Neurosurgeon: Obamacare Threatens Freedom

[+joc]

One of the world's best doctor's is also one of the most outspoken critics of Obamacare.

"The freedom of Americans to control their own health care needs is being threatened by massive governmental interference," says neurosurgeon Ben Carson.

LINK

[Leonardo]

He makes a basic assumption that "most Americans" have both the opportunity and ability to 'control their own healthcare'.

That assumption was shown to be false. The state of the American citizens healthcare was determined by the market - and people like Dr Carson - not themselves.

[questionmark]

He makes a basic assumption that "most Americans" have both the opportunity and ability to 'control their own healthcare'.

That assumption was shown to be false. The state of the American citizens healthcare was determined by the market - and people like Dr Carson - not themselves.

Bad Leonardo,you are destroying the pipe dreams of the guy living under the bridge to have the liberty to be treated by this gentleman!

[Frank Merton]

Maybe Vietnamese are more free here, although to be sure the government is involved in health care to its hips. What follows is for those who want to get an idea what socialized medicine can be like.

If I'm ailing or want some test or other or whatever, I go to a clinic (there are dozens of them and they are set up to compete with each other) and pay my 20,000 VND (a little less than a dollar now -- individual VND disappeared a generation ago) and see a triage nurse, who gives me a number and sends me to a doctor. There I wait till my number is called and go see the doctor, who may then send me to other doctors (these clinics typically have several hundred doctors around at any given time -- since Vietnam is a morning-person country, the least crowded times are in the mid-afternoon -- just a tip to tourists).

One can easily end up spending several hours for a bad cough and of course having to come back the next day if a blood test is done. The tests seem to be pretty standard and the same as in the States, and you get detailed reports in English (not Vietnamese most of the time -- I think this is their way of keeping the uneducated from knowing what's going on). Anyway I always end up with a list of all the things I already know are wrong with me and instructions to get exercise, lose weight and drink lots of water. I also get all my prescriptions double-checked in their computer (with my heart and diabetes and bad liver and gallstones and what-all I have a lot of pills).

One pays for each test in advance, so the total bill typically comes to a few hundred thousand VND (maybe twenty dollars tops) if I have a couple sonograms, the normal EKG, blood work and urine sample, and of course check-over.

Out of curiosity I priced my prescription list in the states once. It came to $2200 a month. Here it runs about a hundred dollars a month.

[Leonardo]

Bad Leonardo,you are destroying the pipe dreams of the guy living under the bridge to have the liberty to be treated by this gentleman!

But truth is beauty, and beauty, truth - right?

How can truth be 'bad', and delusion be beautiful!?!

[Merc14]

Hae

He makes a basic assumption that "most Americans" have both the opportunity and ability to 'control their own healthcare'.

That assumption was shown to be false. The state of the American citizens healthcare was determined by the market - and people like Dr Carson - not themselves.

Actually the majority of Americans that wanted healthcare, did have healthcare so your assumptions are false, not Carson's. Learn to do some research before gushing your sanctimony all over place, especially when you don't even live in this country. And get your news from better sources than the American press, they are an adjunct arm of teh democrat party and completely useless, for the most part, when fact gathering.

[Space Commander Travis]

Funny how they never seem to worry that people's freedom might be threatened by their right wing dogma, do they. It really does seem to be the attitude that "America values Freedom, just as long as you go along with our ideology". It really does seem to be becoming a more and more dogmatic, politically polarised society that is becoming more and more intolerant of anyone who "can't make the effort to look after themselves, and expects the Government to do everything for them". What this translates to is that old cry "Why should I pay taxes....". These people don't want to live in a society, they seem to want to live in a world where it's everyone for themselves and no matter about anyone else, because they might have to pay taxes if society started to care about anyone else.

[Merc14]

Funny how they never seem to worry that people's freedom might be threatened by their right wing dogma, do they. It really does seem to be the attitude that "America values Freedom, just as long as you go along with our ideology". It really does seem to be becoming a more and more dogmatic, politically polarised society that is becoming more and more intolerant of anyone who "can't make the effort to look after themselves, and expects the Government to do everything for them". What this translates to is that old cry "Why should I pay taxes....". These people don't want to live in a society, they seem to want to live in a world where it's everyone for themselves and no matter about anyone else, because they might have to pay taxes if society started to care about anyone else.

How in the hell does the government taking over 20% of the private sector and running my personal healthcare equate to more freedom? And just who in teh hell said "Why should I pay taxes?" No one on teh right believes they should pay no taxes, they just don't think you should be turning over 50% of your income to the government.

