Moderator: Community Team
thegreekdog wrote: I mean strange because ostensibly the president is trying to sell the public on this idea (and also get re-elected), but he's chosen to subject himself to criticism by exempting his friends. I would not be surprised if the exemption disappears (for political expediency it certainly should).
PLAYER57832 wrote:thegreekdog wrote: I mean strange because ostensibly the president is trying to sell the public on this idea (and also get re-elected), but he's chosen to subject himself to criticism by exempting his friends. I would not be surprised if the exemption disappears (for political expediency it certainly should).
This does stink.
But, is it really enough to ditch the plan? And, is it enough to negate the plain fact that insurance companies in this country are almost literally raping us all?
I still say that Obama, while very far from perfect, is better than many others. He should improve, no doubt. Yet, since when did we elect saints to public office?
Politico wrote:Health insurers in 34 states have stopped selling child-only insurance policies as a result of the health reform law, and the market continues to destablize.
Since September, the health reform law has barred insurers from withholding policies to children under 19 who have a pre-existing condition. Rather than take on the burdensome cost of writing policies for potentially-pricey medical conditions, many carriers decided to leave the market altogether.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/01 ... Page2.html
thegreekdog wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:I mean strange because ostensibly the president is trying to sell the public on this idea (and also get re-elected), but he's chosen to subject himself to criticism by exempting his friends. I would not be surprised if the exemption disappears (for political expediency it certainly should).
This does stink.
But, is it really enough to ditch the plan? And, is it enough to negate the plain fact that insurance companies in this country are almost literally raping us all?
I still say that Obama, while very far from perfect, is better than many others. He should improve, no doubt. Yet, since when did we elect saints to public office?
PLAYER57832 wrote:Not back for good, but I am here, so could not resist adding a bit to this thread again.
A few points you continue to miss Phattscotty, about cost -cutting:
#1. MAJOR tax payer savings -- Right now, children are fully covered, regardless of pre-existing conditions. Since children are automatically covered by Medicaid if they have serious health issues, this effectively gave insurance companies a "free pass". They could cover the rest of the family and simply drop the disabled child. Now, the Medicaid simply covers the co-pays and deductables. This is a SIGNIFICANT savings.
PLAYER57832 wrote:#2.No annual or lifetime limits to coverage. Again, companies used to be able to set limits, so that when someone got seriously ill or injured, no matter how long they had paid into the policy, the coverage would stop. Some people were able to get coverage by changing jobs, etc. Others would use all their assets and then wind up on taxpayer roles. Again, this represents a MAJOR cost-savings to taxpayers!
PLAYER57832 wrote:2. We HAVE socialized medicine right now. If you are poor enough, you get covered. IF you get seriously injured or sick, you get treated and, once every asset you have is taken, other patients wind up paying the rest of your bill through higher fees, etc. If you have kids who have any kind of disability and you make less than $250,000, they get covered, with the taxpayer fund picking up costs over and above what insurance won't pay. (nice deal for the insurance companies! They get the premiums and taxpayers bear the worst costs!
PLAYER57832 wrote: As a talk show personality noted, when "we'll be like CANADA!" is the worst threat anyone can find, its a pretty sad argument. Canada is not such a terrible place to live.
PLAYER57832 wrote: No matter how good your insurance coverage, no matter how long you have paid into the companies, all it takes is going 63 days without coverage and suddenly any new insurance you get won't cover ANY pre-existing conditions. ANYTHING ... and believe me, the company definition of "pre-existing conditions" includes just about everything down to a hang nail.
PLAYER57832 wrote:7. You talk of "limits" and "denials" of socialized medicine, but utterly ignore all the limits and denials by insurance companies... denials to people who have paid their premiums, often for years. ONE IN TEN americans is right now without coverage. If you look at the number of underinsured, that is, people who technically have insurance, but who have very high deductables and co-pays, then its even more. (my husbands old plant has insurance now that has a $3000 per person deductable!)
PLAYER57832 wrote: Curtailing research? PLEASE... the US government, we taxpayers subsidize most research right now. Companies will come up with the highly profitable stuff like Viagra, but jsut about anything truly groundbreaking is happening with US government sponsorship. (exceptions are very, very few!)
PLAYER57832 wrote:Contrast that with care in ANY OTHER industrialized, and even a few not-so-industrialized country and you find that we PAY MORE, get less.
PLAYER57832 wrote:OH, and all this talk about "The American people" being against the new Health bill? The truth is its the Insurance companies who are against it, and they have lobbied long and hard to distort the truth and keep people from truly understanding the law.
Timminz wrote:I agree. There aren't nearly enough threads about this yet. I fully support the starting of another. Excellent points in your introduction, I might add.
stahrgazer wrote:If we should repeal "Socialized Healthcare" then we should repeal it ALL: No medicare, no medicaid, and limits on VA care where they cannot get any treatment or checkups UNLESS it's directly related to a WAR WOUND.
Phatscotty wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Not back for good, but I am here, so could not resist adding a bit to this thread again.
