smallvoice2009-08-07 00:52:53回复悄悄话
回复ryy2的评论:
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回复悄悄话
回复bornin1968的评论:
如果这种医改通过,将来有钱也买不到更好的保险,因为Public Option will gradually eliminate private insurancers, and their ultimate goal is to implement Single Payers system, like UK.
As for 年级大了很多手术就不给你做了,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谈起他外婆接受hip replacement时说他愿意自己掏腰包支付,但他说"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回复悄悄话
回复bornin1968的评论:
衰老生病丢工作,在现有体制下,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"将欲取之,必先予之",学会吃亏,才有便宜.商家和消费者,老板和雇员,富人和穷人是共生的.强者,必定是少数,离开了大多数他们什么也不是.我以为这个道理是不分中西的.”
noso,你上面的话是转移争论点。不过，就你这句话而言，那就根本没对没错，大家也不用争论了，反正都是为了自己的利益。那么你所有的有关政治的看法论点，包括你对Obama的看法都是非常的主观，而且都是以你的利益为准的。我觉得你有点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.
谁说的？我老妈生了病，我带着她在急诊室里呆了大半夜才看上的病。搞得我差一点生了病。后来医院送来了帐单，最近才付清。
政治领域是利益角斗的战场，口号是喊给傻瓜们听的。
在西方,精明的商人也知道"将欲取之,必先予之",学会吃亏,才有便宜.商家和消费者,老板和雇员,富人和穷人是共生的.强者,必定是少数,离开了大多数他们什么也不是.我以为这个道理是不分中西的.
懒人是有,他们人数很少,过得很差,并不是福利的受益主体.共和党以懒人为借口砍福利,意在连带老幼病残学一起砍.你想想,没病看什么医生,谁爱没事儿跑医院?
美国的体制有好有坏.房市泡沫,金融危机,战争,糟糕的健保反映其坏处,不改革不行.政府权力有腐败可能,资本的权力难道不腐败?
看到"吃亏就是便宜",就让我想起三毛的小说“西风不识相”来。 那小说真是很有意思。中国人的”吃亏就是便宜“在西人环境是行不通的。 西方人的教育是要做“强者”，至于怎么做成强者当然不是靠“吃亏”了。 但同时他们又懂得尽自己所能去帮助那些“弱者”。 什么是“弱者”？ 老幼病残者（美国的体制对这些人已经提供了较好的报护）， 但绝不应该包括那些专靠政府救济的懒人。从辛勤工作的人身上挤榨去救济那些来人。你愿意我可不愿意。因为我的情操还达不到那个境界。
就是感觉Obama的change有点过。 有点要”黑白颠倒“。 正是美国的体制使美国成为强国。怎么到他这就变成这错那错了？ 他比前43位都智慧百倍？ I can't see it.
我们都是从社会主义国家来的。社会主义的弊端我们都有体验吧。政府权力大导致的腐败我们没看到吗？
不过还是应该把他的医改好好研究再说。
假设政府是清廉的，向政府缴税统一安排是财富再分配最有效的途径。你怎么会觉得是被逼呢？而且，缴出去的那些钱对收益人来说可能因此改变他们的生活，命运。而对缴税人来说，那些钱也不会使他们生活质量降低多少。你不觉得得大大地超过了失？
至于吃亏受益什么的,有道是"吃亏就是便宜",又道是"占不尽的便宜吃不尽的亏".明白与人方便自己方便和祸福相依的道理,比你上教堂谈博爱实在得多.丛林法则的信奉者们好好想想吧.
所以美国的华人要更多地参政议政.国会左一个议案右一个议案大把花钱眼都不眨,我们有责任有义务监督他们.要不然真会被他们卖了还帮他们数钱.
自由的代价是要永远警醒.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
-- Thomas Jefferson
政治说到底是利益问题。
老中专业人士就是一群倒霉蛋! 什么税都跑不掉，什么好处都捞不着！老中专业人士人人有保险，个个开省油的新车，家家能省电（天热宁愿开风扇也不开空调）。奥巴马的送钱计划一个接一个，基本上是拿老中交的税送白痴.
我觉得Obamacare对现在有保险的人是不利的,对现在没保险的人可能短期有利,但长期来看是整体医疗质量下降,老弱病残可能最受打击,因为他们的治疗费用高,迟早政府保险会严格限制对他们的陪付.
另外最大的问题是,美国已经负债累累,哪有钱?!!!
大家自求多福吧.:)
如果这种医改通过,将来有钱也买不到更好的保险,因为Public Option will gradually eliminate private insurancers, and their ultimate goal is to implement Single Payers system, like UK.