Arguing from the big lie is the way of the left folks. In the above post he has made up several falsehoods and assigned them to a "dangerous right wing conglomerate bent on not paying any taxes, being intolerant of race creed and color, desiring to leave the sick and elderly to fend for themselves and on and on. I challenge this pompous air bag to show me where any mainstream right wing person has ever advocated this? prove it.

[Skep B]

Why is a Neruo surgeon's views on politics something important?

If he has something to say about fixing a problem w/ the central nervous system, but his political views are probably as valid as mine, or anyone else's

[Leonardo]

Hae

Actually the majority of Americans that wanted healthcare, did have healthcare so your assumptions are false, not Carson's. Learn to do some research before gushing your sanctimony all over place, especially when you don't even live in this country. And get your news from better sources than the American press, they are an adjunct arm of teh democrat party and completely useless, for the most part, when fact gathering.

Having healthcare and having control over what healthcare you have are two different things, Merc.

I can insure my house or car, but I am limited over what insurance and terms the insurance companies are willing to offer. I don't control what insurance I have, the insurance companies do. Likewise, Americans don't control what healthcare they have, or can have, the healthcare industry does.

Edited November 16, 2013 by Leonardo

[+and-then]

Why is a Neruo surgeon's views on politics something important?

If he has something to say about fixing a problem w/ the central nervous system, but his political views are probably as valid as mine, or anyone else's

Spending an entire career working within the current system and being savvy enough to see what is coming makes him IMMINENTLY qualified to speak on the subject I think.

[Skep B]

If its about problems within the system, sure but ting it to constiutional freedoms and political stuff doesn't make sense to me why his opinion is special.

My mechanic is really good at fixing cars, but I don't go asking him for his opinion on wars in countries w/ Oil reserves,

[RavenHawk]

He makes a basic assumption that "most Americans" have both the opportunity and ability to 'control their own healthcare'.

That assumption was shown to be false. The state of the American citizens healthcare was determined by the market - and people like Dr Carson - not themselves.

Then by GOD, we take our power back! Stop being a whining victim and stand up for yourself. Corporations and government only have power over us if we give it to them. With an aware consumer, the corporation has no power. With an involved citizenry, the government cannot infringe.

The basic assumption is true provided that Socialism is completely out of the picture and Americans return to their true state of being self reliant. Dr. Carson’s position is that the state of healthcare belongs between the doctor and the patient and no one else.

[Leonardo]

Then by GOD, we take our power back! Stop being a whining victim and stand up for yourself. Corporations and government only have power over us if we give it to them.

Who is this directed at, RavenHawk?

The basic assumption is true provided that Socialism is completely out of the picture and Americans return to their true state of being self reliant. Dr. Carson's position is that the state of healthcare belongs between the doctor and the patient and no one else.

No, it's not, and healthcare has very little to do with the relationship between physician and patient, but a lot to do with means (i.e. affordability.)

With an aware consumer, the corporation has no power. With an involved citizenry, the government cannot infringe.

Nice sound-bites, but totally unrealistic in the dynamic of a capitalist free-market system. Without Govt involvement (regulation) in such a system, the consumer will always be subject to the whims of the producer.

[+DieChecker]

One of the world's best doctor's is also one of the most outspoken critics of Obamacare.

"The freedom of Americans to control their own health care needs is being threatened by massive governmental interference," says neurosurgeon Ben Carson.

LINK

(Sarcasm)

HE'S A RACIST!!

(aka Typical Liberal Response)

[Skep B]

Curses...a black conservative....Who coulda seen this coming

*guy in back of the room*

EVERYBODY!

WHO LET THAT GUY IN H!ERE?

[+DieChecker]

Americans don't control what healthcare they have, or can have, the healthcare industry does.

I don't believe that it entirely true. It is like saying Americans don't control what cars they buy, the auto industry does. Which is true to an extent, but no strictly true. People USED to be able to micro manage their insurance and now (on the low end) they can't. Liberty was removed in that case.

I don't see how in is more Freedom to force people to buy coverage. When there are supposed to be 48 million in need and the FedGov only expects 14 million to sign up over the first year, that tells me that 34 million of them don't care, or otherwise have other problems.

We (The US people) were sold that this program/legislation would solve a problem, but it actually just strings out the problem and simply makes it LOOK like the Democrats are doing something, when actually they are doing what they always do, and mostly just making noises to the poor, ethnic and liberal in order to get re-elected.

[questionmark]

I don't believe that it entirely true. It is like saying Americans don't control what cars they buy, the auto industry does. Which is true to an extent, but no strictly true. People USED to be able to micro manage their insurance and now (on the low end) they can't. Liberty was removed in that case.

