TypeO Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 Instead of bumping one of the many threads that got sidetracked into opinions on the Healthcare Debate, I thought it'd be good to have a specific thread. One of the biggest problems I have at the moment with this is that after all the "concessions" the Democrats made by "taking the public option off the table", now it's right back on the table, according to ranking Democrats. This is a confirmation of previous concerns that they tell us one thing, but then go back on it at a later date when it's too late to do anything about it. When opponents of Obamacare say they're concerned that all the promises and claims Obama and the Dems are making will be broken once it's passed (keep your own private insurance, won't include non-citizens/illegal aliens, etc.) they are mocked and ridiculed as being unreasonable and their concerns unfounded. Well, the resurrection of the "public option" creates a pretty substantial precedent on which to base such concerns. And as small to medium businesses nationwide who currently provide access to healthcare coverage are faced with the choice of immense savings by dumping their benefits, millions of hard-working citizens will be forced onto the "public option". They should go ahead and call it what it will inevitably be - the "only" option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dzldoc Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 The public option will be an even bigger mistake than bailing out the banks. All I can say is thank god I've finished my chemo therapy before this socialist agenda takes effect if it passes. Think Medicare on a tenfold scale which is reported to have 60 billion in fraudulent claims. I'm affraid to say we are losing our country a little each day and the politicos are wiping their asses with the constitution Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigstickbonzo Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 (edited) There won't be serious health care reform from our government so long as the insurance/pharmacutical companies hold the strings to Washington. Neither party has the answer WE want. It's pretty bad when these companies go after hospitals and private practicing physicians and wipe them out. And it's happening now and will get worse. I have several members of my immediate family in the health industry, a few who make a very handsome living-deservedly so, but are actually losing money because the insurance companies are billing more per patient visit then the charge. Edited October 27, 2009 by bigstickbonzo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cryingbluerain Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 The public option will be an even bigger mistake than bailing out the banks. All I can say is thank god I've finished my chemo therapy before this socialist agenda takes effect if it passes. Think Medicare on a tenfold scale which is reported to have 60 billion in fraudulent claims. I'm affraid to say we are losing our country a little each day and the politicos are wiping their asses with the constitution Medicare for Everyone, can't wait. Folks think the system is broken now, just wait til the gubmint gets done with it.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 Before the lefties start their attack, I'd love for them to answer this question first: Why should health care be free but not food or water or shelter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mangani Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 Before the lefties start their attack, I'd love for them to answer this question first: Why should health care be free but not food or water or shelter? Can't you say the same about the police force or fire brigade?? You don't have to pay firemen when they come to put a fire out. Water is free. Go drink from a river. Food is free. Go catch a fish from the river or sea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pagemccartney95 Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 (edited) Remember, folks: 1) the postal service, run by the government, is losing money and having to fire employees to save money; 2) FEMA, run by the government, messed seriously up on Katrina. So let's have healthcare taken over! *cough* Socialism! *cough* and ROF, Jo Edited October 27, 2009 by pagemccartney95 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypeO Posted October 27, 2009 Author Share Posted October 27, 2009 Before the lefties start their attack, I'd love for them to answer this question first: Why should health care be free but not food or water or shelter? Exactly. And why is it many of the same people who support a woman's right to make her own decisions about medical care don't want to allow the rest of the country to make their own decisions about medical care? Can't you say the same about the police force or fire brigade?? You don't have to pay firemen when they come to put a fire out. Water is free. Go drink from a river. Food is free. Go catch a fish from the river or sea. Can't fish or hunt without a license. Flawed analogy. Public safety is the primary function of government. Therefore Police and Fire forces are a necessary component that we pay for through taxes. The healthcare industry is an independently operating, free-market system whose greatest flaws and shortcomings are a result of TOO MUCH government interference - restricting Insurance choice to each individual state instead of allowing MORE competition, outlandish and excessive judgments against doctors and insurance companies resulting