# Does Anyone Really Want National Health Care?



## USAMomma (Apr 6, 2011)

Are the doctors really going to be able to treat We the People, the normal non-government worker class citizens any better? Are the insurance companies going to limit our ability to get Quality CARE?

I read this in the news this morning about the National Health in England. Got me to thinking about this mandated health insurance and what the future may be like for us "average citizens".

*Surgeons say patients in some parts of England have spent months waiting in pain because of delayed operations or new restrictions on who qualifies for treatment.*

In several areas routine surgery was put on hold for months, while in many others new thresholds for hip and knee replacements have been introduced.

The moves are part of the NHS drive to find £20bn efficiency savings by 2015.

The government said performance should be measured by outcomes not numbers.

Surgeons have described the delays faced by patients as "devastating and cruel". Peter Kay, the president of the British Orthopaedic Association (BOA), says they've become increasingly frustrated that hip and knee replacements are being targeted as a way of finding savings.

"We've started to get reports over the last nine months that access to these services are being restricted."

"GPs were told not so send as many patients to hospital, maybe to delay referrals until the end of the financial year while perhaps introducing thresholds for surgery."

He says that simply delaying surgery by one means or another does not improve the outcome for patients as their condition can deteriorate.

"The double jeopardy is that patients wait longer in pain, and when they have the operation, the result might not have been as good as it otherwise would have been had they had it early. "

Read more here:
BBC News - Surgeons raise alarm over waiting

This may be news in England, but National Health it is and is this something we get to look forward to?
I hope not!


----------



## USAMomma (Apr 6, 2011)

Think about this.

The US Government cannot even get a budget deal handled. They cannot even handle their own finances so where they think they can handle everyone's health care is ridiculous IMHO...

Oh I know, the Insurance Companies Executives paid out the big bucks to lobby government to make health insurance mandatory to ensure they get their bonuses and salary pay increases


----------



## Bern80 (Apr 6, 2011)

It's really just trading one group of people waiting for another. Here it's prioritized by who has the money and/or coverage. There it's based on need. Because it's need based and government doesn't have the money to pay for all the people, some will contnue to wait and suffer until government deems they are in enough pain to treat. Sounds real preventive doesn't it.


----------



## Shogun (Apr 6, 2011)

clearly, only those who can afford health care deserve it!

It's hilarious that you can talk out of both sides of your mouth by complaining about waiting lists for medical care while totally disregarding care entirely for those who cannot afford it.


----------



## jillian (Apr 6, 2011)

Shogun said:


> clearly, only those who can afford health care deserve it!
> 
> It's hilarious that you can talk out of both sides of your mouth by complaining about waiting lists for medical care while totally disregarding care entirely for those who cannot afford it.



you had it right in the first line of your post... 

if they can't afford it, they think they don't deserve it.

because it must be because they're lazy... or they'd be rich.


----------



## Bern80 (Apr 6, 2011)

Shogun said:


> clearly, only those who can afford health care deserve it!
> 
> It's hilarious that you can talk out of both sides of your mouth by complaining about waiting lists for medical care while totally disregarding care entirely for those who cannot afford it.



Not really what I said. I said you're not really gaining anything. You're just swapping one group of people waiting for another. It's a simple question of do you want the ability to be treated when YOU want to be treated or do you want government to tell you when it decides you should be treated.


----------



## Mr Liberty (Apr 6, 2011)

Shogun said:


> clearly, only those who can afford health care deserve it!
> 
> It's hilarious that you can talk out of both sides of your mouth by complaining about waiting lists for medical care while totally disregarding care entirely for those who cannot afford it.



Have you ever thought about why they can't afford it?
How is it not wrong to force me to pay for their medical care?
Do you really trust the government to administer this?
I can't afford anymore of your programs.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Apr 6, 2011)

No one suggests we emulate the British System or the French System or any other system.  We have a system that is broken, yet, ironically is the best in the world.  This paradox provides the special interests to manipulate the stupid voters to continue the status quo and benefits the few, not the many.

As I've posted many times, I believe the federal government should provide incentives for each state to offer free (i.e. tax payer funded) preventative care for all.  Ideally a national program, single payer system of preventative care would provide universal care, but political consideratons make that unlikely.

I've suggested 435 Clinics be built aroung the country, providing jobs and stimulating local economies.  One medical clinic for each Congressional District providing education, information, and preventative care to all citizens in the district.  Using ones imagination it is possible to conceive how such a program could reduce costs; providing contraceptives will prevent many unwanted pregnanacies and abortion, education and information may prevent the spread of disease, STD as well as other communicable ones; and the long term costs when early diagnosis leads to early treatment will be better controlled.

Private insurance for accidents and serious sudden medical conditions would continue to exist, doctors could continue to practice privately though some would work for clinics, HMO's or the government as they do today.

Of course thinking and using one's imagination is required.  Yelling "Socialism!" and not understanding the issue requires little thought and no imagination (Edit:  See Mr. Liberty above for one such example).


----------



## Douger (Apr 6, 2011)

Where are the Prince and **** Middleton having their honeymoon ?
That's a large part of GB's problem. Leeches.
Sell Fuckingham palace to the Chinese and buy the old hag a double wide trailer. That'll buy a whole bunch of hips.


----------



## Mr Liberty (Apr 6, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> No one suggests we emulate the British System or the French System or any other system.  We have a system that is broken, yet, ironically is the best in the world.  This paradox provides the special interests to manipulate the stupid voters to continue the status quo and benefits the few, not the many.
> 
> As I've posted many times, I believe the federal government should provide incentives for each state to offer free (i.e. tax payer funded) preventative care for all.  Ideally a national program, single payer system of preventative care would provide universal care, but political consideratons make that unlikely.
> 
> ...



How is what you are proposing not socialism?
So socialized medicine is going to eliminate unwanted pregnancies?  These contraceptive are available now, for free.  You are not going to change human behavior.
I and others don't want this.  By what right do you have to force it on us?  
If you can come up with a completely volunteer health plan then, I will support it.  One that does not violate the liberty even one person.  What you and the government have proposed is immoral.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 6, 2011)

I do.....I DO!

