ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[Night Strike]

Tom Daschle wants elderly to go to hospice instead of getting surgeries like a heart transplant. I though the Democrats didn't want death panels??

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/death-panel-daschle-encourages-other-options-for-elderly-patients-needing-surgery/

[spurgistan]

Tom Daschle wants elderly to go to hospice instead of getting surgeries like a heart transplant. I though the Democrats didn't want death panels??

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/death-panel-daschle-encourages-other-options-for-elderly-patients-needing-surgery/

That website is terrifying.

[Night Strike]

Tom Daschle wants elderly to go to hospice instead of getting surgeries like a heart transplant. I though the Democrats didn't want death panels??

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/death-panel-daschle-encourages-other-options-for-elderly-patients-needing-surgery/

That website is terrifying.

Sorry you're scared of the stories your mainstream media won't give you. Reality isn't all pro-Democratic agenda.

[stahrgazer]

Well, if we're going to eradicate "socialized" medicine, why not eliminate things like Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA? Those are all programs for "socialized medicine."

Personally, I don't think we should eliminate those programs. I do think we should limit prescriptions and put that money into giving everyone a little bit of health checkup. But whooooaaah senior citizens would be outraged at the idea that they get less, rather than more, of their costly prescriptions paid for. I know a few (I live in Florida, it's easy to know seniors here) who get Prescription vitamins, the over-counter kind isn't "good enough" for them. I think that's a bit abusive of the system, but it does mean the doctors get to do more tests and checkups on them to "make sure their vitamin prescriptions are working."

While there are differences between vitamin supplements, I don't think those differences extend to a significant difference between a decent otc supplement and a prescription supplement.

It amazes me, though, that any American thinks it's "not okay" to try to ensure more people get a checkup each year, or a flu taken care of, but it IS okay to make sure drug abusers (many of them get medicaid, you know, because they're diagnosed as having mental disorders) get their stuff.

And as for the deficit people keep squawking about? More than half of that deficit came from Bush, who a) wasn't paying attention and b) wasn't including all his spending in the budget. Convenient to blame Obama for it all; convenient, but false.

But what riles me, REALLY riles me about my Republican party right now, is a little more tangential to this thread... their big goal for the next 2 years isn't fixing what's wrong with employment right now, no, instead, their number one goal is, "beat Obama in 2012." THAT is what really sucks, and the new topic of this thread falls right into that, the "Overturning ObamaCare: Nov 2nd" is a reflection of that, "Beat Obama is number one goal," Republican attitude.

And to that regard, please look and see that what's currently termed "Obamacare" looks nothing like the plan he asked for. If his original plan really had passed, I bet a lot more people would think it was a good thing, I bet the deficit wouldn't be as bad, especially once you adjust for the other costs America faces when someone loses their home because they got sick.... or because a disease didn't get diagnosed in time to keep the citizen productive, so instead, they're now on disability including medicaid, and their prescription costs are so much higher than they would have been had Americans realized that a penny of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Getting Americans back to work, with adequate healthcare, healthcare that doesn't rely on business to take care of matters (the banking/housing scandal that Bush let grow, that Obama had to face in his first months in office and isn't fixed yet, should give people clear ideas about the ethics and wisdom of letting business take care of Americans before "we the people" do it). A healthcare system that doesn't require people losing their house just because they get sick, those things really ought to be a primary concern for all Americans, and I don't care which party fixes it right, as long as they fix it right.

And for all those who say, "look at Canada, how horrid!" Sorry.. most Canadians get to go to a doctor if they have the flu. It's only the radical treatments and surgeries they really have to wait on, and well, if they've got enough money, they can pay to avoid the wait. I wouldn't mind it if Americans got "regular stuff" taken care of but had to wait a little for more radical stuff.. there's even an American precedent for it. For example, people who need a kidney (or other) transplant already have to wait.

And for those who say it would mean less people go into the medical field? Well, what about that Hippocratic oath doctors are supposed to take? When, dammit, did "be a doctor" become more about money than about healing people? Why is "make money" a better ideal for doctors than, "take care of the sick."???

Why is it more important for America to make billionaires than it is for America to be a community of "we the people, in order to promote the general welfare..." Let me interpret that for those who really don't get it. General welfare meant common welfare, welfare of everyone, NOT just the welfare of the financial or political Generals.

*end rant*

[BigBallinStalin]

To save money on long-distance calls, I'd scrap the "unlimited" LD calls per month and go with the cheapest landline package ($8/mth here).

