Why not just fire up the printing presses, and have the fed pay for all health coverage. Do I have to think of everything?
Of course beaurocrates can extend and expand coverage while reducing taxes and the dept and cutting down of waste. What could possibly not work?
This whole thing is a win win. Some people get tax dollars for medical coverage and the rest of us working folks get the knowledge of knowing our sweat and toil went to a good cause.
#11 300 Million Americans will be visiting the doctors office within the next 30 days due to ulcers. Thus increasing the cost of the healthcare burden on the American people.
V
The most immediate benefit is that it’s energizing and uniting the essentially conservative instincts of the American people.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
<<< Excellent post.
Mufasa[/quote]
I couldn’t disagree more. I bet you’re not surprised =]
Come on don’t lemme down. Here’s the part where you ask me how I could possibly be comfortable with this fine lady’s untimely demise. How could I be so heartless as to prefer that her husband and children lose her in the middle of her life? How could anybody who is all the time preaching all this Christian stuff allow her to die when the means to save her abounded in this society of plenty? Where is my heart? What is wrong with people who would watch someone die over money?[/quote]
I’m not going to ask you those sensational questions. I would ask you what you disagree with, do you think we need some kind of healthcare reform, and what kind do you think we need?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
It would also authorize the Health and Human Services Secretary to audit plans to make certain that abortion isn’t being paid for with federal dollars.
[/quote]
The entire plan is rife with federal subsidies. It will be impossible “to make certain that abortion isn’t being paid for with federal dollars.”[/quote]
There is no language that makes it any more difficult than it currently is to make sure no federal funds go to elective abortions. Nothing has changed in regards to federal dollars for elective abortion, and this bill is not about changing abortion rights in America.
Talk about framing a debate…
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
How can you claim to be pro-life when you care more about saving a few fucking dollars? WTF!? And please inform me with the rest of the world, as to how ‘public funded abortions’ will EVER drive abortion totals down?
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
. . . . from a purely monetary standpoint we can’t afford to NOT abort unwanted children . . . . [/quote]
[/quote]
Also, I never claimed to care more about money than lives and I never made the assertion that publicly-funded abortions will drive abortions down. Your reading comprehension skills are severely lacking. In fact, I care more about lives than money, which is why I support healthcare reform. I’d much rather have my taxes go toward a healthcare system that will enable people much poorer than myself to receive medical attention when needed than to have my taxes go toward a defunct war in Iraq, a devolving war in Afghanistan, crooked lending institutions or incompetent auto companies.
My initial post that you refer to was simply an attempt to use the same logic that the “baby killer” yeller ostensibly uses to decry abortion to point out the inherent hypocrisy in fighting tooth and nail against healthcare reform. But I guess I didn’t make this point clearly enough for you.[/quote]
Your problem, my thievin’ friend, is that for you the only healthcare reform that “saves lives” is socialistic healthcare reform administered by the Leviathan.
You want to frame the debate to create the illusion that any other kind of healthcare reform will assist in the untold deaths of tens of thousands.
You are the piglet that wants unfettered access to the teat of the sow not to mention more teats for more piglets everywhere.[/quote]
So, so typical. You have nothing substantive to contribute so you hide behind infantile insults and sophistry. You seem to think I’m more concerned with the means than the ends.
The current state of the healthcare in this country is fucked. I’ve heard a lot of different things regarding this healthcare debate, but I have yet to hear anyone say that it doesn’t need to be fixed at all. If the private sector can create meaningful, effective reform, I’m all for it. But they haven’t done so. This is the wealthiest country in the world, yet there are tens of thousands who die due to a lack of hc, there are tens of millions w/o any health insurance, and it’s getting worse, not better. That’s a problem that needs to be fixed.
I don’t give a fuck how it gets fixed, but things need to improve. If that means socialism, capitalism, libertarianism, liberalism, conservatism, or any other -ism, then so be it. If this healthcare reform bill ends up working, great. If that makes me a socialist or a commie, then paint me red and march me right thru fucking Moscow. If the bill fails the American people, not great.
I support whatever will work. I don’t know enough about the specifics of the bill or the healthcare industry in general to be able to make a prediction with any confidence about whether or not it will be viable ten years down the road or fifty years down the road. But I’ll gladly take the chance that it will work and see my taxes go toward this endeavor. But take away the other bullshit: I don’t want to pay for backwards wars, thieving bank execs, ignorant auto execs and contradictory environmental policies AND healthcare reform. But if I had to choose, I’ll choose to pay for effective healthcare reform in any shape or form before any of that other shit.
[quote]danew wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
<<< Excellent post.
Mufasa[/quote]
I couldn’t disagree more. I bet you’re not surprised =]
Come on don’t lemme down. Here’s the part where you ask me how I could possibly be comfortable with this fine lady’s untimely demise. How could I be so heartless as to prefer that her husband and children lose her in the middle of her life? How could anybody who is all the time preaching all this Christian stuff allow her to die when the means to save her abounded in this society of plenty? Where is my heart? What is wrong with people who would watch someone die over money?[/quote]
I’m not going to ask you those sensational questions. I would ask you what you disagree with, do you think we need some kind of healthcare reform, and what kind do you think we need?[/quote]
We are on the other side of the galaxy from what I think. I think the government has no business providing healthcare at all. I also think the collectivist idea of insurance whereby financially interested 3rd parties control the disbursal of health related funds is a recipe for the very disaster we are at this moment in the middle of. I think any government quest that allegedly seeks to provide anything for all equally ends up providing crap for all equally at best and kills off it’s own citizens at worst.
