The federal government drove the reform. Medicaid/Medicare was threatening to withhold its annual funding unless sometype of reform was enacted in Massachusetts. Massachusetts had some 500,000 that were uninsured and this was placing a strain on the system.

dmk

Do you even know what the bill requires??? Or is this just your uninformed, unresearched opinion blaring forth?

The bill allows for those who are below the federal poverty level to receive insurance and pay no premiums. The bill further allows those who are above the poverty level up to 300% above the level to receive insurance and pay a subsidized premium.

That means that a single individual who earns $9500 or less annually would receive insurance at no cost for premiums, and other single individuals who earn up to $28,500 a year would receive insurance on a subsidized level with premium payments up to about $200 - $250 a month. All other single individuals earning more that $28,500 a year would be required to purchase insurance without and subsidized.

Despite your claim, this would help to make insurance more affordable for everyone. Furthermore, anyone who can afford the premiums and chooses not to get coverage would face losing their state personal tax exemption and face penalties up to 50% of the premium for the cheapest insurance policy available.

dmk

Democrats want everyone to be dependent upon the benevolence of the government, whereas Republicans want everyone to be independent of the government.

Socialized medicine does not work. If it did, (1) people in Canada needing MRIs would not be going to the veternarians offices where pets can receive same day MRIs whereas people have to wait up to six months and (2) if socialized medicine was so effective, why is it that so many of the new life saving medicines, equipment, surgeries, and procedures being created and developed in the United States and not in Canada or Europe????

dmk

LIAR, LIAR, LIAR!!!!

First it is against federal law, let me say that again and type real slow for you, IT IS AGAINST FEDERAL LAW for any hospital in the United States to refuse treatment to any individual. Any hospital found guilty of doing this would face fines by the government that would in effect cause the hospital to go out of business. So, regardless of what you may think, there is no method for the governor of Texas whether it be George W. Bush or Ann Richards to allow hospitals to refuse treatment.

Second, Texas actually requires all public and non-profit hospitals to provide a certain amount of charity care annually. This does not apply to for-profit hospitals. See here!!!!

Thirdly, again under federal law, no hospital can stop life saving treatment unless it is specified by a patients living-will, legal guardian or parent.

I work in the health care field, and have worked in hospitals in Texas was Bush was governor, so I know these facts to be true. For profit hospitals can transfer patients to public or non-profit hospitals once a patient is stable, also, for profit hospital can deny treatment non-life threatening injuries or illness if the patient cannot pay for said treatment. However, public hospitals cannot.

dmk

1) This doesn't change the fact that Canadian health care ranks BETTER than our American system and is FREE.

2) Europe is certainly a leader in the medical community


It doesn't really matter how good our care is if 44 million citizens don't have access to it.

The Canadian health care system is ranked higher than America. Yes, it does work.

It isn't enough. Everyone making less than 25K a year should receive free health care. It simply isn't in the budget.

A liar, am I?
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...exaslaw22.html

I don't know where you heard that veterinarian thing, but as a Canadian, that's bullshit. Sure, our system is screwed up... For example, when my mother was in a car accident, and broke her leg in six places, they sent her home. However, I really have never heard of anything as stupid as going to a veterinarian happening. I think there would at least be a minor uproar.

You said that they can unplug babies in the ICU if the parents cannot afford it. Nowhere in the article that you presented as a link did it make that statement. Nor did you state that it was the doctors who made the determiniation, and that the mother had a right to challenge the decision in court. You deliberately made a mis-statement of facts. In other words you lied. The link you posted even proves it. Thank you.

As far as the MRI, I cannot find the link, I will have to get back to you on that one, however, I did find this link . These are the facts about the healthcare in Canada, you be the judge.

dmk