in endless layers of unnecessary tests and procedures to protect against legal attack. Like any free-market industry, it is REGULATED by the government, as it should be, to insure the public safety, and even that doesn't work all that well - witness the many drugs that are rushed into production without thorough testing *cough*VIOXX*cough*. So the answer is MORE government control? The same government who brought us $400 hammers and $2500 toilet seats? The government needs to show it can tighten up on it's performance in their existing limited function before we'd ever be convinced they can handle the entire industry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planted Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 (edited) ....Boy, TypeO, you really know how to lighten the mood around here... Did I read that Madonna is opening a school in East Buttfcuk? Nice. Her hometown of Detroit is a sewer. Don't you just love it when people forget where they came from?!? There will always be those who are too young, too old, and too sick to support themselves. No reasonable person acting prudently would withhold money IN THESE SITUATIONS. I happen to believe that government does have a responsibility to ITS CITIZENS to provide basic NEEDS. Gettin' my drift here? 14 US soldiers and American civilians were killed in Afghanistan 2 days ago. What do their families get? We're broke, gang. There are more people riding in the wagon than pulling it. When does Atlas shrug? Edited October 27, 2009 by planted Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planted Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 (edited) Have a look at this.... http://www.managedmusic.com/ http://www.managedmusic.com/healthcare_reform_blues Edited October 27, 2009 by planted Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypeO Posted October 27, 2009 Author Share Posted October 27, 2009 I happen to believe that government does have a responsibility to ITS CITIZENS to provide basic NEEDS. Gettin' my drift here? See post #5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterMcLov1n Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 Most of the government services mentioned above are run/regulated at the state, not federal level. At least if you hate the education in one state you can either go to a private school or move to another state. Insurance companies, who control very important things that are pertinent to real people's lives, should be regulated to the fullest extent of constitutionality but I don't believe that setting up a Universal Health Care system in the US will solve many problems found in the current system. A public option is the obvious first choice when it comes to moral reasoning, but it is economically nigh impossible to accommodate to every citizen when it comes to health care without making significant expenditures. Passing some new laws to regulate the health insurance industry somehow seems less cost worthy and more sensible to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planted Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 See post #5 Ok, I "see" it. Are you asking me to answer the question posed in post #5? Sorry, but, I think I already did. Nothing is free, (see the old wagon analogy) and even my bright 13 yr old knows that. People who consider this healthcare reform FREE are sorely mistaken. What Obamacare means to me is simple. It is the largest redistribution of wealth in human history. And, it will end America as we now know it. Careful what you wish for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 Can't you say the same about the police force or fire brigade?? You don't have to pay firemen when they come to put a fire out.Police and fireman are necessary for keeping a civilization together. They're one of the few government agencies I love. There will always be those who are too young, too old, and too sick to support themselves. No reasonable person acting prudently would withhold money IN THESE SITUATIONS. I happen to believe that government does have a responsibility to ITS CITIZENS to provide basic NEEDS. Gettin' my drift here?Then answer the question I posed earlier. 14 US soldiers and American civilians were killed in Afghanistan 2 days ago. What do their families get?If you don't know, you should probably look it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planted Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 (edited) ^ I think you and I agree more than you think we do...We know that nothing is free, right? Someone pays, ie, you and I. All I am saying is that there are American citizens who are too old, too young, and too sick to care for themselves. Imagine if those groups I just illustrated were the only ones who relied on government? Hmmmm? I speak from 18 years of experience in healthcare when I recall the patients who use the ER for a primary care clinic, has cell phones, fake nails and Coffee coolattas for everyone, AND we ring for an interpreter, which costs an average of $100/hr. Most are here illegally, and health care providers cannot refuse to treat them, so, hospitals are required to take the loss. For how long? The only answer I can offer you is to educate yourselves in the upcoming election. I can tell you that the next Mayoral election for Boston is next week, and whoever wins will have the chance to vote on Immigration Reform. We need to pay attention to the fine print if we want to turn this thing around. I hope I've been clear. It's very hard to keep hearing stories of homeless vets, and laid off iron workers, etc having to