smallvoice2009-08-07 00:52:53回複悄悄話
回複ryy2的評論:
Even illegal immigrants or short term visitors here can go to emergency room and get treated. I personally know two friends whose mother/father came here for a visit and had stroke and was rushed to emergency room and had their lives saved, and we the tax payers are paying the cost.
ryy22009-08-04 09:19:02回複悄悄話
回複bornin1968的評論:
如果這種醫改通過,將來有錢也買不到更好的保險,因為Public Option will gradually eliminate private insurancers, and their ultimate goal is to implement Single Payers system, like UK.
As for 年級大了很多手術就不給你做了,please read section 1401 of the House bill HR3200: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:1:./temp/~c111amvt0P:e604006:
Here's an article titled "Health care reform means rationing":
http://www.examiner.com/x-12465-Washington-County-Independent-Examiner~y2009m7d27-Health-care-reform-means-rationing
Obama談起他外婆接受hip replacement時說他願意自己掏腰包支付,但他說"there ought to be a "conversation" over whether "sort of in the aggregate, society making those decisions to give my grandmother, or everybody else's aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they're terminally ill is a sustainable model." Obama suggested that such decisions be made not by patients or their relatives but by a "group" of "doctors, scientists, ethicists" who are not part of "normal political channels."
ryy22009-08-04 07:47:20回複悄悄話
回複bornin1968的評論:
衰老生病丟工作,在現有體製下,有medicare,medicaid,employee insurance,individual insurance,accidental insurance,pension,personal savings,unemployment benefits. seems like a pretty big safety net to me.
Even illegal immigrants or short term visitors here can go to emergency room and get treated. I personally know two friends whose mother/father came here for a visit and had stroke and was rushed to emergency room and had their lives saved, and we the tax payers are paying the cost.
Why is President Barack Obama in such a hurry to get his socialized medicine bill passed?
Because he and his cunning circle realize some basic truths:
The American people in their unimaginable kindness and trust voted for a pig in a poke in 2008. They wanted so much to believe Barack Obama was somehow better and different from other ultra-leftists that they simply took him on faith.
They ignored his anti-white writings in his books. They ignored his quiet acceptance of hysterical anti-American diatribes by his minister, Jeremiah Wright.
They ignored his refusal to explain years at a time of his life as a student. They ignored his ultra-left record as a "community organizer," Illinois state legislator, and Senator.
The American people ignored his total zero of an academic record as a student and teacher, his complete lack of scholarship when he was being touted as a scholar.
Now, the American people are starting to wake up to the truth. Barack Obama is a super likeable super leftist, not a fan of this country, way, way too cozy with the terrorist leaders in the Middle East, way beyond naïveté, all the way into active destruction of our interests and our allies and our future.
The American people have already awakened to the truth that the stimulus bill -- a great idea in theory -- was really an immense bribe to Democrat interest groups, and in no way an effort to help all Americans.
Now, Americans are waking up to the truth that ObamaCare basically means that every time you are sick or injured, you will have a clerk from the Department of Motor Vehicles telling your doctor what he can and cannot do.
The American people already know that Mr. Obama's plan to lower health costs while expanding coverage and bureaucracy is a myth, a promise of something that never was and never will be -- a bureaucracy lowering costs in a free society. Either the costs go up or the free society goes away.
These are perilous times. Mrs. Hillary Clinton, our Secretary of State, has given Iran the go-ahead to have nuclear weapons, an unqualified betrayal of the nation. Now, we face a devastating loss of freedom at home in health care. It will be joined by controls on our lives to "protect us" from global warming, itself largely a fraud if believed to be caused by man.
Mr. Obama knows Americans are getting wise and will stop him if he delays at all in taking away our freedoms.
There is his urgency and our opportunity. Once freedom is lost, America is lost. Wake up, beloved America.
