ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[Titanic]

Coward Dean is a true believer, much like Dick Gephardt was/is. I'm not sure what exactly he believes in except that he believes he is trying to do better for people.

Wow, crude name calling, great arguament you have there. Howard Dean believes in it because he believes that when it comes to healthcare, everyone in a developed country should have the right to actually live and receive life saving treatment no matter how wealthy or how well connected they are.

[spurgistan]

Coward Dean is a true believer, much like Dick Gephardt was/is. I'm not sure what exactly he believes in except that he believes he is trying to do better for people.

Actually, Dean, besides not having any formal role in health care reform and thus a bit ancillary to this discussion, has been fairly consistent on health care, as well as being one of the few models of a successful liberal health care reformer (look at Vermont, and how they've managed to cut costs and have yet to be Communists)

[rockfist]

Nothing can be a right that requires other people,who aren't your parents when you are a child,to provide it for you. Its quite obvious to even children that you infringe on the rights of others by requiring them to do for you, what you can't or won't do for yourself.

[nesterdude]

Coward Dean is a true believer, much like Dick Gephardt was/is. I'm not sure what exactly he believes in except that he believes he is trying to do better for people.

Wow, crude name calling, great arguament you have there. Howard Dean believes in it because he believes that when it comes to healthcare, everyone in a developed country should have the right to actually live and receive life saving treatment no matter how wealthy or how well connected they are.

I'm sorry Tit.
Yes, tit.
You don't live in the U.S., do you?
I love you foreigner's (with your failed health systems no less) commenting on our national (not global) politics.
I mean seriously, ffs, really?
Howard Dean is unstrung, his actions speak for themselves
OK back to your comment.
First of all, everyone in america does have access to healthcare, no matter how wealthy you are, not consequences of people not paying their bills, well that's something we all bear.
What's at issue here?
is it a right?
no
Sorry it's not. Though your heart reaches out to people, we cover as many as we can. that's what our system does, we reward those who participate, who contribute and those who dont', do not glean benefits.
Conversely, we have an incredible amount of programs to uplift, support and satiate, those less fortunate. But no, is it the right of an individual to have everything automatically? no.
We believe in incentive.
Work
get health care.
if your job doensn't offer it
realize you ought to be innovative.
This isn't that difficult.

[F1fth]

Coward Dean is a true believer, much like Dick Gephardt was/is. I'm not sure what exactly he believes in except that he believes he is trying to do better for people.

Wow, crude name calling, great arguament you have there. Howard Dean believes in it because he believes that when it comes to healthcare, everyone in a developed country should have the right to actually live and receive life saving treatment no matter how wealthy or how well connected they are.

I'm sorry Tit.
Yes, tit.
You don't live in the U.S., do you?
I love you foreigner's (with your failed health systems no less) commenting on our national (not global) politics.
I mean seriously, ffs, really?
Howard Dean is unstrung, his actions speak for themselves
OK back to your comment.
First of all, everyone in america does have access to healthcare, no matter how wealthy you are, not consequences of people not paying their bills, well that's something we all bear.
What's at issue here?
is it a right?
no
Sorry it's not. Though your heart reaches out to people, we cover as many as we can. that's what our system does, we reward those who participate, who contribute and those who dont', do not glean benefits.
Conversely, we have an incredible amount of programs to uplift, support and satiate, those less fortunate. But no, is it the right of an individual to have everything automatically? no.
We believe in incentive.
Work
get health care.
if your job doensn't offer it
realize you ought to be innovative.
This isn't that difficult.

Oh hi there. My name's reality. Have we met?

Yes, how foolish people all are to not have insurance when all you simply have to do is "be innovative." I'm sure those without insurance just hate that and that's why they choose to go bankrupt from medical bills. Nevermind, the fact all the kind services the health insurance companies render onto the masses which they sympathize with so much... pre-existing conditions, claims denying, etc.

Seriously though, isn't it embarrassing that a foreigner wishes more for the improvement of our flawed system than you do? It should be.

And nobody wants to be poor. I will admit there are more than a few people who are too lazy to do something about it, but if you think everyone who's in their current economic position deserve to be there, then you, my friend, have no clue what you're talking about.

