he has tried to find the best solution for all, and looking at the systems of other developed countries who have adopted a largely social hybrid system (What he suggests) and had success over the US, then I would say he's purely following logic to find what the best reform would be.

Two horrible statitics.

1)  Life expectancy takes more into account then healthcare.... MUCH more.  For example the US has a much higher murder rate... espeically among youths... it also doesn't take into account things like obesity rates which relate to health but are not related to healthcare treatment.  Diseases may or may not be more common in certain countries due to genetic histories as well... etc.  Hence why surivival rates are fare more important.

2) The WHO rankings.  Have you ever read the WHO report?  I have.  It has almost nothing to do with healthcare... with Life expectancy being the only actual indicator of healthcare effectiveness.  Everything has to do with healthcare spending and how high a percentage of your income you have to spend... basically it's mostly a measure of how socialized your healthcare system is.

Hence why the most soicalized are all at the top.

Life expectancy of the major diseases is by far a better indicator because it actually has to do with healthcare treatment unlike the two stats you brought up.  It still does have some flaws like obesity rates and such... however those still play negativly in the US favor and the US still comes out ahead.  (Obese are more likely to die from treatment.)

Furthermore... you know this.  Yet are ignoring it because the results go against what you wish.  The WHO stuff has been debunked dozens of times on this board before.

The US system isn't any worse then other systems of industrialized nations.  They just have different strengths and weaknesses.

The US strengths lie in providing better coverage for most people while the europeon systmes focus more on more equalized service among people of the same age groups.

Both "ration" in a way.

The Europeon system rations away from the old.

The American system rations away from the poor.

Because healthcare is ALWAYS going to be too expensive to properly provide for everbody.  Either that or technology is going to slow down.

The big difference is... at least in the US system those usually screwed haven't paid for their healthcare all their lives.

That and the poor seem to still be discriminated against in the universal systems... either that or poor people are just more likely to die during treatment.

There are a few different reasons for this to be the case.  General health of the poor being worse and the poor being less likely to fight cost cutting doctors and get the best treatment do to a higher power differential being the most likely.

Neither system is inherently better.  Personally though... I perfer a system where you always have a chance to get better coverage and if you aren't getting it... at least you aren't paying for it.

The poor can always become richer or end up taking a job with good healthcare UPS/Starbucks etc... (higher poor is really all that's needed.)  The old can pretty much never get young again to get treatment.

I can see people perfering a system that puts priority on how helpful you will be to the community... I disagree with it, but i can see why people would choose it.

I don't know who I hate more, the lady idiot, or the old idiot.