foreclose on their homes. BTW, it has been my experience that these groups have the most difficulty asking for help. They simply are too proud. They aren't the problem. Forgive me, but the question about soldiers' families was rhetorical. I was an Army brat. I may not know the exact dollar amount, but I do know, it ain't ENOUGH. Peace Edited October 27, 2009 by planted Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 ^ I think you and I agree more than you think we do...We know that nothing is free, right? Someone pays, ie, you and I. All I am saying is that there are American citizens who are too old, too young, and too sick to care for themselves. Imagine if those groups I just illustrated were the only ones who relied on government? Hmmmm?This, I understand. I've always advocated free health care for children because they aren't in control of their lives. But once you hit 18-20 you're on your own. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a backup plan, but it must be very limited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mangani Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 Flawed analogy. Not at all. The payment is for a fishing/hunting license. You don't pay every time you catch a fish or a deer etc. You don't pay if you go to a river and drink water. You don't pay if you want to pick blackberries off a bush. You don't pay if you pick up shellfish off the beach. Plenty of food and water is free. It's a flawed argument to say it isn't. Public safety is the primary function of government. Therefore Police and Fire forces are a necessary component that we pay for through taxes. That's only because you are used to seeing in that way and know no other way. There is no reason while health care shouldn't be available for everyone as part of a government function that you pay for via taxes (like the police force or fire service or the army etc etc). Public safety is ok to be a government function, but public health treatement isn't? Doesn't make sense to me. Its not about free markets. It's about people's health for goodness sake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mangani Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 (edited) Police and fireman are necessary for keeping a civilization together. The health service is a necessity for keeping a civilisation alive. In a civilised society it should be there for all, whether you can afford it or not. If the goverment dishes out aid freely to foreign states I don't see how it's own populace shouldn't be allowed to get it. Unless of course you are advocating no help given in foreign aid. If so, at least you would be consistent. Edited October 28, 2009 by Mangani Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUCK'EYE' DOC Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 (edited) I could go on and on about this subject. But I have little time this morning and am going to make one point: Medical care is a SERVICE that we purchase, just like all other services. It is not a RIGHT to have the government pay for our healthcare! If you believe that the government should pay for our medical care services, then why don't they pay for all of our other services that we consume, such as: Electricity? Gas service? Telephone/cell phone service? Cable tv or satelite service? Internet service? Water/sewage service? You could say that these services are just as essential as medical care. How can you live without electricity? It is not essential that you have it, but life would be extremely difficult without it, causing decreased quality of life and perhaps early death. Same with medical care. It's not essential, but without it, your quality of life is dimminished and premature death may occur without it. Is it the government's responsibility to make it available for you? Yes. Is it the government's responsibility to pay for it? NO!!! A person may have to make some sacrifices to pay for it. People are willing to sacrifice to pay for their cable tv, cell phone service, vices such as alcohol, drugs, and cigarettes that make them unhealthy and drive up the cost of medical care. But they are un-willing to sacrifice to pay for their medical care, which may extend their life. PEOPLE NEED TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEMSELVES AND NOT EXPECT THE GOVERNMENT TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR EVERY NEED AND WHIM!!!! Is the medical insurance industry out of hand? Yes!! Are costs out of hand? Yes. That is where the reform needs to take place. Healthcare is unaffordable to some people because of the ridiculously high premiums charged by the insurance companies. This is the first industry that needs to be reformed. But the lobbyists for this industry are too powerful, and will never make any concessions. Unless their power can be broken, anything that the government comes up with will make an even bigger mess of the situation, more paper work, rationing of care, more restrictions on doctors. And the insurance industry will profit and become even more wealthy and powerful. The insurance companies get paid upfront in your premiums, before any care is rendered. Then they ration out the money as they see fit. They operate for profit, and that is thier driving motivation, profit. They are not about to lose money in the game of healthcare. I could go on and on, but another time, maybe? Edited October 28, 2009 by BUCK'EYE' DOC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 The health service is a necessity for keeping a civilisation alive. In a civilised society it should be there for all, whether