[rockfist]

If the Democrats are so interested in improving our system - why isn't tort reform included in the two THOUSAND pages of the bill?

[spurgistan]

If the Democrats are so interested in improving our system - why isn't tort reform included in the two THOUSAND pages of the bill?

You know, if there was a functional opposition party that actually wanted to negotiate on, you know, anything, we might have tort reform. As it is, what with the Party of No and whatnot, there's no reason for Democrats to infringe on the rights of citizens to be compensated when doctors screw up.

[rockfist]

The problem I have with negotiating on healthcare with Democrats is this - I fundamentally don't believe health care is a right for the same reason I don't believe owning a home is a right. When you start that debate you give some measure of legitimacy to the claim that it is. As soon as you start that debate you lose.

[Phatscotty]

You know what's fun? Complaining about something unrelated to the real problem at hand. I happen to think that free universal healthcare is a great idea. You know what I don't like though? Bureaucracy, which is found EVERYWHERE in your U.S. government. Having Public Healthcare will be no different than preparing your taxes, prosecuting someone, being prosecuted, getting on Welfare, registering to vote, or frankly doing anything else involving the government. Maybe it isn't that public healthcare is bad. Maybe it's just your government.

well said

[Phatscotty]

If the Democrats are so interested in improving our system - why isn't tort reform included in the two THOUSAND pages of the bill?

You know, if there was a functional opposition party that actually wanted to negotiate on, you know, anything, we might have tort reform. As it is, what with the Party of No and whatnot, there's no reason for Democrats to infringe on the rights of citizens to be compensated when doctors screw up.

is frivolous lawsuits as a large contributor of health care costs rising for everyone else a reason?

[Titanic]

The problem I have with negotiating on healthcare with Democrats is this - I fundamentally don't believe health care is a right for the same reason I don't believe owning a home is a right. When you start that debate you give some measure of legitimacy to the claim that it is. As soon as you start that debate you lose.

Owning a home is a right? Wth? How seriously upside down are your priorities.

[thegreekdog]

The problem I have with negotiating on healthcare with Democrats is this - I fundamentally don't believe health care is a right for the same reason I don't believe owning a home is a right. When you start that debate you give some measure of legitimacy to the claim that it is. As soon as you start that debate you lose.

Owning a home is a right? Wth? How seriously upside down are your priorities.

In the US, owning a home was almost thought of as a right (under Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II). And some people believe they "should" own a home.

[Titanic]

The problem I have with negotiating on healthcare with Democrats is this - I fundamentally don't believe health care is a right for the same reason I don't believe owning a home is a right. When you start that debate you give some measure of legitimacy to the claim that it is. As soon as you start that debate you lose.

Owning a home is a right? Wth? How seriously upside down are your priorities.

In the US, owning a home was almost thought of as a right (under Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II). And some people believe they "should" own a home.

Well look where that got us, into an economic collapse... Maybe some of these values need to be modernised for the real world.

[thegreekdog]

The problem I have with negotiating on healthcare with Democrats is this - I fundamentally don't believe health care is a right for the same reason I don't believe owning a home is a right. When you start that debate you give some measure of legitimacy to the claim that it is. As soon as you start that debate you lose.

Owning a home is a right? Wth? How seriously upside down are your priorities.

In the US, owning a home was almost thought of as a right (under Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II). And some people believe they "should" own a home.

Well look where that got us, into an economic collapse... Maybe some of these values need to be modernised for the real world.

Well... um... yeah... no shit. That's why I purchased a nice shiny bumper saying "Honk if I'm paying your mortgage."

[Titanic]

Well... um... yeah... no shit. That's why I purchased a nice shiny bumper saying "Honk if I'm paying your mortgage."

Lol, if they're that poor should they really have a car?

[rockfist]

The problem I have with negotiating on healthcare with Democrats is this - I fundamentally don't believe health care is a right for the same reason I don't believe owning a home is a right. When you start that debate you give some measure of legitimacy to the claim that it is. As soon as you start that debate you lose.

Owning a home is a right? Wth? How seriously upside down are your priorities.

In the US, owning a home was almost thought of as a right (under Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II). And some people believe they "should" own a home.

Well look where that got us, into an economic collapse... Maybe some of these values need to be modernised for the real world.