Allow me to dissent, the only thing that was taken away is NOT having insurance, the rest stays as it was.

[Leonardo]

I don't believe that it entirely true. It is like saying Americans don't control what cars they buy, the auto industry does. Which is true to an extent, but no strictly true. People USED to be able to micro manage their insurance and now (on the low end) they can't. Liberty was removed in that case.

*snip*

We (The US people) were sold that this program/legislation would solve a problem, but it actually just strings out the problem and simply makes it LOOK like the Democrats are doing something, when actually they are doing what they always do, and mostly just making noises to the poor, ethnic and liberal in order to get re-elected.

I concede that the body of consumers has some influence over what is consumed, but influence is not - to my mind - the 'control' the good doctor in the OP article is suggesting.

As for being sold that legislation will solve the issues with healthcare in the US, that's probably a fair call - legislation would. The problem with the current legislation is that it doesn't do everything right first-time, and people who have a vested interest in the previous status-quo are playing that up to the public instead of saying "well, it's a start but we should now work to make it work better."

I don't see how in is more Freedom to force people to buy coverage.

Is it any less freedom than having the industry dictate whether you can have insurance?

Edited November 16, 2013 by Leonardo

[+and-then]

Allow me to dissent, the only thing that was taken away is NOT having insurance, the rest stays as it was.

Tell that to all those who have been and are going to be cancelled. And then tell them to shut up and pay the new rates for the same needs they were insured against before for multiples the amount. It's a redistribution scheme that ruins a relatively good system. The people in need could have been helped without destroying the existing system and eventually this craziness WILL be dumped.

[Gromdor]

Maybe Vietnamese are more free here, although to be sure the government is involved in health care to its hips. What follows is for those who want to get an idea what socialized medicine can be like.

If I'm ailing or want some test or other or whatever, I go to a clinic (there are dozens of them and they are set up to compete with each other) and pay my 20,000 VND (a little less than a dollar now -- individual VND disappeared a generation ago) and see a triage nurse, who gives me a number and sends me to a doctor. There I wait till my number is called and go see the doctor, who may then send me to other doctors (these clinics typically have several hundred doctors around at any given time -- since Vietnam is a morning-person country, the least crowded times are in the mid-afternoon -- just a tip to tourists).

One can easily end up spending several hours for a bad cough and of course having to come back the next day if a blood test is done. The tests seem to be pretty standard and the same as in the States, and you get detailed reports in English (not Vietnamese most of the time -- I think this is their way of keeping the uneducated from knowing what's going on). Anyway I always end up with a list of all the things I already know are wrong with me and instructions to get exercise, lose weight and drink lots of water. I also get all my prescriptions double-checked in their computer (with my heart and diabetes and bad liver and gallstones and what-all I have a lot of pills).

One pays for each test in advance, so the total bill typically comes to a few hundred thousand VND (maybe twenty dollars tops) if I have a couple sonograms, the normal EKG, blood work and urine sample, and of course check-over.

Out of curiosity I priced my prescription list in the states once. It came to $2200 a month. Here it runs about a hundred dollars a month.

My co-worker's son cut his hand pretty badly before Obamacare. No insurance and no money, so no trip to the hospital. A few weeks later it got infected and became an expensive trip to the emergency room. The boy got treated quickly. Co-worker and his son were all happy because the hospital ate the costs of treatment because he was poor and had no money. My insurance rates went up almost $900 for that year.

As for freedom of Americans to control their health care. Cancer doesn't care about your freedoms and when you get it most people will chose to try and live no matter the cost to themselves or society. Few will choose to just die. The freedom that you want is merely the freedom to choose to allow most of the costs to be paid by someone else, so you can have a few bucks in your pocket now as opposed to everyone paying their fair share for the bills they will invariably incur in their lifetime.

[questionmark]

Tell that to all those who have been and are going to be cancelled. And then tell them to shut up and pay the new rates for the same needs they were insured against before for multiples the amount. It's a redistribution scheme that ruins a relatively good system. The people in need could have been helped without destroying the existing system and eventually this craziness WILL be dumped.

You should keep up with the news, the administration has agreed with insurers that old policies can be kept and both are working on it.

Edited November 16, 2013 by questionmark

[RavenHawk]

Who is this directed at, RavenHawk?

I believe that it is directed at you. You seem to be making excuses why you have no power over your life.

No, it's not, and healthcare has very little to do with the relationship between physician and patient, but a lot to do with means (i.e. affordability.)