I think the question should be asked whether private citizens would voluntarily provide funds for the care of the needy. If so then it’s all fixed, if not then they’re being forced at the point of a jail cell to do so which is anything other than liberty.
I think compassion with other peoples money has a horrific track record of eventual squalor, tyranny and despotism. I think this government in particular has made spectacular shipwreck of every single program they’ve ever lured the unsuspecting bleeding heart public into supporting with said other peoples money.
I think anybody who trusts these people with now their very lives is either self destructively insane or hopelessly gullible.
I think any so called solution that includes the concrete fist of Washington DC and or the blood sucking vampires in the insurance companies is an apocalyptic disaster in the making.
I think we are so far off the path laid for us at our founding that we couldn’t see it anymore with a radio telescope. I think even the best of intentions from those who honestly do want to help people are paving a big wide freeway to this nations final destruction.
In other words we do indeed need fundamental transformation, but in the exact opposite direction of everything we’ve done for the last 50 years. Will that happen? Nah, we’ve spent waaaay too much time energy and money creating entire populations of extended dependents to turn back now even if federally helping those genuinely in need were actually a good idea.
I hope Biotest enjoys their success while they can BTW, because things like bodybuilding supplements are not long for this brave new American world. Laugh if you must, but mark my words, in all our lifetimes every last thing that goes into your mouth will be subject to central approval and anybody who thinks they’re not going to REALLY be greasing the palms of their favored companies is also stupid enough to think this bill is a good idea.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]borrek wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
It would also authorize the Health and Human Services Secretary to audit plans to make certain that abortion isn’t being paid for with federal dollars.
[/quote]
The entire plan is rife with federal subsidies. It will be impossible “to make certain that abortion isn’t being paid for with federal dollars.”[/quote]
There is no language that makes it any more difficult than it currently is to make sure no federal funds go to elective abortions. Nothing has changed in regards to federal dollars for elective abortion, and this bill is not about changing abortion rights in America.
Talk about framing a debate…[/quote]
So what exactly was Stupak pitching a fit about until he got his executive order? Pray tell, O Thee of Little Doubt There is Anything Amiss.[/quote]
In the bill at least one of the plans in the pool, that are subsidized with federal dollars is required to cover abortions. An executive order not spend federal money on abortion is weak…Stupak caved.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
So what exactly was Stupak pitching a fit about until he got his executive order? Pray tell, O Thee of Little Doubt There is Anything Amiss.[/quote]
Ah, finally an attempt at self-enlightenment.
The text of the executive order that placated Stupak is “The [executive] Act maintains current Hyde Amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to the newly-created health insurance exchanges.” So aside from pitching a false dichotomy, Stupak just wanted his name stamped on a soapbox to pretend like he’s playing hardball.
It is no different from hairspray cans printing “CFC free” on their cans to pretend they care about the environment when federal law already prohibits CFCs, so in truth the stamp should just say, “We follow the law.” The Hyde Amendment already prohibited federal funds paying for the procedure, and Obama just put on paper that the law will still apply.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
…what about the lives of the tens of thousands of Americans who die each year because they don’t have healthcare?[/quote]
Yawn.[/quote]
Push can be seen here at his latest tea party.
[quote]pat wrote:
In the bill at least one of the plans in the pool, that are subsidized with federal dollars is required to cover abortions. An executive order not spend federal money on abortion is weak…Stupak caved.[/quote]
Please do provide a reliable quote to a source stating that all insurers in the exchange are federally subsidized.
[quote]danew wrote:
[quote]MrDan500 wrote:
Anyone of you guys who think this bill is a good idea are out of your damn minds. For one as an earlier poster already mentioned not one persone in this country will ever be denied care regardless of the unholy bill. Why? Medicade. I can personally say it worked fin for my aunt when she fell off a ldder and had $20,000+ in bills. She applied for medicade because she does not have that much money and no insurance. They are paying her bills.
If that didnt work her hospital said she could apply for them to treat her free as a write off or if she didnt qualify she had the option to work out a plan over a few years. Come on people shit happens and sometimes we get the short end of the stick. Not everyone can live the best life. They we all man up and accept up and this county will be much better off.[/quote]
Well, to be accurate, there are large groups of people who make just enough that they don’t qualify for Medicaid, but not enough that they can afford private insurance. At any rate, there are other parts of this bill. There are many people in this country (myself included) who make a good living (my wife and I combine for about $100k/year), but if we lost our health insurance, due to job loss or some other factor, we would be out of luck due to pre-existing conditions. Also, lifetime “caps” on spending in a policy have caused many people (honest, hard-working people who developed cancer or some other major disease) to be dropped from coverage even though they had paid into it as agreed.