“在西方,精明的商人也知道"將欲取之,必先予之",學會吃虧,才有便宜.商家和消費者,老板和雇員,富人和窮人是共生的.強者,必定是少數,離開了大多數他們什麽也不是.我以為這個道理是不分中西的.”
noso,你上麵的話是轉移爭論點。不過，就你這句話而言，那就根本沒對沒錯，大家也不用爭論了，反正都是為了自己的利益。那麽你所有的有關政治的看法論點，包括你對Obama的看法都是非常的主觀，而且都是以你的利益為準的。我覺得你有點cynical哦。
Even illegal immigrants or short term visitors here can go to emergency room and get treated. I personally know two friends whose mother/father came here for a visit and had stroke and was rushed to emergency room and had their lives saved, and we the tax payers are paying the cost.
誰說的？我老媽生了病，我帶著她在急診室裏呆了大半夜才看上的病。搞得我差一點生了病。後來醫院送來了帳單，最近才付清。
政治領域是利益角鬥的戰場，口號是喊給傻瓜們聽的。
在西方,精明的商人也知道"將欲取之,必先予之",學會吃虧,才有便宜.商家和消費者,老板和雇員,富人和窮人是共生的.強者,必定是少數,離開了大多數他們什麽也不是.我以為這個道理是不分中西的.
懶人是有,他們人數很少,過得很差,並不是福利的受益主體.共和黨以懶人為借口砍福利,意在連帶老幼病殘學一起砍.你想想,沒病看什麽醫生,誰愛沒事兒跑醫院?
美國的體製有好有壞.房市泡沫,金融危機,戰爭,糟糕的健保反映其壞處,不改革不行.政府權力有腐敗可能,資本的權力難道不腐敗?
看到"吃虧就是便宜",就讓我想起三毛的小說“西風不識相”來。 那小說真是很有意思。中國人的”吃虧就是便宜“在西人環境是行不通的。 西方人的教育是要做“強者”，至於怎麽做成強者當然不是靠“吃虧”了。 但同時他們又懂得盡自己所能去幫助那些“弱者”。 什麽是“弱者”？ 老幼病殘者（美國的體製對這些人已經提供了較好的報護）， 但絕不應該包括那些專靠政府救濟的懶人。從辛勤工作的人身上擠榨去救濟那些來人。你願意我可不願意。因為我的情操還達不到那個境界。
就是感覺Obama的change有點過。 有點要”黑白顛倒“。 正是美國的體製使美國成為強國。怎麽到他這就變成這錯那錯了？ 他比前43位都智慧百倍？ I can't see it.
我們都是從社會主義國家來的。社會主義的弊端我們都有體驗吧。政府權力大導致的腐敗我們沒看到嗎？
不過還是應該把他的醫改好好研究再說。
假設政府是清廉的，向政府繳稅統一安排是財富再分配最有效的途徑。你怎麽會覺得是被逼呢？而且，繳出去的那些錢對收益人來說可能因此改變他們的生活，命運。而對繳稅人來說，那些錢也不會使他們生活質量降低多少。你不覺得得大大地超過了失？
至於吃虧受益什麽的,有道是"吃虧就是便宜",又道是"占不盡的便宜吃不盡的虧".明白與人方便自己方便和禍福相依的道理,比你上教堂談博愛實在得多.叢林法則的信奉者們好好想想吧.
所以美國的華人要更多地參政議政.國會左一個議案右一個議案大把花錢眼都不眨,我們有責任有義務監督他們.要不然真會被他們賣了還幫他們數錢.
自由的代價是要永遠警醒.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
-- Thomas Jefferson
政治說到底是利益問題。
老中專業人士就是一群倒黴蛋! 什麽稅都跑不掉，什麽好處都撈不著！老中專業人士人人有保險，個個開省油的新車，家家能省電（天熱寧願開風扇也不開空調）。奧巴馬的送錢計劃一個接一個，基本上是拿老中交的稅送白癡.
我覺得Obamacare對現在有保險的人是不利的,對現在沒保險的人可能短期有利,但長期來看是整體醫療質量下降,老弱病殘可能最受打擊,因為他們的治療費用高,遲早政府保險會嚴格限製對他們的陪付.
另外最大的問題是,美國已經負債累累,哪有錢?!!!
大家自求多福吧.:)
如果這種醫改通過,將來有錢也買不到更好的保險,因為Public Option will gradually eliminate private insurancers, and their ultimate goal is to implement Single Payers system, like UK.