That is wrong. Your healthcare is only between you and your doctor. Now we may have gotten off track today, but that should right itself in another generation. Affordability, huh? I’ve seen an inkling of hope that Obamacare will just die before it really harms our economy. But if it doesn’t, you’ll see droves of doctors leave the profession and go into Concierge Medicine or even the underground. They will return to the ways of their ancestors by bartering for services and they will end up closer to their patients than Obamacare will allow. Doctors may then be working for a couple of chickens and a hog. Most physicians get into practice to help people and yes, the money is nice too. But most will not work for a pittance under Socialized medicine. That one chicken they get will be far more valuable than a month’s salary.

Nice sound-bites, but totally unrealistic in the dynamic of a capitalist free-market system. Without Govt involvement (regulation) in such a system, the consumer will always be subject to the whims of the producer.

Then you don’t understand Capitalism or the free market. The producers are more subject to the whims of the Consumer. That may be a good litmus test. A Socialist will believe that the Producer rules. A Capitalist will believe that the Consumer rules. The Producer is *stuck* with a product or service. If the Consumer does not buy then the Producer is left “holding the bag”. In order for an exchange to occur, the producer will want to sell his product for as much as he can get. The Consumer will want to buy it for as little as possible. They enter into a haggling session until a deal is made. Producer and Consumer are on the same footing. They both benefit. And that one transaction cumulatively adds to the benefit of the whole. But when government comes into the picture, it throws the whole system off balance. That doesn’t mean that government doesn’t have a part to play. It can definitely be involved with Consumer protection on a case by case basis instead of over regulating a sector to death. The market is quite capable of regulating itself. That’s an intrinsic design element. Now greed is good and necessary for the Producer to have in order to look after himself and his family. But when greed goes amok, that is where the government can then champion the Consumer. But this should not be used as a ploy for the government to get more involved than it should. And that’s the bottom line, insuring that any side does not go too far. To keep a balance. And Socialistic ideology always skews this balance.

[Leonardo]

I believe that it is directed at you. You seem to be making excuses why you have no power over your life.

I see. So I can conclude that you, if you have house, household, or car insurance have policies that were entirely of your own design - with the premiums and coverage you stipulated?

That is wrong. Your healthcare is only between you and your doctor. Now we may have gotten off track today, but that should right itself in another generation. Affordability, huh? I've seen an inkling of hope that Obamacare will just die before it really harms our economy. But if it doesn't, you'll see droves of doctors leave the profession and go into Concierge Medicine or even the underground. They will return to the ways of their ancestors by bartering for services and they will end up closer to their patients than Obamacare will allow. Doctors may then be working for a couple of chickens and a hog. Most physicians get into practice to help people and yes, the money is nice too. But most will not work for a pittance under Socialized medicine. That one chicken they get will be far more valuable than a month's salary.

Then you don't understand Capitalism or the free market. The producers are more subject to the whims of the Consumer. That may be a good litmus test. A Socialist will believe that the Producer rules. A Capitalist will believe that the Consumer rules. The Producer is *stuck* with a product or service. If the Consumer does not buy then the Producer is left "holding the bag". In order for an exchange to occur, the producer will want to sell his product for as much as he can get. The Consumer will want to buy it for as little as possible. They enter into a haggling session until a deal is made. Producer and Consumer are on the same footing. They both benefit. And that one transaction cumulatively adds to the benefit of the whole. But when government comes into the picture, it throws the whole system off balance. That doesn't mean that government doesn't have a part to play. It can definitely be involved with Consumer protection on a case by case basis instead of over regulating a sector to death. The market is quite capable of regulating itself. That's an intrinsic design element. Now greed is good and necessary for the Producer to have in order to look after himself and his family. But when greed goes amok, that is where the government can then champion the Consumer. But this should not be used as a ploy for the government to get more involved than it should. And that's the bottom line, insuring that any side does not go too far. To keep a balance. And Socialistic ideology always skews this balance.

Very good. I can see you prefer to view reality in stereotypes. It appears we have little left to discuss, as I don't believe we will agree on much, if anything.

[Michelle]

I see. So I can conclude that you, if you have house, household, or car insurance have policies that were entirely of your own design - with the premiums and coverage you stipulated?

To a certain extent, yes. You are required to have car insurance, but the minimum is to cover the other person's car in the instance an accident is your fault. You can choose to cover the cost of your own car or not. The same with homeowners insurance. If you live on a mountain where it's not prone to floods you can choose not to have that coverage. If it's in a 100 year flood plain you can take a gamble but it's not required if you own it outright. Homeowner's insurance isn't required at all if it's paid for. You can also buy insurance strictly for the structure or along with the contents of said structure.

Edited November 16, 2013 by Michelle