A few points you continue to miss Phattscotty, about cost -cutting:
#1. MAJOR tax payer savings -- Right now, children are fully covered, regardless of pre-existing conditions. Since children are automatically covered by Medicaid if they have serious health issues, this effectively gave insurance companies a "free pass". They could cover the rest of the family and simply drop the disabled child. Now, the Medicaid simply covers the co-pays and deductables. This is a SIGNIFICANT savings.
I disagree, 100%. This is due to the fact that the Health Care Reform bill adds 16,500 IRS agents to enforce it (that's over 300 per state). Taxpayers have to pay more for those agents alone, and their benefits, and reitrements, and construction on the new complexes, with roads to them, and heat and air etc, the whole shebang. We are talking billions here, and they haven't even been hired yet. The only reason that if we scrap health-care, the deficit will actually go up, is because of the lost taxation, which is going to pull 100's of billions out of an already stagnant private sector. Agree to disagree.
Phatscotty wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:#2.No annual or lifetime limits to coverage. Again, companies used to be able to set limits, so that when someone got seriously ill or injured, no matter how long they had paid into the policy, the coverage would stop. Some people were able to get coverage by changing jobs, etc. Others would use all their assets and then wind up on taxpayer roles. Again, this represents a MAJOR cost-savings to taxpayers!
I really don't know what else to say here. more people being covered and covered longer costs more.
No, we need a true public plan, but all you Tea Partiers and corporate lobbiests made sure that was off the table.Phatscotty wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:2. We HAVE socialized medicine right now. If you are poor enough, you get covered. IF you get seriously injured or sick, you get treated and, once every asset you have is taken, other patients wind up paying the rest of your bill through higher fees, etc. If you have kids who have any kind of disability and you make less than $250,000, they get covered, with the taxpayer fund picking up costs over and above what insurance won't pay. (nice deal for the insurance companies! They get the premiums and taxpayers bear the worst costs!
Not a very good reason to change a safety net into a hammock.
Link did not work, but probably.Phatscotty wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote: As a talk show personality noted, when "we'll be like CANADA!" is the worst threat anyone can find, its a pretty sad argument. Canada is not such a terrible place to live.
Wouldn't happen to be this guy by chance.....would it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5fOULPJFiM
You fail to consider population. Canada's system may be good for 38 million people, does that mean it will work the exact same for 310 million people? Also, Canada's system mainly works because they are neighbors with the USA.
Phatscotty wrote:Canada can always, as they often do, send people to the USA, and pay for some or most or all or none. The premier of whatever province who was just in Miami getting healthcare comes to mind.
Phatscotty wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote: No matter how good your insurance coverage, no matter how long you have paid into the companies, all it takes is going 63 days without coverage and suddenly any new insurance you get won't cover ANY pre-existing conditions. ANYTHING ... and believe me, the company definition of "pre-existing conditions" includes just about everything down to a hang nail.
Luckily, there is overwhelming agreement from Congress, and the President here. Now, if they could just pass this into reality in an honest way... It's not an issue anymore, it will be fixed.
Phatscotty wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:7. You talk of "limits" and "denials" of socialized medicine, but utterly ignore all the limits and denials by insurance companies... denials to people who have paid their premiums, often for years. ONE IN TEN americans is right now without coverage. If you look at the number of underinsured, that is, people who technically have insurance, but who have very high deductables and co-pays, then its even more. (my husbands old plant has insurance now that has a $3000 per person deductable!)
No I don't.
Phatscotty wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote: Curtailing research? PLEASE... the US government, we taxpayers subsidize most research right now. Companies will come up with the highly profitable stuff like Viagra, but jsut about anything truly groundbreaking is happening with US government sponsorship. (exceptions are very, very few!)
I like how you call the reality that we can't sell anything, whether it works or not, without going through the FDA....a "sponsor". Is the IRS a co-sponsor? Most products do not even make it through the FDA application process, cuz you need 500 mil just to be seen.
Phatscotty wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Contrast that with care in ANY OTHER industrialized, and even a few not-so-industrialized country and you find that we PAY MORE, get less.
yeah, through taxes!!!!! If you hate America and how it works so much, and if you love another country and how it works so much, I gotta ask, how lazy are you?
Phatscotty wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:OH, and all this talk about "The American people" being against the new Health bill? The truth is its the Insurance companies who are against it, and they have lobbied long and hard to distort the truth and keep people from truly understanding the law.
Oh yeah, but the president is all about the truth....??? I will agree the insurance companies are against it, becuase it will wipe them out. I would be for my own survival as well, just for the record. ugh....sigh: player...
Phatscotty wrote:If Obamacare is such a good deal, why is he handing out executive waivers left and right to his buddies?
Woodruff wrote:Phatscotty wrote:If Obamacare is such a good deal, why is he handing out executive waivers left and right to his buddies?
"Good for the American taxpayer" does not necessarily equate to "good for every particular group".