Cut out the do nothing middle men who do nothing for healthcare except paperwork
Cut out exorbitant overhead and profit from do nothing insurance companies

You get sick....No Bills.....No Debt


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 6, 2011)

Mr Liberty said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > No one suggests we emulate the British System or the French System or any other system.  We have a system that is broken, yet, ironically is the best in the world.  This paradox provides the special interests to manipulate the stupid voters to continue the status quo and benefits the few, not the many.
> ...



How is a national hyway system not socialism?  Police and Fire?  Only a socialist would have any such employees.  A good person won't need to get arrested and when ya live under a rock like many here what good is a fire department?  Water and sewage?  Cut me some slack Jack!!!  Them there services are for pinko COMMIES!!!!!  Medical care????  Try something important!!!  You are wasting my time!!!


----------



## Bern80 (Apr 6, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> I do.....I DO!
> 
> Cut out the do nothing middle men who do nothing for healthcare except paperwork
> Cut out exorbitant overhead and profit from do nothing insurance companies
> ...



Good ideas (though that notion that insurance companies make exhorbitant profits isn't factually correct), I just don't get the insistance by you lefties that we have to turn it over to government to do that.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 6, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > I do.....I DO!
> ...



Countries that have national healthcare pay a lower percent of GDP and are healthier than Americans  American healthcare has too much paperwork and too many middlemen


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 6, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> No one suggests we emulate the British System or the French System or any other system.  We have a system that is broken, yet, ironically is the best in the world.  This paradox provides the special interests to manipulate the stupid voters to continue the status quo and benefits the few, not the many.
> 
> As I've posted many times, I believe the federal government should provide incentives for each state to offer free (i.e. tax payer funded) preventative care for all.  Ideally a national program, single payer system of preventative care would provide universal care, but political consideratons make that unlikely.
> 
> ...



1."We have a system that is broken,..."
Not true, just left wing propaganda.
Prior to the Obama presidency, and the full court press by the MSM, some 85% were satisfied with their healthcare.

Judging life expectancy: many people die for *reasons that cant be controlled the medical profession,* such as auto accidents, murder, etc., and once you factor out care crashes and homicides, the *US ranks number one in worldwide life expectancy*!

One often-heard argument, voiced by the New York Times' Paul Krugman and others, is that America lags behind other countries in crude health outcomes. But such outcomes reflect a mosaic of factors, such as diet, lifestyle, drug use and cultural values. It pains me as a doctor to say this, but health care is just one factor in health.

In The Business of Health, Robert Ohsfeldt and John Schneider *factor out intentional and unintentional injuries from life-expectancy statistics and find that Americans who don't die in car crashes or homicides outlive people in any other Western country.*And if we measure a health care system by how well it serves its sick citizens, American medicine excels."
Dave Petno | On Freedom


2. If there is one mantra that the left constantly mouths, it is how much smarter they are than anyone else...
...and, lo and behold, here it is again: "...manipulate the stupid voters..."
Thanks for the validation, Wry.

3. "I've suggested 435 Clinics be built aroung the country,..."
Perhaps you could explain why Obamacare does exactly the opposite:

a.	What would be better, more hospitals, or fewer hospitals?   "Physician Hospitals of America says that construction had to stop at 45 hospitals nationwide"Section 6001 of the health care law effectively bans new physician-owned hospitals (POHs) from starting up, and it keeps existing ones from expanding." Obamacare Ends Construction of Doctor-Owned Hospitals | The Weekly Standard

4. "Private insurance for accidents and serious sudden medical conditions would continue to exist,..."
You sure?

a. 	A Virginia-based insurance company says considerable uncertainties created by the Democrats health care overhaul will force it to close its doors by the end of the year. The firm, nHealth, appears to be *the first to claim that the new law has driven it out of business.  *First victim of health care overhaul? - Sarah Kliff - POLITICO.com

5. And, the winner in the category of "Unintentional Humor:"

"Of course thinking and using one's imagination is required."

6. "... offer free (i.e. tax payer funded) preventative care for all.  Ideally a national program, single payer system of preventative care would provide universal care,..."

Really? Effective?
Not according to Betsy McCaughey

"Prevention instead of treatment?  Nancy-Ann De Parle, director of the White House Office of Health Reform, said on March 23 that "we have to get to a system of keeping people well, rather than treating the sickness." That would make sense *if all disease were behavior-related, but many cancers and other diseases are linked to genetics or unknown causes. *De Parle's pronouncement echoes how Sir Michael Rawlins, a British health official, explains his nation's low cancer survival rates. The British National Health Service, he said, has to be fair to all patients, "not just the patients with macular degeneration or breast cancer or renal cancer. If we spend a lot of money on a few patients, we have less money to spend on everyone else. We are not trying to be unkind or cruel. We are trying to look after everybody." 
*This approach is deadly for those with serious illness.* In the U.S., about 5 percent of the populace needs 50 percent of treatment dollars. The drumbeat for shifting resources from treatments to prevention should worry any family dealing with M.S., Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, or cerebral palsy, or with a history of cancer. 

Hudson Institute > Downgrading American Medical Care


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 6, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



False.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 6, 2011)

Shogun said:


> clearly, only those who can afford health care deserve it!
> 
> It's hilarious that you can talk out of both sides of your mouth by complaining about waiting lists for medical care while totally disregarding care entirely for those who cannot afford it.



Think the head of Johns Hopkins might know better? He doesn't like Obamacare...

Dr. Edward Miller, CEO of Johns Hopkins, sees the expansion of Medicaid as making it harder for institutions such as his to serve the poor or disadvantaged. Edward Miller: Health Reform Could Harm Medicaid Patients - WSJ.com


----------



## auditor0007 (Apr 6, 2011)

USAMomma said:


> Are the doctors really going to be able to treat We the People, the normal non-government worker class citizens any better? Are the insurance companies going to limit our ability to get Quality CARE?
> 
> I read this in the news this morning about the National Health in England. Got me to thinking about this mandated health insurance and what the future may be like for us "average citizens".
> 
> ...



First of all, the new healthcare legislation is nothing like that of Great Britain, so let's not try comparing the two.  Great Britain has a single payer system where everyone is guaranteed medical care.  Are there flaws with this?  Of course.  However, what many do not realize is that in Great Britain, you may also purchase your own private insurance plan.  Doing so usually moves you up the list when it comes to treatment, doctor's visits, and so forth.  So if you can afford to pay a little more, then you can avoid many of the pitfalls involved such as long waits.  At the same time, while those who choose to rely on the public system may have to wait longer in some cases, at least they have adequate access to healthcare.