As for 年級大了很多手術就不給你做了,please read section 1401 of the House bill HR3200: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:1:./temp/~c111amvt0P:e604006:
Here's an article titled "Health care reform means rationing":
http://www.examiner.com/x-12465-Washington-County-Independent-Examiner~y2009m7d27-Health-care-reform-means-rationing
另外為了支付醫改費用,他們提出的一個辦法是削減Medicare陪付,這會直接影響老年人的醫療.
簡要地說,將來政府會通過複雜算法計算出每延長一個人半年的生命最多值得花多少錢,如果需要的錢超過那個數,對不起,保險不cover.
現在英國類似機構算出的數是每半年$22000.
現有係統下也存在決定是否繼續治療的問題,但至少選擇餘地大很多,你可以自己選擇是否願意或能夠接受某些手術,而不是由政府官僚替你決定.
Obama談起他外婆接受hip replacement時說他願意自己掏腰包支付,但他說"there ought to be a "conversation" over whether "sort of in the aggregate, society making those decisions to give my grandmother, or everybody else's aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they're terminally ill is a sustainable model." Obama suggested that such decisions be made not by patients or their relatives but by a "group" of "doctors, scientists, ethicists" who are not part of "normal political channels."
我兩分種寫幾行字，欣賞的叫好，不欣賞的說胡說，同意不同意的無所謂。
謝謝你的回答。
不過，紅衛兵小將們不了解問題，不會想問題，隻會一根兒筋跟偶像走。以前跟老毛，現在跟小奧，可算找到組織了。 :)
現有體製好？？？在現有體製下還是有幾千萬美國人沒有保險，保險公司以盈利為目的，並不以保障病人利益為主。。。你列出多少保險公司都沒有用，那些是生意。。。
中國人的小農意識太強，吃虧不吃虧，計算在算計。。。
你這紅衛兵小將不是想把別人弄死，就是自己想把自己弄死。您個人是早晚的事兒，您自己想法兒解決，愛怎麽解決怎麽解決，跟我沒關係。
衰老生病丟工作,在現有體製下,有medicare,medicaid,employee insurance,individual insurance,accidental insurance,pension,personal savings,unemployment benefits. seems like a pretty big safety net to me.
Even illegal immigrants or short term visitors here can go to emergency room and get treated. I personally know two friends whose mother/father came here for a visit and had stroke and was rushed to emergency room and had their lives saved, and we the tax payers are paying the cost.
不要假設現有的係統不道德,或假設Obamacare的政府保險就更道德.
至少在現有體係下,你可以買很好的醫療保險,可以挑醫生看病,做各種檢查,用最好的藥,也可以仗著年輕力壯不買保險省錢幹別的.在Obamacare下,你有錢也買不到更好的醫療服務,年級大了很多手術就不給你做了,年輕想不買保險就得交罰款.
其實Obamacare對老人非常不利,還是先看仔細那是什麽東西吧.
小奧提出的方案主要是為了減少政府開支。而全民醫療的觀念，是為了堵住有些人的嘴。他要做的是既減少開支，又保障全麵醫療。
有些搞媒體的和對立麵的人就喜歡做文章，抽出一兩個觀點發揮、擴大，然後進行攻擊。
作為辯論雙方，這種技巧是可以理解的。你在這兒片麵發揮，歪曲事實，是為了啥？
很多支持Obamacare的人都這麽說,言下之意好象是不支持就是缺乏同情心不願意幫助人不知道感恩.這是完全錯誤的假設.
很多反對Obamacare的人是基於其他原因,比如質疑政府為何在這種經濟情況下急速強推這麽大的變革,不信任政府能比私人機構更好地管理醫療,不願意被政府劫富濟貧而寧願將慈善行為留給個人或私營機構,等等.
問你一個簡單問題.如果Obamacare通過後,你要等幾個月才能約到專家或檢查,最好最新的藥政府保險不給你,超過一定年齡就有很多手術不給你做,即使你是勤奮努力小有積蓄的中上階層也無法買到更好的醫療,除非你是達官顯貴或有關係,你還支持它嗎?
歸根結底醫療保險是關係到生死的問題.我同意現有體係不完善,但為什麽要這麽著急地全麵推翻?