No, the old school values of 20-25% down to purchase a home and no more than a 28% debt to income ratio, with checking paystubbs and tax returns worked just fine for decades. Then as Rahm Emanuel so elequently put it during the Clinton administration they disconnected the ability to repay a loan from the ability to obtain one...

[spurgistan]

How can you can compare owning a house to having adequate health care? It's easy to find cheaper substitutes for shelter than owning your own house. There is simply no substitute for having health care. Unless your endorsing Alan Grayson's take on the Republican health care plan...

[rockfist]

I can compare it because both would require that we take from other people to provide them to you if they were "rights", which they thus can not be.

[Nobunaga]

... The Senate's got the votes:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 97_pf.html

...

[stahrgazer]

Well... um... yeah... no shit. That's why I purchased a nice shiny bumper saying "Honk if I'm paying your mortgage."

Lol, if they're that poor should they really have a car?

In my area, the answer is yes, if they're that poor they should really have a car because there are inadequate transportation services. You can call to schedule pickup to go to the mall or to city offices, but they insist on a 4-hour window. If you have a court appointment, you must have automobile transportation or be prepared to walk or bikeride the 30 miles on major roads with no sidewalks, in weather that will go from sunny to thunderstorm in minutes.

Building up facilities for public transportation (they called it 'infrastructure') is another area where Obama campaigned that some people boo'd and others hurrah'd.

Investing in things like infrastructure and.. HEALTH CARE for ALL.. would ultimately save money. People who do not have adequate healthcare cannot go see a doctor for minor symptoms or regular bloodtests, but when it's "too late" and they're emergency cardiac patients, the hospitals MUST treat them. Then they bankrupt because they cannot afford the hundreds of thousands of dollars for the surgeries. Had they had adequate healthcare prior to the emergency problem, the total costs would be far less than the cost of the emergency; doctors would get paid, hospitals would get paid, so their insurance costs would go down (some of why they insure is against unpaid bills).

Similarly, a child whose condition, including inadequate vitamins, goes unnoticed, is more likely to develop more expensive (to treat) conditions later on.

Those who are arguing against health insurance for all because it's "too expensive" or would "take dollars from one set of people to give to another set" are being "penny wise and pound foolish." Ultimately, the only set of people who will lose are the insurance companies...they'll no longer be able to price gouge at whim.

[Snorri1234]

The problem I have with negotiating on healthcare with Democrats is this - I fundamentally don't believe health care is a right for the same reason I don't believe owning a home is a right. When you start that debate you give some measure of legitimacy to the claim that it is. As soon as you start that debate you lose.

This is dumb. Whether or not health care is a right is irrelevant. I don't think having roads and such is a right either, but that doesn't mean you're not going to pay taxes for it.

[rockfist]

That is a specious arguement...no one owns the road. If the government built a road and the gave it to someone it would be like giving someone a home or free healthcare services.

[Snorri1234]

That is a specious arguement...no one owns the road. If the government built a road and the gave it to someone it would be like giving someone a home or free healthcare services.

No that's not a specious argument. I am talking about whether something being a right or not matters in deciding whether or not it's better to put it into the hands of the government. (And I am not even advocating putting the actual care in the hands of the government.)

I mean, I didn't even take offense at your comment that healthcare is not a right. To me letting people die from easily treatable diseases because they don't have enough money sounds fucking inhumane but I suppose that's because I'm not a sociopath.

[rockfist]

To me making everyone responsible for everyone elses ailments, which could be self inflicted sounds like theft. I mean if someone puts a gun to their head and pulls the trigger, but somehow lives, to treat them and for society to pick up the tab is retarded (and I am aware that it may well be happening now since that is emergency room).

[Baron Von PWN]

To me making everyone responsible for everyone elses ailments, which could be self inflicted sounds like theft. I mean if someone puts a gun to their head and pulls the trigger, but somehow lives, to treat them and for society to pick up the tab is retarded (and I am aware that it may well be happening now since that is emergency room).

That would suck, but overall the benefits, so well stated by stahrgazer, outweigh the costs of treating a few fools who injure themselves needlessly ( this is likely such a small percentage of patients it doesen't matter far more costly are old people).