Now if you want to compare our new legislation which does mandate the purchase of private health insurance, you might want to compare it to that of Switzerland's system.  While this legislation does not mirror that of Switzerland's system, the Swiss do mandate the purchase of health insurance, and the government also helps those financially who cannot afford to make the payments on their own.  The other part of the Swiss formula that is not a part of the new legislation is that Swiss insurers are not permitted to make a profit on basic healthcare.  However, the part of their policies that offer protection against catastrophic care are permitted to be profitable.  I also believe that there are only three age brackets for determining premiums, young, middle age, and older.  The cost is more evenly distributed between the three groups so rates do not become astronomical as a person gets older, although they do increase somewhat.

The best thing about the Swiss system is that there are so many options available when purchasing insurance.  An individual can purchase a policy with a very high deductible and lower premiums or one with a very low deductible and higher premiums.  There are many options.  Probably the biggest difference in the Swiss system though, is the fact that employers are not permitted to offer health insurance as part of an employee's benefits.  What makes this noteworthy is that when an employee loses his/her job, the insurance stays with them.  When they find a new job, they keep the same insurance.  And the insurance they purchase is the one they chose, which best suits there needs.  They are not restricted to what their employer has to offer.


----------



## auditor0007 (Apr 6, 2011)

USAMomma said:


> Think about this.
> 
> The US Government cannot even get a budget deal handled. They cannot even handle their own finances so where they think they can handle everyone's health care is ridiculous IMHO...
> 
> Oh I know, the Insurance Companies Executives paid out the big bucks to lobby government to make health insurance mandatory to ensure they get their bonuses and salary pay increases



I understand the idea of being forced to buy health insurance is a horrible thing.  I mean why should you have to purchase health insurance when everyone else who already does is paying for you anyway?  The argument takes away from those who believe in personal responsibility.  Funny how that works, don't you think?


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 6, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Ever been seriously sick?


----------



## auditor0007 (Apr 6, 2011)

Mr Liberty said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > No one suggests we emulate the British System or the French System or any other system.  We have a system that is broken, yet, ironically is the best in the world.  This paradox provides the special interests to manipulate the stupid voters to continue the status quo and benefits the few, not the many.
> ...



Every single person derives a benefit from living in a society such as ours.  And with that, as a society, we have an obligation to make certain that everyone has access to some basics, and personally, I believe adequate healthcare is one of those basics.  Should you be completely required to pay for those basics?  Of course not; that is why it is spread out amongst everyone, the same way we spread the costs for other essentials.  In the end, the benefit is a more productive society that give you or anyone else much better opportunities to better yourself.


----------



## kiwiman127 (Apr 6, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I'm sorry, that question does not allow PoliticalChic the opportunity to cut & paste.
Therefore, your question was inappropriate.


----------



## auditor0007 (Apr 6, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > I do.....I DO!
> ...



The problem with insurance companies is not in the percentage of profit they make.  Actually, the fact that they make so little profit on a percentage basis may be a culprit in our high costs for medical care.  Insurance companies set the rates for just about every single procedure, doctor's visit, treatment, surgery, or hospital stay.  These costs are estimated based on many factors, however, they have nothing to do with actual compeitive costs.  So what do healthcare providers do?  They push for higher and higher payouts from the insurance companies.  They spend more time trying to justify the need for higher payment schedules than they spend time trying to be competitive.  And basically, every provider is paid the same amount regardless of the end result or quality of care.  It's assumed to be the same care, so everyone gets paid the same.  

Now, when the insurance companies look at this, they are more likely to agree that providers need to be paid more.  It is not in the interest of the insurance company to say to providers that they can perform a certain procedure for less money.  Because the more the provider needs to be paid, the more the insurer must charge.  Since the insurers are operating on such a tight profit margin, the way to increase profit is by increasing overall gross income.  So raising rates becomes the primary factor to increasing profits.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 6, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Do you think anyone other than Americans has been seriously sick?

Your post was false.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 6, 2011)

kiwiman127 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



I noticed that your post has no substance....

try cutting and pasting.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 6, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Outside of cutting and pasting rightwing positions on healthcare, I am just asking whether you or someone you care for has ever been seriously sick. Have you had to personally deal with our existing healthcare system?
Just trying to determine your perspective not the existing rightwing perspective


----------



## Bern80 (Apr 6, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I promise you if health care were truly private, we would not have nearly the paperwork in this country. Private business generally isn't real keen on wasting money. Our problem is we have a private industry that too heavily regulated by government. That is where all your paperwork is coming from. 

And while other countries may spend less as a percent of GDP most are running major defecits to do that.


----------



## Bern80 (Apr 6, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Maybe she hasn't but, I and my parents have. I had cancer when I was a young kid. I am quite aware of how medical bills can rack up. As an adult I still have more in yearly medical bills than most as a result. Would I like to come up with a way for those bills to be less? You bet. Does that mean I have the right to push a system that requires others to be responsible for the costs of my health care? No!


----------



## Bern80 (Apr 6, 2011)

auditor0007 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



That's kind of my point. We have no idea what the true market value of these services really are. And the factors you mention suggests that they are higher than they would be in a free market system where people paid service providers directly. That is why I'm so opposed to a single payer system. You still aren't going to find out what the true value of services really are. You're just trading many third parties for one big one.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 6, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



I have been there too. The bills.....the phone calls.....being put on hold....not being able to speak to the right person all while your medical bills add up.
The system doesn't work and Obamacare didn't fix it

Met a guy from England once who had a procedure similar to what my wife went through. He said he just showed his ID card and everything was taken care of. Never saw a bill


----------



## Bern80 (Apr 6, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



And that's where I have the problem. People who's morality changes when the circumstances effect them. That's the question I want answered. Forget it's health care we're talking about. So things are bad for you. You need whatever fixed and it's going to cost a lot of money. I sympathize with that. I really do. But what gives you the right to obligate someone else to the financial expenses of fixing your problem?