難道所有不完善的係統都應該被政府接管嗎?政府是已經證明的越大越腐敗,你相信政府接管後會比現有的市場競爭體係更好嗎?
我們人類本身就不完善,是不是我們也都應該被政府接管呢?
that's very true, but why many Chinese here still prefer socialism in US?
good point!
good point!
常識，很簡單的道理。謝謝。
ZT. 在地鐵上，時常會有乞討者，雖然多數時候這些人看來都沒有什麽殘疾。如果你發善心，給他幾枚硬幣或一美元，他會說聲“上帝保佑你”表示感謝，你則通過施舍獲得一種道德感。但如果是有人持槍威逼所有乘客，每人必須向這個乞討者捐獻一美元，情況則不同了，那個乞討者不會再感激你，他會覺得這是社會公義，他應該在財富上獲得和其他人的平等，並可能理直氣壯地要求更多，而那些被迫“捐獻者”也不再有原來的道德感覺，因為這和被搶劫在本質上沒有多大不同。
very good question.
Here is why:
Why is President Barack Obama in such a hurry to get his socialized medicine bill passed?
Because he and his cunning circle realize some basic truths:
The American people in their unimaginable kindness and trust voted for a pig in a poke in 2008. They wanted so much to believe Barack Obama was somehow better and different from other ultra-leftists that they simply took him on faith.
They ignored his anti-white writings in his books. They ignored his quiet acceptance of hysterical anti-American diatribes by his minister, Jeremiah Wright.
They ignored his refusal to explain years at a time of his life as a student. They ignored his ultra-left record as a "community organizer," Illinois state legislator, and Senator.
The American people ignored his total zero of an academic record as a student and teacher, his complete lack of scholarship when he was being touted as a scholar.
Now, the American people are starting to wake up to the truth. Barack Obama is a super likeable super leftist, not a fan of this country, way, way too cozy with the terrorist leaders in the Middle East, way beyond naïveté, all the way into active destruction of our interests and our allies and our future.
The American people have already awakened to the truth that the stimulus bill -- a great idea in theory -- was really an immense bribe to Democrat interest groups, and in no way an effort to help all Americans.
Now, Americans are waking up to the truth that ObamaCare basically means that every time you are sick or injured, you will have a clerk from the Department of Motor Vehicles telling your doctor what he can and cannot do.
The American people already know that Mr. Obama's plan to lower health costs while expanding coverage and bureaucracy is a myth, a promise of something that never was and never will be -- a bureaucracy lowering costs in a free society. Either the costs go up or the free society goes away.
These are perilous times. Mrs. Hillary Clinton, our Secretary of State, has given Iran the go-ahead to have nuclear weapons, an unqualified betrayal of the nation. Now, we face a devastating loss of freedom at home in health care. It will be joined by controls on our lives to "protect us" from global warming, itself largely a fraud if believed to be caused by man.
Mr. Obama knows Americans are getting wise and will stop him if he delays at all in taking away our freedoms.
There is his urgency and our opportunity. Once freedom is lost, America is lost. Wake up, beloved America.