Then, get Skype, and pay like $2 or so per month for a phone number from them, and make long-distance calls within the US for free. I think international calls are like .03 cents per minute.

You'd pay $28 per month for internet and the landline, and about $2-5 per month for Skype. The remaining $37 every month can be sent to the BBS Foundation for Children by the Name of BBS.

I will double check those options, but there is a LOT available to people in bigger cities that are not available here. We have 4 internet connection options, including Comcast. For my circumstances, I got the best deal I could. (and I do constantly review)

One issue, hard to quantify is that right now, even if I were to go with internet phone service, say, I woud loose 911 identification. With kids, that is important. Also, you lose directory assistance, something important for my business.

Email Skype about that. I wasn't aware of that being an issue, so maybe they can provide you a solution better than I.

[BigBallinStalin]

Tom Daschle wants elderly to go to hospice instead of getting surgeries like a heart transplant. I though the Democrats didn't want death panels??

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/death-panel-daschle-encourages-other-options-for-elderly-patients-needing-surgery/

That website is terrifying.

Sorry you're scared of the stories your mainstream media won't give you. Reality isn't all pro-Democratic agenda.

A blog founded by mainstream media man Glenn Beck qualifies theblaze as something even worse than mainstream media with mainstream media-minded people approving of its bloggers: it's just a propaganda site that isn't held to the same standards as the MSM is when it's presenting news. Granted, the MSM isn't the best, but it's certainly better than theblaze and its narrow agenda.

I'm not in any way poisoning the well. I'm just clearing any misunderstanding that theblaze is somehow not affiliated with mainstream media like Glenn Geck (lol, misspell, but it stays) and his agenda.

[BigBallinStalin]

And as for the deficit people keep squawking about? More than half of that deficit came from Bush, who a) wasn't paying attention and b) wasn't including all his spending in the budget. Convenient to blame Obama for it all; convenient, but false.

I understand that this is an excerpt of a rant, but I'm getting tired of reading people's diatribe directed at President A or President B. People seem to think everything is steered by this Great Chairman, but it really isn't.

If you want to talk about the 2008 recession and what led to it, you'll to have to examine the monetary expansion policies of the Fed from 2002 onwards, and how the Fed is semi-government, semi-big business run (and still is). You'll have to pay attention to the lack of regulations regarding credit default swaps (among others that I can't recall), and the lack of responsibility and later accountability (with the bailouts) from the bankers' as well as the consumers' side.

In short, when more things are taken into consideration over the time, by using your logic one should place the blame on both Obama and Bush. However, you can't use the president as a scapegoat for these things, because it's not entirely their fault. They can only influence so much and foresee so much.

[Night Strike]

And for those who say it would mean less people go into the medical field? Well, what about that Hippocratic oath doctors are supposed to take? When, dammit, did "be a doctor" become more about money than about healing people? Why is "make money" a better ideal for doctors than, "take care of the sick."???

When it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to become a doctor and then similar amounts to stay insured from erroneous malpractice lawsuits. And the idea that you can force someone in a profession to provide you with a service is the definition of slavery (indentured servant hood if they're getting a small repayment for their work, which is all government provides since they don't pay the full costs). No doctor should be forced to help everybody for free. Why I can't I force you to provide me with the product of your business if I don't have the money to pay?

[BigBallinStalin]

And for those who say it would mean less people go into the medical field? Well, what about that Hippocratic oath doctors are supposed to take? When, dammit, did "be a doctor" become more about money than about healing people? Why is "make money" a better ideal for doctors than, "take care of the sick."???

When it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to become a doctor and then similar amounts to stay insured from erroneous malpractice lawsuits. And the idea that you can force someone in a profession to provide you with a service is the definition of slavery (indentured servant hood if they're getting a small repayment for their work, which is all government provides since they don't pay the full costs). No doctor should be forced to help everybody for free. Why I can't I force you to provide me with the product of your business if I don't have the money to pay?

It's illegal for any hospital to turn down someone for medical attention even if they can't afford it. Do you disagree with such a law?

[Night Strike]

And for those who say it would mean less people go into the medical field? Well, what about that Hippocratic oath doctors are supposed to take? When, dammit, did "be a doctor" become more about money than about healing people? Why is "make money" a better ideal for doctors than, "take care of the sick."???

When it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to become a doctor and then similar amounts to stay insured from erroneous malpractice lawsuits. And the idea that you can force someone in a profession to provide you with a service is the definition of slavery (indentured servant hood if they're getting a small repayment for their work, which is all government provides since they don't pay the full costs). No doctor should be forced to help everybody for free. Why I can't I force you to provide me with the product of your business if I don't have the money to pay?