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 6, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Because the alternative is death

With you it could have been cancer, my wife it could have been her heart. Our health system is built on healthy Americans footing the bill for sick Americans. Is it fair?

Which group would you rather be in?


----------



## Wry Catcher (Apr 6, 2011)

Those who argue our healthcare system is the best in the world are correct, and those who argue our healthcare system is failing are correct.  This is the paradox I noted earlier.  Why do kings and despots seriously ill come to the US for treatment?  Because the wealthy can get the best care in the world.  Yet many Americans when faced with a serious illness in their family face an economic disaster.

Those opposed to the Democratic effort to fix what is wrong with our current system are in denial, or too stupid to understand that the oppositition to reform are those who profit from the current system and those who benefti from the largess of those who profit (Members of Congress who call reform "Obamacare" or Socialism and accept bribes to oppose reform).

To many Americans cannot afford healthcare, and those who cannot receive both routine and emergency care in county hospitals - services paid for by taxpayers.  Think about it.  The Republicans who so oppose socialism and healthcare reform actually force many Americans into socialized medicine.  County hospitals are run by county employees; the administrators, doctors, nurses, security, techs, etc. etc. are all government employees.


----------



## USAMomma (Apr 6, 2011)

> American healthcare has too much paperwork and too many middlemen



Very true

I think a direct pay to doctors would be a good way to go and cut out the insurance companies altogether.

As for community clinics to be built...well, there already are many community clinics and I feel they could use funding. Instead of bailouts to the banks I feel the money would have been much better sent to the clinics that serve the poor.

Medical/Medicaid reform is a must.

One such story I read in the news some time ago regarding serious fraud:
osted On: January 3, 2011 by Michael Kraut
Los Angeles Medical Fraud News Alert: Doctor Sentenced for Having a Receptionist Pose as MD
The annals of Southern California medical, dental and chiropractic fraud are replete with pretty crazy stories. But a breaking story out of Columbus, Ohio may have even the most tawdry recent Los Angeles white collar crime stories beat. An Ohio area doctor, Charles Njoku, has been sentenced for manipulating his receptionist into posing as a doctor to treat patients and bilk Medicare and Medicaid.
Read more on this here:
Los Angeles Medical Fraud News Alert: Doctor Sentenced for Having a Receptionist Pose as MD :: Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney Blog

Another fraud case:
March 15, 2011

Jasper County woman sentenced in Medicaid fraud case
Koster said his Medicaid Fraud Unit's review of Opfer&#8217;s subpoenaed records and Medicaid claims found evidence of billing Medicaid for services and hearing devices that were not provided.
Jasper County woman sentenced in Medicaid fraud case

Instead of hiring IRS people to enforce requirement regulations regarding health insurance (since I heard somewhere cannot recall where exactly; but that IRS was to be a part of enforcement); it would be far better to use the money for investigating fraud in my opinion...the savings of money from fraud prevention could then be used to help finance clinics.


----------



## USAMomma (Apr 6, 2011)

Found the old news article I read regarding IRS and Health Enforcement Duties....

IRS Needs $10 Billion to Be Nation's Health Enforcer
(CNSNews.com) &#8211; The Internal Revenue Service will function as the government&#8217;s chief enforcer for health care reform, should President Obama sign the bill into law as expected, monitoring both businesses and individuals to certify whether they have the insurance coverage the government requires. 

Read the rest here:
IRS Needs $10 Billion to Be Nation&#039;s Health Enforcer | CNSnews.com


----------



## Immanuel (Apr 6, 2011)

I'd be okay with a National Health Care System if it were done right, but I don't like the idea of "we have to pass it so that they can know what is in it".

This can't be just let the politicians fix our problems.  First we have to determine what exactly all the problems are.  Then we have to determine not only the cost of those problems but also the cost of fixing them.  Then we can start coming up with solutions.

We cannot let the people who have sold their souls to the insurance companies tell us how they are going to fix it.

Immie


----------



## Cuyo (Apr 6, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > clearly, only those who can afford health care deserve it!
> ...



'Obamacare' is not national healthcare.

In fact, the watered down version that finally passed can barely be called anything more than regulatory reform.


----------



## USAMomma (Apr 6, 2011)

> We cannot let the people who have sold their souls to the insurance companies tell us how they are going to fix it.



Especially since they cannot even balance their own frickin budget. 
Payoffs galore, pay raises and bonuses galore all the while everyone else in the common sector getting pay reductions, increase in the costs of everything from fuel, utilities, rent, taxes, food, etc.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 6, 2011)

Douger said:


> Where are the Prince and **** Middleton having their honeymoon ?
> That's a large part of GB's problem. Leeches.
> Sell Fuckingham palace to the Chinese and buy the old hag a double wide trailer. That'll buy a whole bunch of hips.



hey X-American asshole.....you can only use the word C..nt in the flame zone dipshit....hope they fucking ban your anti-American ass.....


----------



## Bern80 (Apr 6, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



So you would tell me that if you were dieing and I had the money to save your life I should be legally made to pay for saving your life?


----------



## Toronado3800 (Apr 6, 2011)

yeah, the old system was pretty darned socialist.  Every time one of the broke and destitute, er middle class, showed up at the hospital and was driven poor by medical cost the hospital was compelled to treat them.  On My Dime!  

And why should I care if they lived or died?  Because this is a Christian Nation?  All these darned Christians voting for the old socialist healthcare system which was breaking the country.  At least the new one is going to force folks to pay for medical insurance through taxes everyday they work.

******************

Really that is a little stronger than I feel.  None the less I do recognize a math problem with the old system and support any attempt to fix it instead of just sitting here waiting for the capitalist way to take over and country to declare bankruptcy.

***********************

On another side note.  My kid got a cast for a broken bone today.  My private insurance covered the regular non-water proof cast.  The upscale lighter waterproof version was not covered.  Thank goodness I am not one of the poor folks who could not afford the bucks for nicer cast.  Would have made my wife cry and get another job.

Makes me think of the future.  What about when someone in my family can get the 2020 technology transplant which is covered by private insurance but not the new $150,000 10% more likely to succeed 2030 tech one.  Ug.