As for 年级大了很多手术就不给你做了,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
另外为了支付医改费用,他们提出的一个办法是削减Medicare陪付,这会直接影响老年人的医疗.
简要地说,将来政府会通过复杂算法计算出每延长一个人半年的生命最多值得花多少钱,如果需要的钱超过那个数,对不起,保险不cover.
现在英国类似机构算出的数是每半年$22000.
现有系统下也存在决定是否继续治疗的问题,但至少选择余地大很多,你可以自己选择是否愿意或能够接受某些手术,而不是由政府官僚替你决定.
Obama谈起他外婆接受hip replacement时说他愿意自己掏腰包支付,但他说"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."
我两分种写几行字，欣赏的叫好，不欣赏的说胡说，同意不同意的无所谓。
谢谢你的回答。
不过，红卫兵小将们不了解问题，不会想问题，只会一根儿筋跟偶像走。以前跟老毛，现在跟小奥，可算找到组织了。 :)
现有体制好？？？在现有体制下还是有几千万美国人没有保险，保险公司以盈利为目的，并不以保障病人利益为主。。。你列出多少保险公司都没有用，那些是生意。。。
中国人的小农意识太强，吃亏不吃亏，计算在算计。。。
你这红卫兵小将不是想把别人弄死，就是自己想把自己弄死。您个人是早晚的事儿，您自己想法儿解决，爱怎么解决怎么解决，跟我没关系。
衰老生病丢工作,在现有体制下,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.
不要假设现有的系统不道德,或假设Obamacare的政府保险就更道德.
至少在现有体系下,你可以买很好的医疗保险,可以挑医生看病,做各种检查,用最好的药,也可以仗着年轻力壮不买保险省钱干别的.在Obamacare下,你有钱也买不到更好的医疗服务,年级大了很多手术就不给你做了,年轻想不买保险就得交罚款.
其实Obamacare对老人非常不利,还是先看仔细那是什么东西吧.
小奥提出的方案主要是为了减少政府开支。而全民医疗的观念，是为了堵住有些人的嘴。他要做的是既减少开支，又保障全面医疗。
有些搞媒体的和对立面的人就喜欢做文章，抽出一两个观点发挥、扩大，然后进行攻击。
作为辩论双方，这种技巧是可以理解的。你在这儿片面发挥，歪曲事实，是为了啥？
很多支持Obamacare的人都这么说,言下之意好象是不支持就是缺乏同情心不愿意帮助人不知道感恩.这是完全错误的假设.
很多反对Obamacare的人是基于其他原因,比如质疑政府为何在这种经济情况下急速强推这么大的变革,不信任政府能比私人机构更好地管理医疗,不愿意被政府劫富济贫而宁愿将慈善行为留给个人或私营机构,等等.
问你一个简单问题.如果Obamacare通过后,你要等几个月才能约到专家或检查,最好最新的药政府保险不给你,超过一定年龄就有很多手术不给你做,即使你是勤奋努力小有积蓄的中上阶层也无法买到更好的医疗,除非你是达官显贵或有关系,你还支持它吗?
归根结底医疗保险是关系到生死的问题.我同意现有体系不完善,但为什么要这么着急地全面推翻?
难道所有不完善的系统都应该被政府接管吗?政府是已经证明的越大越腐败,你相信政府接管后会比现有的市场竞争体系更好吗?
我们人类本身就不完善,是不是我们也都应该被政府接管呢?
that's very true, but why many Chinese here still prefer socialism in US?
good point!
good point!
常识，很简单的道理。谢谢。
ZT. 在地铁上，时常会有乞讨者，虽然多数时候这些人看来都没有什么残疾。如果你发善心，给他几枚硬币或一美元，他会说声“上帝保佑你”表示感谢，你则通过施舍获得一种道德感。但如果是有人持枪威逼所有乘客，每人必须向这个乞讨者捐献一美元，情况则不同了，那个乞讨者不会再感激你，他会觉得这是社会公义，他应该在财富上获得和其他人的平等，并可能理直气壮地要求更多，而那些被迫“捐献者”也不再有原来的道德感觉，因为这和被抢劫在本质上没有多大不同。
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.