Woodruff wrote:stahrgazer wrote:If we should repeal "Socialized Healthcare" then we should repeal it ALL: No medicare, no medicaid, and limits on VA care where they cannot get any treatment or checkups UNLESS it's directly related to a WAR WOUND.
f*ck you. Seriously. f*ck you. You disgust me.
PLAYER57832 wrote:
If the insurers are going to be forced out of business because they are finally required to actually provide insurance, then they should be run out. No violins from here. The REAL point is that they haven't truly been providing insurance to everyone, only a select few who they deem "profitable". Meanwhile, we taxpayers wind up paying for the rest. (as does society in huge losses in productivity, etc.).
Phatscotty wrote:Woodruff wrote:Phatscotty wrote:If Obamacare is such a good deal, why is he handing out executive waivers left and right to his buddies?
"Good for the American taxpayer" does not necessarily equate to "good for every particular group".
okay, that would be relevant here, except for the groups getting the waiver are a group of "very rich" organizations.
stahrgazer wrote:Woodruff wrote:stahrgazer wrote:If we should repeal "Socialized Healthcare" then we should repeal it ALL: No medicare, no medicaid, and limits on VA care where they cannot get any treatment or checkups UNLESS it's directly related to a WAR WOUND.
f*ck you. Seriously. f*ck you. You disgust me.
Why? Because I think that "socialized healthcare" should be for all, not just a select few?
stahrgazer wrote:Or because I think Veteran's health benefits should relate to injuries during service if we're all to be "against socialized healthcare?"
stahrgazer wrote:So, I disgust you because I'm NOT a hypocrite?
stahrgazer wrote:and to digress to a personal "uninsured" story.
Back in 1981, a year after we moved to Florida, I was home when my mother came crawling up the stairs to the door, moaning in pain-induced anguish. She'd gone to a hospital for whatever was wrong, but they took her blood pressure, and because it was fine, they sent her home - because she had no insurance.
She was pale, clammy, and.. never had complained of pain before. I called the hospital and threatened to sue because whatever it was HAD to be an emergency case, and that particular hospital's federal funding required them to accept emergency indigents.
They linked us to a (federally funded) clinic, who ushered us in within 15 minutes. Surgery for the tumor was the next morning at 8:00 a.m. A tumor the size of a basketball.
Mom lived for another 19 years before cancer took her.. and by then she was on "socialized" medicare.
The federal funding that used to take care of people like my mom, uninsured, with insufficient assets, have largely been eliminated between then and now.. until about 2014 when this new form of "socialized healthcare" will treat people who are not children and are not retired, who cannot afford to pay for insurance at private rates, and whose companies do not provide it.
Tell me again, the-woodruffs-of-this-site, why my mother shouldn't have got her operation to remove a tumor, but a child should get a vaccine, a senior should get a script or heart transplant, or a vet should be able to get a non-service-related hangnail removed... IF American's don't support "socialized healthcare."
stahrgazer wrote:Also, to digress to some of the arguments that "taxpayers will have to pay for more IRS agents to monitor," well.. at least that gives them J.O.B.S. instead of U.N.E.M.P.L.O.Y.M.E.N.T. (that taxpayers also have to pay for).
stahrgazer wrote:Woodruff wrote:stahrgazer wrote:If we should repeal "Socialized Healthcare" then we should repeal it ALL: No medicare, no medicaid, and limits on VA care where they cannot get any treatment or checkups UNLESS it's directly related to a WAR WOUND.
f*ck you. Seriously. f*ck you. You disgust me.
Why? Because I think that "socialized healthcare" should be for all, not just a select few?
Or because I think Veteran's health benefits should relate to injuries during service if we're all to be "against socialized healthcare?"
So, I disgust you because I'm NOT a hypocrite? Great... because HYPOCRITES DISGUST ME.
Meanwhile your oh-so-not clever repartee added absolutely nothing to the discussion; I guess I could report you for it, but I won't.
thegreekdog wrote:Who provides health insurance if the health insurance companies go out of business?
Night Strike wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Who provides health insurance if the health insurance companies go out of business?
The government, which is what progressives want.
Night Strike wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Who provides health insurance if the health insurance companies go out of business?
The government, which is what progressives want.
stahrgazer wrote:If we should repeal "Socialized Healthcare" then we should repeal it ALL: No medicare, no medicaid, and limits on VA care where they cannot get any treatment or checkups UNLESS it's directly related to a WAR WOUND.
But let's call it socialism since apparently socialism = frankenstein, or somthing.Woodruff wrote:Night Strike wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Who provides health insurance if the health insurance companies go out of business?
The government, which is what progressives want.
What progressives ACTUALLY want is for reasonable, decent health care to be provided to all Americans, so that the taxpayer can quit shouldering the massive costs associated with the situation as it existed. As the insurance companies have readily proven they have no interest in providing health care even to those who are insured with them, many unfortunately have come to the conclusion that the government putting some requirements on them is the only way to go about it. Which, based on what those insurance companies have done, is probably true.
Unfortunately, in the minds of many progressives, the current measure is just a sad joke.
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.
Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users