you can afford it or not. Well that's weird because we haven't had it for 2 centuries and yet here we are, going along If the goverment dishes out aid freely to foreign states I don't see how it's own populace shouldn't be allowed to get it. Unless of course you are advocating no help given in foreign aid. If so, at least you would be consistent. Well you're right, I'm being consistent. I've never advocated the government dishing out billions of dollars to Africa. If the American people want to do that, then they can donate out of their pocket and thats fine. I would too. But I don't want the government taking people's money to help people in other countries when we're still so fucked up here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypeO Posted October 28, 2009 Author Share Posted October 28, 2009 Not at all. The payment is for a fishing/hunting license. You don't pay every time you catch a fish or a deer etc. You don't pay if you go to a river and drink water. You don't pay if you want to pick blackberries off a bush. You don't pay if you pick up shellfish off the beach. Plenty of food and water is free. It's a flawed argument to say it isn't. My "flawed analogy" remark was directed towards your police/fire force analogy That's only because you are used to seeing in that way and know no other way. You're from the UK, right? Unless you're well over 60, the same can be said of your view of government healthcare. Its not about free markets. It's about people's health for goodness sake. Actually it is ALL about the free market. There is a VERY GOOD free-market system in place and functioning for a very long time. No one said it's perfect, but it works well. 85% of our population is covered. 4 out of 10 in Baseball gets you in the Hall of Fame. We have the best healthcare in the world, and even if you have NO COVERAGE you will be treated. If an engine needs a new water pump, you don't replace the engine. 15% of Americans don't have coverage. MANY of those are young healthy adults who voluntarily pass up coverage. You don't scrap the entire system based on those kinds of numbers. Universal Healthcare has been a goal of the liberal base for decades, because it's the easiest method of transitioning a populace into socialism. Ronald Reagan pwned the concept of universal healthcare 48 years ago, and his words are startlingly prescient and read like they were written only yesterday... LINK One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project, most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it. Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We have an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this. Now the advocates of this bill when you try to oppose it challenge you on an emotional basis and say,“What would you do? Throw these poor people out to die with no medical attention?” That’s ridiculous and of course no one is advocating it. The Great Communicator, indeed! The health service is a necessity for keeping a civilisation alive. In a civilised society it should be there for all, whether you can afford it or not. If the goverment dishes out aid freely to foreign states I don't see how it's own populace shouldn't be allowed to get it. Unless of course you are advocating no help given in foreign aid. If so, at least you would be consistent. Would you suggest American society is NOT civilized? We've gone as long WITHOUT universal healthcare as the UK has gone WITH it. And for what it's worth, I happen to oppose a lot of the foreign aid our country provides, especially middle-eastern and African nations where the money is obviously going directly into a corrupt dictator's or terrorist organization's pocket. Bottom line, I suspect the UK, Canada, or any other country with socialized medicine has at least 15% problems with their systems. 15% does not constitute a crisis. This “crisis” resurfaced under Clinton with “Hillarycare”, and once Bush gained a lot of power through the National Security issue, Democrats and the actively compliant media seized on Healthcare as the new cause they could champion in order to overcome the National Security card Bush and the Republicans held. A willing media can convince more than enough Americans that ANYTHING is a crisis. Remember, the media doesn't have to convince EVERYONE that a crisis exists, just the 15-20% that stay in the middle. Just before 9/11 I believe it was SHARK ATTACKS that we were being pummeled with. Does healthcare need fixing? Of course. But there are many common sense approaches that will save more than enough money to make it much more affordable, including tort reform and ending restrictions on intersate competition of insurance companies. Also, giving tax breaks to healthcare professionals from doctors all the way down to the office staff. As always, LESS tax works better than MORE tax. Is healthcare a crisis, and one that demands IMMEDIATE legislation? Not even close. Also, one last very revealing “paradox” - if Healthcare legislation is so immediately necessary, how come it won't take effect until 2013? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterMcLov1n Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 (edited) Also, one last very revealing “paradox” - if Healthcare legislation is so immediately necessary, how come it won't take effect until 2013? Regardless of the cost, urgency or importance of a bill, it will still be subjected to the same red tape and general slowness that all bills are exposed to in the legislative process. Obviously our representatives and senators are trying to make this bill as good as possible before recess. Not to mention the staggering funds that need to be gathered from everyone's wallet. Edited October 28, 2009 by MisterMcLov1n Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cryingbluerain Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Reading Guide to the Pelosi Health Care Reform Bill Yesterday at 3:35pm Please read and forward the link to this note ( http://bit.ly/1rGrpW ) to your friends and family. This reading guide includes what we have uncovered in our initial reading of the Pelosi health “reform” legislation (H.R. 3962) introduced by House Democrats. Page 94—Section 202© prohibits the sale of private individual health insurance policies, beginning in 2013, forcing individuals to purchase coverage through the federal government Page 110—Section 222(e) requires the use of federal dollars to fund abortions through the government-run health plan—and, if the Hyde Amendment were ever not renewed, would require the plan to fund elective abortions Page 111—Section 223 establishes a new board of federal bureaucrats (the “Health Benefits Advisory Committee”) to dictate the health plans that all individuals must purchase —and would likely require all Americans to subsidize and purchase plans that cover any abortion Page 211—Section 321 establishes a new government-run health plan that, according to non-partisan actuaries at the Lewin Group, would cause as many as 114 million Americans to lose their existing coverage Page 225—Section 330 permits—but does not require—Members of Congress to enroll in government-run health care Page 255—Section 345 includes language requiring verification of income for individuals wishing to receive federal health care subsidies under the bill—while the bill includes a requirement for applicants to verify their citizenship, it does not include a similar requirement to verify applicants’ identity, thus encouraging identity fraud for undocumented immigrants and others wishing to receive taxpayer-subsidized health benefits Page 297—Section 501 imposes a 2.5 percent tax on all individuals who do not purchase “bureaucrat-approved” health insurance— the tax would apply on individuals with incomes under $250,000, thus breaking a central promise of then-Senator Obama’s presidential campaign Page 313—Section 512 imposes an 8 percent “tax on jobs” for firms that cannot afford to purchase “bureaucrat-approved” health coverage ; according to an analysis by Harvard Professor Kate Baicker, such a tax would place millions “at substantial risk of unemployment”—with minority workers losing their jobs at twice the rate of their white counterparts Page 336—Section 551 imposes additional job-killing taxes, in the form of a half-trillion dollar “surcharge,” more than half of which will hit small businesses ; according to a model developed by President Obama’s senior economic advisor, such taxes could cost up to 5.5 million jobs Page 520—Section 1161 cuts more than $150 billion from Medicare Advantage plans, potentially jeopardizing millions of seniors’ existing coverage Page 733—Section 1401 establishes a new Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research; the bill includes no provisions preventing the government-run health plan from using such research to deny access to life-saving treatments on cost grounds, similar to Britain’s National Health Service, which denies patient treatments costing more than $35,000 Page 1174—Section 1802(B ) includes provisions entitled “TAXES ON CERTAIN INSURANCE POLICIES” to fund comparative effectiveness research, breaking Speaker Pelosi’s promise that “We will not be taxing [health] benefits in any bill that passes the House,” and the President’s promise not to raise taxes on families with incomes under $250,000 If you would like to read the entire 1,990 pages yourself, you can find the legislation here: http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypeO Posted October 31, 2009 Author Share Posted October 31, 2009 Like I said in my original post, they are promising and assuring whatever they think will convince people to accept it knowing full well they have no intention of keeping any of those promises and assurances. It's criminal. On the whole it will significantly LOWER the standard of healthcare of the average American. They are placing the focus on the very small minority (36 million according to Pelosi, but that figure is suspected of being way high) of people who have NO healthcare ending up with SOMETHING, which they use to justify their means. Fuck the fact that the vast majority of TAX-PAYING Americans (85%) will see a significant DECREASE in overall quality of healthcare. Doctors will be penalized for exceeding a specified quota of particular treatments, so that when a Doctor tells you that you don't need an MRI or some other test or procedure, you won't know whether he's telling you that because you really don't need it or because it would draw a financial penalty for him if he performed that procedure. Not to mention they are raping/pillaging/gutting Medicare to help fund this financial coup. This from the same Democrats who every 4 years scare seniors about Republicans taking away their Medicare. Over 1900 pages for no other reason than to discourage review and hide all their political paybacks that have NOTHING to do with healthcare, including concessions to unions for having to fund retirement benefits. Where's the response from anyone attempting to defend / justify this intrusion into personal choice and freedoms??? The silence is deafening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.