It's illegal for any hospital to turn down someone for medical attention even if they can't afford it. Do you disagree with such a law?

For emergency service, yes, I can see that. For anything that's not an emergency, there are some serious ethical issues with forcing someone else to provide you with a good or a service for free or a price very below their listed price. You can't just go into an electronics store and tell the clerk "You have to give me that $1000 laptop for $100 so I can get my college degree." Why should you be able to tell a doctor something along the same lines?

[BigBallinStalin]

And for those who say it would mean less people go into the medical field? Well, what about that Hippocratic oath doctors are supposed to take? When, dammit, did "be a doctor" become more about money than about healing people? Why is "make money" a better ideal for doctors than, "take care of the sick."???

When it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to become a doctor and then similar amounts to stay insured from erroneous malpractice lawsuits. And the idea that you can force someone in a profession to provide you with a service is the definition of slavery (indentured servant hood if they're getting a small repayment for their work, which is all government provides since they don't pay the full costs). No doctor should be forced to help everybody for free. Why I can't I force you to provide me with the product of your business if I don't have the money to pay?

It's illegal for any hospital to turn down someone for medical attention even if they can't afford it. Do you disagree with such a law?

For emergency service, yes, I can see that. For anything that's not an emergency, there are some serious ethical issues with forcing someone else to provide you with a good or a service for free or a price very below their listed price. You can't just go into an electronics store and tell the clerk "You have to give me that $1000 laptop for $100 so I can get my college degree." Why should you be able to tell a doctor something along the same lines?

Ah, I see what you're saying, but health-related concerns makes the issue more complicated than price controls on laptops.

[Night Strike]

Ah, I see what you're saying, but health-related concerns makes the issue more complicated than price controls on laptops.

Ok, let's look at other things that are considered to be more of necessities. Apply the same logic to your electric and water bills. Apply it to groceries (especially since their prices are rising), gasoline, and clothing.



On a whole other issue that's not completely separate. Why the heck do we still have employer-based health insurance?? Even more, why is no one actively pushing to get rid of it in favor of individual plans (not this government system crap)?? Does your employer pay for your personal car insurance, life insurance, homeowner's/renter's insurance, flood insurance, personal property insurance, food insurance, etc.?? Why the heck should they pay health insurance? All those other systems work just fine in the public market. Furthermore, if government is going to make sure people are covered irregardless of pre-conditions, why don't they apply the same principle to other insurances? Why can't I get flood insurance after a flood, renter's insurance after a fire, or car insurance after a wreck? There is nothing different between these premises. The government rules also don't allow health insurance providers to charge different prices based on risky behavior like smoking, yet those same variations are perfectly fine in all other insurances. Why is health insurance a special class? Answer: because the government wants to control it. They know that by dictating health insurances, they can dictate our lifestyle choices. It's a complete power grab and removal of freedoms.

[natty dread]

Why is health insurance a special class? Answer: because the government wants to control it. They know that by dictating health insurances, they can dictate our lifestyle choices. It's a complete power grab and removal of freedoms.

Night Strike has gained a level!

Stupidity +6
Paranoia +8
Inanity +2

Night Strike gains a new special talent: Reductio ad absurdum

[BigBallinStalin]

Why is health insurance a special class? Answer: because the government wants to control it. They know that by dictating health insurances, they can dictate our lifestyle choices. It's a complete power grab and removal of freedoms.

Night Strike has gained a level!

Stupidity +6
Paranoia +8
Inanity +2

Night Strike gains a new special talent: Reductio ad absurdum

So explain how such a policy has no incentive of controlling future votes from those who rely on the potential program?

[Phatscotty]

no more entitlement programs, period!

[beezer]

no more entitlement programs, period!

[Juan_Bottom]

More entitlement programs, period.

[Phatscotty]

More entitlement programs, period.

would you be so kind as to go further with your statement? like what kind of programs?

[Juan_Bottom]

Well, firstly I was mocking the situation that we're in.

Second, if a social program isn't working, axe it now. If a good program exists, and yet we have an entitlement class created by it, then cut the class. Only, spare the program.

However, Health Care isn't an entitlement program anymore than Police Protection is an entitlement program. It's laughable that a Christian would try to block a free nationalized health care system in this country. After all didn't JESUS provided the original free health care? But my point is that it's not an entitlement program in the negative sense. That's just a buzz-word that sounds smart.