----------



## auditor0007 (Apr 6, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Pretty much true; this is why I would prefer to see a single payer system for all major medical expenses and to have everything else paid for out of pocket.  It would be wonderful if everything could  be paid for directly, however, we all know that when someone becomes seriously ill, it is very unlikely that they will be able to afford to pay for their treatment.  That is why people need insurance, for the catastrophic illnesses.  But for basic care, everything should be paid directly.  As for single payer on catastrophic care, I really don't care if it is single payer or through private insurance; just don't deny coverage to anyone.


----------



## JohnA (Apr 7, 2011)

Shogun said:


> clearly, only those who can afford health care deserve it!
> 
> It's hilarious that you can talk out of both sides of your mouth by complaining about waiting lists for medical care while totally disregarding care entirely for those who cannot afford it.


 Its not a matter of only those who can afford it gets it its a matter of i cannot afford the increase in premiums required to pay for someone else who *cant afford it *. 
where does it stop ??? 
 its getting your priorities right . 
some of those who  * cant *afford health care dont have any problems buying a pack or 2 of cigarettes daily  and stuffing there  months with macdonalds every night .

 while i have to sacrifice those niceities to just pay for the  exhorbitant  amount of money the insurance companies are raising the  premiums  for just so these folks can be covered   
 health insurance is  NOT a right 
 my right to enjoy and spend my hard  earned money the way i choose is 
life liberty and the pursuit  of happiness etc 
.....


----------



## auditor0007 (Apr 7, 2011)

JohnA said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > clearly, only those who can afford health care deserve it!
> ...



The real issue is not about providing adequate medical care to everyone.  The real issue is cutting costs so that we can.  The reason even you can't afford adequate medical any longer is that the costs have become too high.  We need to address the problems within the system that have forced these costs so high so that we all can afford adequate healthcare.  

I don't care what you say about healthcare when comparing other non-third world countries to the US, we are paying nearly double what everyone else does, and there is something inherently wrong about that.  We are doing something drastically wrong.  Does that mean we should emulate their systems exactly?  Absolutely not, but we do need to figure out why we are paying so much to begin with, and then determine if we are getting an equitable return on our investment.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 7, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



You know it doesn't work like that

You throw your money into a pool, I throw my money into a pool and whoever needs it gets to draw on it. I would have no problem with that money being used to save your life.

Frankly, I would rather be the healthy one who does not need the help


----------



## Wry Catcher (Apr 7, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



The lines are drawn, bleeding heart liberals v. callous conservatives.  If God exists, I'm betting S/He's on the side of the former.


----------



## Sallow (Apr 7, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> I do.....I DO!
> 
> Cut out the do nothing middle men who do nothing for healthcare except paperwork
> Cut out exorbitant overhead and profit from do nothing insurance companies
> ...





Same.


----------



## Sallow (Apr 7, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



And basically..that's how government works in general.


----------



## Bern80 (Apr 7, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



But that isn't the same thing. In a private insurance pool I'm volunatarily agreeing to enter into a risk pool with a group of people. And I have the knowledge that a private business is probably not going to accept people that are going to pose a high risk to them and ultimately me. With government being the single payer, I don't have the choice. Government is legally requiring me to pay for regardless of their risk or behaviors that may have caused their condition.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 7, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



You have a problem with not excluding people from the pool?

That is why Medicare was created in the first place. Nobody wanted a pool where everyone is 65 and older....sucks if you are old


----------



## auditor0007 (Apr 7, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



So are you saying that anyone that is high risk should just be left to fend for themselves, and that they should not be permitted to be part of the overall pool because it will cost you a few extra bucks?  What if down the road that is your kids or some other family member who has some type of condition that is costly to treat?  They shouldn't be allowed into the pool either?  Basically you are saying you just don't want to pay anything toward those who are sick or costly to care for; it's not your responsibility.  Bottom line, only the healthy have a right to stay healthy.  For those born sick or who become sick early on, or who cannot afford it on their own, to hell with them, because you only want an insurance pool that includes the healthy to begin with.


----------



## rikules (Apr 7, 2011)

USAMomma said:


> Are the doctors really going to be able to treat We the People, the normal non-government worker class citizens any better? Are the insurance companies going to limit our ability to get Quality CARE?
> 
> I read this in the news this morning about the National Health in England. Got me to thinking about this mandated health insurance and what the future may be like for us "average citizens".
> 
> ...




i can't speak for anyone else but (i really hate conservatives and you can quote me on that) I am strongly opposed to this health care plan

I (really really hate conservatives) oppose ALL mandatory health care plans

i, in fact, oppose ALL MANDATORY INSURANCE


----------



## Bern80 (Apr 7, 2011)

auditor0007 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Assuming first that the insurance company allows a high risk individual in, ideally how it would work is that person would pay a higher premium. If it more likely that one person will use a service than me, to me it doesn't seem unfair that said person should have to pay more for the same coverage. 

That being said, most insurance companies would probably include me the high risk category. The reason they do that is because I had cance when I was little. Today as an adult I don't feel I'm any less healthy than any othe avg. person or at greater risk than anyone else, but it's like being penalized for having for having a DUI or something from 20 years ago when you haven't a had a run in since. So in my mind to have a system that is fair in terms people not haveing to assume the high risk of others and keep costs down for me my ideal, ideal would be for services to cost less such that I can pay providers directly instead of an insurance company and thus other people in the pool having to deal with me. That is the problem I see with single payer. In the broadest economic sense it's just another way of subsidizing costs, which actually makes things cost more. That being the case i think they should only be used when they absoutely have to be. I may be inclined to agree with your notion (I think it was you anyway) that we work toward a system where people pay for everyday things and either insurance or maybe even some single payer system be used for catastrophic issues.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 7, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



People should not have to live in fear if they get sick.........PERIOD


----------



## Shogun (Apr 7, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > clearly, only those who can afford health care deserve it!
> ...



If it means broader coverage then I won't mind waiting with a broken finger while someone who can't afford an Allergist gets asthma treatment.  

The point you fail to fathom here, BERN, is that your lil wait time doesn't keep you from getting care at all; you don't get to just buy your way to the front of the line as easy.  Even if you are on a WAITING LIST you still get care.  With your mentality, we get to totally disregard and tell people to just fuck off and die already.  Sorry BERN, I'm a bit more concerned with humanity more than your pocket book.