劫富濟貧的羅賓漢最不道德 zt
在地鐵上，時常會有乞討者，雖然多數時候這些人看來都沒有什麽殘疾。如果你發善心，給他幾枚硬幣或一美元，他會說聲“上帝保佑你”表示感謝，你則通過施舍獲得一種道德感。但如果是有人持槍威逼所有乘客，每人必須向這個乞討者捐獻一美元，情況則不同了，那個乞討者不會再感激你，他會覺得這是社會公義，他應該在財富上獲得和其他人的平等，並可能理直氣壯地要求更多，而那些被迫“捐獻者”也不再有原來的道德感覺，因為這和被搶劫在本質上沒有多大不同。
羅爾斯等左派主張的社會正義，就是這種通過政府的強迫性高稅收，把中產階級和富人的錢強行收繳來，再分給窮人。但諾齊克等右派對此強烈反對，他們認為，這種做法和集體主義在本質上是一樣的，都是在社會公義、“善”的名義下，搶奪他人的私有財產，剝奪人的權利。諾齊克認為，視個人權利大於善，才會保住自由。如果接受善大於權利，那麽政府、統治者等，都可用善的名義來侵蝕、剝奪個人的權利，最後人們就不會有自由。例如法國大革命搶劫富人、列寧斯大林的集體農莊、毛澤東的湖南農民痞子運動等等，都是這種打土豪分田地、以善的名義剝奪個體權利的模式，來推行集體主義，最後走向極權。因而美國客觀主義哲學的創辦人、熱烈讚美資本主義的思想家安·蘭德（Ayn Rand）說，劫富濟貧的羅賓漢是文學作品中最不道德的形象，因為他用最惡劣的方式——搶劫——來均貧富；而不是用市場交換成果來擴大人的財富和自由。
沒有了個人權利的保障，所謂的社會之善，一定是偽善，是以集體吞噬個人的藉口。社會之善不是不需要，但應像紐約地鐵的乞討一樣，施舍者是在擁有個人權利的基礎上自願選擇去做的，而非被強迫。施舍者當然體現出某種道德，但不施舍是中性的，並不是缺德；但強迫別人掏錢養懶漢，則一定是不道德的。高稅收就是政府強迫施舍（不繳稅會犯法、坐牢）。所以右派強調小政府、大社會，主張通過社會上的慈善組織等進行救濟；政府規模以及不得不實行的福利，都要盡量縮到最小的程度。
左派喜歡窮人，結果造出更多窮人
而左派知識人則在均貧富上走得相當遠，羅爾斯甚至提出，個人的天賦等“自然優勢”也不屬於個人所有，而應被視為公共資源。等於也應該被共產，再分配，補償給那些處境最差的人群。諾齊克曾對此憤怒地詰問：如果你碰巧幸運地有兩隻明亮的眼睛，是否應當捐獻一隻給雙目失明的盲人才是公平？按照羅爾斯的理論，像喬丹、姚明等，就得被砍下一截腿，接到矮子腳上；把蓋茨的腦子挖出一半，填到傻子腦殼中，社會才算“平等”。那我們就再看不到精彩的球賽，也不會再有蓋茨發明微軟，人們恢複到踢毽子、打算盤的時代，人人平等，“皆大痛苦 ”。
福利社會主義不僅在操作上行不通，導致經濟滯緩或崩潰，更重要的是，它是不道德的。它不僅剝奪勤勞者的財富和權利，還導致那些可能致富的窮人，躺到舒適的福利上，一直窮下去，結果是，左派想幫助窮人，結果製造出更多的窮人。在這個過程中，把經濟拖垮，把大家都拖垮。加州就是又一個典型案例。
英國《經濟學人》雜誌刊出加州和德州經濟比較的專題文章後，引起讀者很大反響，對文章的網絡評論很多，其中一位美國讀者的話，非常準確清晰：“社會主義的結果從來都是更多的貧窮，更多的戰爭，更多的饑荒，更多的政治壓迫，以及更多的人類痛苦。二十世紀人類用數十億人死亡的代價才學到了這個道理。但加州卻沒有學到，但他們早晚會的。”
1.總體的醫療服務水準會下降,等待治療的時間會大大增加,患者無法得到最好最新的治療/藥物因為政府保險會控製費用.超過某個年齡就無權接受某些手術.這對老人極其不利.
2.剝奪了年輕健康的人自由選擇不買保險把錢用於其他地方的權利.
另外極其可疑的是為什麽要這麽快地推進這個醫改?
資本主義玩不轉了,開始試行美利堅特色的社會主義,布什一個伊拉克打掉了一大筆,現在奧巴馬也是個花大錢的主.印吧,印吧,再多印幾張鈔票吧繼續花吧,讓子孫後代去買單,次貸引起信用危機,現在更變本加厲透支未來的錢,換了個總統換湯不換藥.
Rich to be richer,poor to be poorer
作 人 要 厚 道 ， 這 個 地 球 是 圓 的 ， 吃 虧 也 未 必
是 福 。
‘ 如果你認為奧巴馬這樣做是對的，那是因為你是受益的。
如果你認為奧巴馬這樣做是錯的，那是因為你是吃虧的。’
這 個 觀 點 也 略 顯 狹 義 ， 小 家 子 氣 了 。