[Night Strike]

However, Health Care isn't an entitlement program anymore than Police Protection is an entitlement program. It's laughable that a Christian would try to block a free nationalized health care system in this country. After all didn't JESUS provided the original free health care? But my point is that it's not an entitlement program in the negative sense. That's just a buzz-word that sounds smart.

Another person trying to use Christianity to justify bigger government (aka social justice). Jesus didn't have to steal from the rich to provide the free health care. And Christians are the most charitable block of people in this country, and probably around the world. It was Christian organizations that started many of the earliest hospitals to provide care for large numbers of people.

[notyou2]

However, Health Care isn't an entitlement program anymore than Police Protection is an entitlement program. It's laughable that a Christian would try to block a free nationalized health care system in this country. After all didn't JESUS provided the original free health care? But my point is that it's not an entitlement program in the negative sense. That's just a buzz-word that sounds smart.

Another person trying to use Christianity to justify bigger government (aka social justice). Jesus didn't have to steal from the rich to provide the free health care. And Christians are the most charitable block of people in this country, and probably around the world. It was Christian organizations that started many of the wars that have killed massive amounts of people as well as fomented dissent with other relgious groups.

Fixed it for you Night Wipes.

[Juan_Bottom]

Another person trying to use Christianity to justify bigger government (aka social justice).

Firstly, it's Christian groups that repeatedly champion Republican leaders. All of which have been increasing the size of government for the last 30 years. So yeah.

Secondly, you didn't show how I was wrong. Did Jesus think it was the Christian thing to do to f*ck over the poor? I believe he stated as clear as anything that anyone who hoarded wealth would be denied access to heaven. If you want to play Christian then you should understand that your only job on Earth is to know the Bible, and follow it. Just because there is no commandment which says that you should take care of your own doesn't mean that the Bible didn't give clear direction on this issue. Your argument is simply that you're not required by God to care about anyone. You're not, you have free will.

[Night Strike]

It was Christian organizations that started many of the wars that have killed massive amounts of people as well as fomented dissent with other relgious groups.

Fixed it for you Night Wipes.

Thank you for your epic troll. And if you looked at the massacres imparted in the last century in the name of atheism or secularization (WW2, USSR, China, NK), you would know that those numbers far outpace anything done in the past by Christianity. Either way, your trolling was completely off topic. At least my post had something to do with health care (hospitals are obviously important in that regard).

[Phatscotty]

Well, firstly I was mocking the situation that we're in.

Second, if a social program isn't working, axe it now. If a good program exists, and yet we have an entitlement class created by it, then cut the class. Only, spare the program.

However, Health Care isn't an entitlement program anymore than Police Protection is an entitlement program. It's laughable that a Christian would try to block a free nationalized health care system in this country. After all didn't JESUS provided the original free health care? But my point is that it's not an entitlement program in the negative sense. That's just a buzz-word that sounds smart.

yeah, and he also said something about teaching people how to fish, rather than just giving them fish.

and who is this christian you are tlaking about trying to prevent universal healthcare?

if you are sarcastically remarking upon a mockery, NM

[Juan_Bottom]

Thank you for your epic troll. And if you looked at the massacres imparted in the last century in the name of atheism or secularization (WW2, USSR, China, NK), you would know that those numbers far outpace anything done in the past by Christianity.

There weren't any wars started in the name or Atheism or secularization, so yeah, you're being dumb. I could just see the Atheist General leading that charge. I don't know where this myth about Hitler being an Atheist comes from. I don't know where this myth that Nazi's, Communists, and Chinese people are all Atheists come's from either trying to spread Atheism comes from. I don't know why people don't check a book before believing these things... Secondly, when you look at these wars you'll notice that on both sides you had people charging to their deaths proudly because of their religion. No Atheist is going to die for a lack of belief.

yeah, and he also said something about teaching people how to fish, rather than just giving them fish.

and who is this christian you are tlaking about trying to prevent universal healthcare?

if you are sarcastically remarking upon a mockery, NM

No individual Christian stopped Universal Health care. They worked together. But we do have an uber-Christian in Nightstrike here who is arguing on behalf of the Million+ millionaires in America who control the wealth but don't make it.
Giving people free health care isn't comparable to teaching a man to fish. Teaching a man to fish would be akin to putting them to work so they can support themselves. But in this country, we will always have a poor and a middle class who wont have access to health care, but can still work. Even if they can work their way up to the top, which they can, there will always be the same amount of people on the bottom who can't afford health care. Unless you mean "teach a man to stitch."