----------



## Shogun (Apr 7, 2011)

Mr Liberty said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > clearly, only those who can afford health care deserve it!
> ...



Sure, in a society of striated wealth there is a percentage of the population which simply doesn't have the disposable income for health care.  Is that a fucking sin?  Are you such a bastard that you forgot to be your brother's keeper?  We ALL throw into a pot that benefits us all in some way.  You can, and will, afford what our collective culture chooses.  Don't like it?  Go make camp in Africa or something and none of us will follow you and your money out the door.


----------



## Bern80 (Apr 7, 2011)

Shogun said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...



So our problem is that health care is too expensive but you're not actually interested in making things less expensive? Interesting.


----------



## Bern80 (Apr 7, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...



Do you understand that is the same thing as saying people should not have to pay for health care?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 7, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...



That's akin to saying that the IRS isn't a national tax-collection entity.

Bogus.

There are two possibilities that would account for your post, either you totally lacking in any knowledge as to the subject about which you are posting, or you are a liar.

I would hesitate to call a perfect stranger a liar, so tell me if you accept the appellation 'dumb'?

No?

Here is another choice. I'll give you an idea as to what is in the Obamacare bill, you count the time the word 'federal' comes up, and then you can decide whether or not to retract you post:

1.	Most Americans will be required to buy federally approved health insurance in 2014.
2.	Companies will have to provide or pay for health insurance or pay a penalty.
3.	The federal government will tell us what health benefits must be covered, and what share of our income we will have to spend on health insurance.
4.	New federal entitlement programs will be created to provide taxpayer-subsidized benefits and insurance.
5.	States will be required t set up new agencies and bureaucracies to restructure their health insurance markets, certify that health plans meet federal requirements, and qualify people to receive taxpayer subsidies.
6.	States will be required to expand Medicaid, and this may bankrupt many of them.
7.	Dramatic reductions will be made in payments to Medicare providers and Medicare Advantage plans to partly pay for the new law.
8.	More than $500 billion will be raised in new taxes in the next ten years, most of which will be passed on to consumers.
9.	A massive federal bureaucracy will be created, with some 159 new federal agencies, boards, commissions, offices, panels, and spending and grant programs.
10.	A public option will be created to compete against private health insurance: The law requires the US Office of Personnel Management to sponsor at least two health plans to compete nationally against various local private health plans in the state-based health exchanges. These plans will be de facto public options that were supposedly left out of the bill.


Those are the 'top ten' things Obamacare will do, from the book "Why Obamacare is Wrong for America," by Turner, et. al.

Your serve.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 7, 2011)

Shogun said:


> Mr Liberty said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...



Read this carfully, Shogun, as it alters your entire post:

When fully in effect, Obamacare will result in ever single segment of the population paying more than they currenly pay for healthcare.

Especially the young and the unskilled.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 7, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



"bleeding heart liberals v. callous conservatives"

Totally wrong.

But..I forgive you because the Left has kept you in the dark about the ramifications of the bill. 

A more accurate descripton is the 'the easily manipulatied vs. the cynics who understand how the Left operates."


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 7, 2011)

Sallow said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > I do.....I DO!
> ...



I'm surprised at the lack of depth of understanding you show.....

not Sallow, but Shallow!

Something for nothing?

This should be your song:

And he said, "Boys, I'm not turning
I'm headed for a land that's far away
Besides the crystal fountains
So come with me, we'll go and see
The Big Rock Candy Mountains

In the Big Rock Candy Mountains,
There's a land that's fair and bright,
Where the handouts grow on bushes
And you sleep out every night.
Where the boxcars all are empty
And the sun shines every day
And the birds and the bees
And the cigarette trees
The lemonade springs
Where the bluebird sings
In the Big Rock Candy Mountains.


----------



## Greenbeard (Apr 7, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> 10.	A public option will be created to compete against private health insurance: The law requires the US Office of Personnel Management to sponsor at least two health plans to compete nationally against various local private health plans in the state-based health exchanges. These plans will be de facto public options that were supposedly left out of the bill.



De facto public options? These are private insurance plans. OPM contracts with private insurers who want to offer multi-state plans (i.e. plans that can be sold across state lines), in virtually the same system used by the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan, which is also managed by OPM. A "public option" refers to the existence of a public payer; I suppose from the ambiguous use of the word "sponsor" in there the author wants to imply that OPM is acting as a public payer. But in reality this isn't even close.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 7, 2011)

auditor0007 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Auditor....it doesn't work.

It's a scam.

Obamacare created a new $5 billion dollar program called the "Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan to help folks who couldn't get insurance. In the spring of 2010, the Medicare program's chief actuary predicted that 375,000 people would sign up by the end of the year.

"Coverage for people living with such conditions as diabetes, asthma, cancer, and HIV/AIDS has often been priced out of the reach..." 

How many did by early November?  Eight thousand and eleven....
check for yourself, here State by State Enrollment in the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan, as of November 1, 2010 « Health Justice Network


It turned out to still be too expensive....

Obamacare is not the answer.


----------



## Greenbeard (Apr 7, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> It turned out to still be too expensive....
> 
> Obamacare is not the answer.



The conclusion you seem to have led yourself to is that high-risk pools are not a long-term answer. And you'd undoubtedly be correct.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 7, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > 10.	A public option will be created to compete against private health insurance: The law requires the US Office of Personnel Management to sponsor at least two health plans to compete nationally against various local private health plans in the state-based health exchanges. These plans will be de facto public options that were supposedly left out of the bill.
> ...



Certainly glad to see that you agree with every single one of the first nine....

but having the need to find some problem, you got up to numer ten and latched on to the fact that the actual term 'public option' is absent?

Is that what happened?

I see you have no disagreement with "The law requires the US Office of Personnel Management to sponsor at least two health plans ..."

The logical assumption is that if private plans are crushed by Obamacare's regulations or simply turn into government contractors, then the government plans would dominate the market.

You do know that upon reading the onerous regulations, several insurance companies have already thrown in the towel, don't you?

Just wondering, do you support Cuyo's absurd premise that Obamacare is not national healthcare?


----------



## Greenbeard (Apr 7, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> Certainly glad to see that you agree with every single one of the first nine....



I wouldn't take that as an endorsement; states aren't required under the ACA to build and operate exchanges, for example. You need to check your facts a bit better when you come across lists like that.