In addition, an above poster mentioned that anyone can receive care in an ER. That is a true statement. Another person mentioned the inefficiency of that care, and that is true. However, the real point here is that law requires that ER’s provide stabilizing care. Care for chronic conditions is not covered by that law. I worked in a hospital and saw first-hand people who had a chronic, but treatable, problems. One lady has MRSA infected sores on her legs. While MRSA is certainly very difficult to treat, had we been able to admit her and give her treatment we likely could have eliminated the problem. Even if we couldn’t, we could’ve greatly increased the quality and length of her life. She died recently at age 43. Now, truth be told, I’m not sure why she couldn’t get healthcare coverage. I don’t know the specifics of her situation. But I do know that she seemed a good person, and that as a human being she deserved to be treated for her condition.
It can be easy to cocoon yourself and think that everyone who doesn’t have insurance or is on welfare is just a lazy hack. Reality, however, bites. Everyone’s situation is different. Many people find themselves in that situation because of a disease or disability that is perfectly legitimate.
To that idea that the American people didn’t want this bill. It is a true statement that many polls showed the majority public against the bill. They were, however, overwhelmingly in favor of ending pre-existing conditions, ending lifetime caps, allowing children to stay on their parents’ plans longer, eliminating the Part D donut hole, creating exchanges to increase competition in the market, and many other aspects of the bill. What is most telling is the idea that most people say things about the bill that simply is not true. If I had a yellow piece of paper in my pocket, then told everyone around me that the paper was blue, then held a poll that showed that the piece of paper was blue. Well, needless to say, that doesn’t make that piece of paper any less yellow or any more blue. Misleading people, or flat out lying, by saying that “death-panels” will be set up, or as Mitch McConnell said, “This bill will lead to a gov’t takeover of Medicare,” (already a gov’t program of course) doesn’t give people the facts. There are legitimate reasons to question the bill. I wish the candor would’ve played out to give people facts and allow them to decide for themselves. Unfortunately fear was used, and fear struck out.[/quote]
You make a numbr of valid points and I do agree that reform was nssesary to enextent. However I do not feel it was best to be so drastic and frankly I don’t believe anyone should have to pay for someone elses misfortunes.
For one I think basic insurance shoulb be unnessesary for most people or at the vry least only covr emrgancy care. Why is this? Because When you go to a doctor because you are mildly sick/hurt/or for a check-up it should be affordable. By that I mean not cost $500 like it did for me when I went to an orthopedist and got three X-rays. Such a visit should cost around $200-$300. A check up should not be more than $100 as supposed to $175.
They do cost this much because doctors hav HUGE overhead(equitment/rent/utilites/staff/etc). Also remember we are paying for the care from someone who has already paid around $250,000(or more) in education.
Heres the thing tho.The reason the bills cost so much is because A) If an insuance company recieves a $500 bill they pay out about $150. Also America is a nation of lawyers and not to offend anyone but mal-practice lawsuits are obscene. Yes when a doctor reall screws up he/she should be sued but not for these enormous amounts. Mal-practice insurance eats up 35-50% of a doctor’s income.
As a result the uninsured are forced to bear this burden. My solution is three-fold 1)Caps on lawsuits except in case of gross negligence. 2)ban denial or rate increases for people with pre-existing conditions and spending caps(but only for emergency care policies NOT one with regular visits/ check ups) 3)Allow companies to sell policies in each state to encourage competition
[quote]thefederalist wrote:
Someone is paying for that “free” health care. Someone always has to pay for any sort of government program. The government does not make any money they take it from those of us who do pay and give it to government employees and the rest to programs. What happens when those people who feel that they pay enough take their foot off the income accelerator? Such as small business people and other high paid professionals. Where does the money come from to fund this socialist utopia? How does the economy tick along and how do we move out of a deep recession when the very people who move us in the proper direction are being taxed more and have less to invest and start business’s with?
Also, when Insurance companies profits go bust (they’re only at 3%) what happens then?
When doctors feel that they’re getting the short end of the stick and retire early and we have shortages what happens then? You realize that one reason doctors become doctors because they want to make a truck load of money?
Seriously I know you’re feeling good because your side won, but take a step back and become suddenly practical how does America ever recover from this? No name calling, all politics aside I’d love to hear some serious answers from you.
Thanks,
Zeb
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Maybe fish oil can help with your problem.[/quote]
Push, you’re a silly bitch. I love you.
mike
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Maybe fish oil can help with your problem.[/quote]
Push, you’re a silly bitch. I love you.
mike
[quote]MrDan500 wrote:
Also America is a nation of lawyers and not to offend anyone but mal-practice lawsuits are obscene. Yes when a doctor reall screws up he/she should be sued but not for these enormous amounts. Mal-practice insurance eats up 35-50% of a doctor’s income.
[/quote]
Back to the tort reform. The problem with this isn’t the rewards, but the ease in which someone can be deemed negligent. Everyone thinks the rewards are too high, until they’re the one who gets hurt. Try to put a pricetag on walking, seeing, fucking, or the very life of your loved ones.
mike