劫富济贫的罗宾汉最不道德 zt
在地铁上，时常会有乞讨者，虽然多数时候这些人看来都没有什么残疾。如果你发善心，给他几枚硬币或一美元，他会说声“上帝保佑你”表示感谢，你则通过施舍获得一种道德感。但如果是有人持枪威逼所有乘客，每人必须向这个乞讨者捐献一美元，情况则不同了，那个乞讨者不会再感激你，他会觉得这是社会公义，他应该在财富上获得和其他人的平等，并可能理直气壮地要求更多，而那些被迫“捐献者”也不再有原来的道德感觉，因为这和被抢劫在本质上没有多大不同。
罗尔斯等左派主张的社会正义，就是这种通过政府的强迫性高税收，把中产阶级和富人的钱强行收缴来，再分给穷人。但诺齐克等右派对此强烈反对，他们认为，这种做法和集体主义在本质上是一样的，都是在社会公义、“善”的名义下，抢夺他人的私有财产，剥夺人的权利。诺齐克认为，视个人权利大于善，才会保住自由。如果接受善大于权利，那么政府、统治者等，都可用善的名义来侵蚀、剥夺个人的权利，最后人们就不会有自由。例如法国大革命抢劫富人、列宁斯大林的集体农庄、毛泽东的湖南农民痞子运动等等，都是这种打土豪分田地、以善的名义剥夺个体权利的模式，来推行集体主义，最后走向极权。因而美国客观主义哲学的创办人、热烈赞美资本主义的思想家安·兰德（Ayn Rand）说，劫富济贫的罗宾汉是文学作品中最不道德的形象，因为他用最恶劣的方式——抢劫——来均贫富；而不是用市场交换成果来扩大人的财富和自由。
没有了个人权利的保障，所谓的社会之善，一定是伪善，是以集体吞噬个人的藉口。社会之善不是不需要，但应像纽约地铁的乞讨一样，施舍者是在拥有个人权利的基础上自愿选择去做的，而非被强迫。施舍者当然体现出某种道德，但不施舍是中性的，并不是缺德；但强迫别人掏钱养懒汉，则一定是不道德的。高税收就是政府强迫施舍（不缴税会犯法、坐牢）。所以右派强调小政府、大社会，主张通过社会上的慈善组织等进行救济；政府规模以及不得不实行的福利，都要尽量缩到最小的程度。
左派喜欢穷人，结果造出更多穷人
而左派知识人则在均贫富上走得相当远，罗尔斯甚至提出，个人的天赋等“自然优势”也不属于个人所有，而应被视为公共资源。等于也应该被共产，再分配，补偿给那些处境最差的人群。诺齐克曾对此愤怒地诘问：如果你碰巧幸运地有两只明亮的眼睛，是否应当捐献一只给双目失明的盲人才是公平？按照罗尔斯的理论，像乔丹、姚明等，就得被砍下一截腿，接到矮子脚上；把盖茨的脑子挖出一半，填到傻子脑壳中，社会才算“平等”。那我们就再看不到精彩的球赛，也不会再有盖茨发明微软，人们恢复到踢毽子、打算盘的时代，人人平等，“皆大痛苦 ”。
福利社会主义不仅在操作上行不通，导致经济滞缓或崩溃，更重要的是，它是不道德的。它不仅剥夺勤劳者的财富和权利，还导致那些可能致富的穷人，躺到舒适的福利上，一直穷下去，结果是，左派想帮助穷人，结果制造出更多的穷人。在这个过程中，把经济拖垮，把大家都拖垮。加州就是又一个典型案例。
英国《经济学人》杂志刊出加州和德州经济比较的专题文章后，引起读者很大反响，对文章的网络评论很多，其中一位美国读者的话，非常准确清晰：“社会主义的结果从来都是更多的贫穷，更多的战争，更多的饥荒，更多的政治压迫，以及更多的人类痛苦。二十世纪人类用数十亿人死亡的代价才学到了这个道理。但加州却没有学到，但他们早晚会的。”
1.总体的医疗服务水准会下降,等待治疗的时间会大大增加,患者无法得到最好最新的治疗/药物因为政府保险会控制费用.超过某个年龄就无权接受某些手术.这对老人极其不利.
2.剥夺了年轻健康的人自由选择不买保险把钱用于其他地方的权利.
另外极其可疑的是为什么要这么快地推进这个医改?
资本主义玩不转了,开始试行美利坚特色的社会主义,布什一个伊拉克打掉了一大笔,现在奥巴马也是个花大钱的主.印吧,印吧,再多印几张钞票吧继续花吧,让子孙后代去买单,次贷引起信用危机,现在更变本加厉透支未来的钱,换了个总统换汤不换药.
Rich to be richer,poor to be poorer
作 人 要 厚 道 ， 这 个 地 球 是 圆 的 ， 吃 亏 也 未 必
是 福 。
‘ 如果你认为奥巴马这样做是对的，那是因为你是受益的。
如果你认为奥巴马这样做是错的，那是因为你是吃亏的。’
这 个 观 点 也 略 显 狭 义 ， 小 家 子 气 了 。