The sheer absurdity of describing the multi-state plans as "public options" compelled me to comment on that one in particular.



> I see you have no disagreement with "The law requires the US Office of Personnel Management to sponsor at least two health plans ..."
> 
> The logical assumption is that if private plans are crushed by Obamacare's regulations or simply turn into government contractors, then the government plans would dominate the market.



To reiterate, there are no "government plans." The multi-state plans are private plans subject to the same regulations as all exchange-participating plans. And, as I indicated above, I do take issue with that statement as the word "sponsored" conveys absolutely no meaning and is clearly written to imply that OPM itself is offering those plans directly and thus they're somehow functioning as public options. That, however, is false.



> Just wondering, do you support Cuyo's absurd premise that Obamacare is not national healthcare?



If by that you mean _nationalized_ health care in which health care providers are no longer private, obviously the ACA is nowhere near that. If by "national health care" you mean something akin to _universal_ health care, in which (nearly) everyone is covered, it's fairly close to meeting that definition.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 7, 2011)

rikules said:


> i can't speak for anyone else but (i really hate conservatives and you can quote me on that) I am strongly opposed to this health care plan
> 
> I (really really hate conservatives) oppose ALL mandatory health care plans
> 
> i, in fact, oppose ALL MANDATORY INSURANCE



im sure Conservatives cant stand your ass too Ricky....


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 7, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



No it's not........


----------



## Bern80 (Apr 7, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



It most definately is. When you said people should not fear getting sick, you are referring to a fear of what getting sick will cost them. That will be different for everyone dependent on what happens to them in their income. And due to the current cost of some illnesses only the richest of the rich are going to not fear getting ill. So yes when you say people shouldn't have to worry about getting sick you ARE saying they shouldn't have to worry about the cost of getting sick, thus you ARE saying that the vast majority of people shouldn't have to pay for health care.


----------



## JohnA (Apr 7, 2011)

auditor0007 said:


> JohnA said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...


 i might agree with you on that but  obama care did'nt  address that did it??
 totally useless piece of legislation that only made the problem worse 
 and democrats are still supporting it


----------



## JohnA (Apr 7, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


these  ideas seem fine in theory   practice is a differant matter 
 problem there is the pool isnt big enough  and so many draw on it it soon becomes  empty
 we only have so much . you throw some into the education pool, some more into the security of the country pool , more into the social welfare pool .
 to throw more into the *health  care pool* which one of the pools  do you throw in less ??? .


----------



## auditor0007 (Apr 8, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Actually, we really do not know if the Healthcare plan will work or not.  Currently, those with pre-existing conditions can purchase a policy through the high risk pool.  BTW, enrollment has doubled to over 20,000 as of January.  But as you pointed out, that is well below the numbers expected.  Part of the problem is that many who have pre-existing conditions also have trouble earning enough money to pay for insurance whether it's available or not.  If you are sick and can only work part-time, you may well earn too much to qualify for Medicaid, but you don't make enough to afford the premiums for the high risk pools.  And even if someone can squeeze out the payments, they still must meet their deductible before the plan kicks in.  

I am one of those who has purchased insurance through the high risk pool.  I'm 47 and my premiums are $392 per month with a $2500 deductible.  Unless I become seriously ill, I'll never meet my deductible, so most of my medical care is paid for out of pocket on top of the $392 per month.  In my case, Medical Mutual, the company that is handling the high risk pool in Ohio, is making a killing off of me.  They get a higher premium than from most and the only thing they pay out on is part of my two doctor visits per year.  That does not mean that they make a killing off of every person in the high risk pool.  I'm certain with some they are losing money.  However, it is likely they are making something or at least they thought they could, or they would just have let the federal government run it.  

But we cannot completely judge the plan based on the high risk pool alone.  In 2014, the high risk pools will end, and people such as myself will be able to purchase our insurance like everyone else, with the same rates as everyone else.  On top of that, for those who cannot afford it, there will be financial help from the government.  

Now I understand that means somebody will be subsidizing those plans.  But to me that is better than where we were one year ago.  The key though, is that everyone must be on board paying into the system.  

Here is my bottom line, and I don't care if we use private insurance or a single payer system run by the government for this example.  If everyone is paying into the system, then cost is truly pooled between everyone, not just the healthy.  Yes, costs may increase for certain individuals, but in the long run, it should bring costs down.  The key is having everyone in the system from the beginning.  As it stands now, many people who become sick and don't have coverage never had coverage to begin with.  If you become sick when you're 50 and have never paid for health insurance,  it skews everything.  However, if that individual was paying into the system all along and then becomes sick, it's not such a big deal, and it makes spreading the cost throughout the pool much more palatable and fair.

BTW, the reason I am in the high risk pool is that when I moved out of state, I lost my health insurance.  I was with Anthem of Colorado.  When I moved to Ohio,  they told me they would not cover me.  Not even Anthem of Ohio who is owned by Wellpointe, the same company that owns Anthem of Colorado.  I was a risk, so they saw a way out, and since I was a risk, they chose to turn me away, even though I had been with them for many years.  There is a lot of blame to go around there.  Had they written the HIPAA rules to include private policies and not just group policies through employers, then they could not have turned me away.

But that gets to another point.  The insurance companies will not do anything to help make things better without laws forcing them to do so.  Why do you think we have the HIPAA laws?  So anyone that tries to scare me off with government death panels is barking up the wrong tree.  I know the insurance companies will screw anyone they can if they become a risk.  The government might put limitations on certain things if they are in charge, due to cost, but they are not nearly as likely to tell me that they don't want me because I might cost them too much.

Anyway, I find myself going back and forth on this.  I do support more government involvement, although I'm not certain having them run the whole show is in our best interest, at least from a cost standpoint.  However, leaving things as they are is not an option from a cost standpoint either.


----------



## auditor0007 (Apr 8, 2011)

JohnA said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > JohnA said:
> ...



I really don't think we will know what effect the healthcare legislation will have on cost until well after 2014.  Then we have the issue with mandatory insurance.  If it is ruled un-Constitutional, then we have a problem, because requiring insurance companies to be the sole providers of a healthcare plan and forcing them to take on those with pre-existing conditions will truly add to the cost, if everyone isn't paying for health insurance.  People who don't feel that they can afford it, or those who truly cannot afford it will just wait until they get sick to buy insurance.   Of course, they might not even be able to afford it then, and then we are back to square one.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 8, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Typical right wing "Libruls want everything for FREE"
If you can afford to pay...you pay
Either directly or through your taxes
If you can't afford to pay, you receive assistance so that you do not have to do without care if you become sick

Great societies take care of their people


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 8, 2011)

JohnA said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...




What are your alternatives?

Some live....some die....Tough

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.....basic human rights


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 8, 2011)

Harry Dresden said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > i can't speak for anyone else but (i really hate conservatives and you can quote me on that) I am strongly opposed to this health care plan
> ...



Harry, I'm one conservative who doesn't hate Rik...and, no matter the quote, I know he doesn't hate me.

Rik's heart is in the right place, ...we simply need to educate him.


----------



## Bern80 (Apr 8, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I have no problem with that. But that's far different than your broad sweeping statement 'no one should have to fear getting sick'. I fear spending money period. When I spend money I have less money, which make me less free because really, freedom is money if you think about it. On a basic level I think that's something everyone fears. 

I have no problem with social programs that help people who can't help themselves. What libs need to acknowledge is that there are not only people that can't help themselves there are also peope who can, but won't. And there's a lot of them. And you can not enact policy that encourages those who can, but won't to continue to do nothing. 

So then it's how do you keep costs reasonable for those that can afford to pay. Yes, you could do a single payer where everyone pays more taxes, government gets billed and they pay them. But in America it's just not going to work. Most every country's health care system that has a form of single payer is running huge deficits and they have a couple of major factors in their favor already. 1)They have generally healthier populations not just in general health but healthy behavior and 2) there physicians make a lot less than ours. I know we want to make this cost less for people but we simply can not do it by going into even more debt.


----------



## Immanuel (Apr 8, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > rikules said:
> ...



I'm another one.  I skipped many of his (I think he is a he) posts early on because they were laced with partisan hate, but I have found that he is both mellowing in his old age and becoming someone that at the very least can get a chuckle out of me and sometimes even makes a decent point or two.

Immie


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 8, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



In any society you are going to have some people who are highly motivated and hard chargers. You willl also have people who are lazy, feeble minded or just plain assholes who do not work.

What do you do with them? 

Hard liners say ....Let them starve and die if they get sick
Liberals will say....We have to take care of everyone no matter how undeserving they are

I think our society needs a basic safety net. Three hots and a cot plus basic medical care to keep you alive. No matter how undeserving a person you are, I don't want people begging door to door, living out of dumpsters or dying in the streets because they lack medical care


----------



## Granny (Apr 8, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> I do.....I DO!
> 
> Cut out the do nothing middle men who do nothing for healthcare except paperwork
> Cut out exorbitant overhead and profit from do nothing insurance companies
> ...



I find it hard to believe I'm responding to your post ... but you might have a halfway decent thought here.

If we cut out all the do nothing mindless drone "middle men" who do nothing and know nothing about healthcare and who will be pushing more unimaginable amounts of red tape paperwork than an entire sequoia forest and rain forest combined could ever support, we would be ahead of the game.  By not having these "middle men," we could save the taxpayers' costs involved by the inevitable creation of an all new government agency and all these unnecessary "new jobs" it would require to push all that damned paper in the first place.  

Hell, by not having these paper pushing morons in the first place we could reduce the overhead costs of more governmental buildings and/or rental properties to house all these "middle men" (or "middle women" as the case may be - don't want the NOW screeching discrimination).  We could save lots of taxpayer dollars by not having the exorbitant increased cost of more lights being left on all night in an empty building, less water being flushed, probably less expensive toilet seats in the first place (the $800 toilet seats for the Navy comes to mind) ... typical government mentality being if $800 toilet seats are good enough for Navy asses, then equal treatment in comfort should apply to all government employees' assess ... the taxpayer money savings list could go on forever.

As to being sick and having no bills, no debt ... it would take a mental giant to finally figure out that with government spending as it does ... the "bill" would ultimately come out of taxpayer pockets by way of higher taxes and the cumulative "debt" would finally leave the taxpayers, the big bad corporations, the little mom and pop shops with nothing but lint left in their pockets.


----------



## Bern80 (Apr 8, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Liberals will say....We have to take care of everyone no matter how undeserving they are



And what liberals don't understand is that _sounds_ nice, but it makes the problem worse, not better. You grow the undeserving because you have taught them through the policies that stem through this mind set that there is no point in changing their behavior because you uber 'compassionate' liberals are going to fix it for them anyway. In the long run that isn't really compassion. That's handicapping. Over time our government has decided it needs to do more things for people that most have the capacity to do themselves. Again I have zero problem helping those that truly can not help themselves. The health and strength of society will deteriorate however, when it's government decides it's being compassionate by taking care of people instead of allowing people to take care of themselves. It's like survival of the fittest in the wild. You may find that harsh and cruel, but at the same time you have to admit it makes for the strongest most efficient race of what's left possible. 




rightwinger said:


> I think our society needs a basic safety net. Three hots and a cot plus basic medical care to keep you alive. No matter how undeserving a person you are, I don't want people begging door to door, living out of dumpsters or dying in the streets because they lack medical care



But if that's true then indeed everyone should get those things. No matter what their income is. If that's really what your saying then everyone from the bum on the street should be provided by government shelter and food and health care. You can't do things that way and expect a strong society. If you want fewer poor people you teach them what to do to not be poor and let them make their own choices after that. If you just do those things for them, give them house, give them food, give them health care with no strings attached, YOU ARE NOT HELPING THEM. YOU ARE ENABLING THEM. It's the equivalent of enabling a drug addict by just giving them drugs so you they can feel better.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 8, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Liberals will say....We have to take care of everyone no matter how undeserving they are
> ...



You are under the impression that some people just need a little motivation and they will become upstanding members of our society. "If only they didn't have it so easy......they would work hard and earn a living"

Every society has the good and the bad. Most are extremely hard working and take care of themselves. Some are just A-holes who are unemployable.  My previous post asked what do we do with those people?  I worked with a guy once that couldn't go two weeks without telling the boss what an A-Hole he was. The guy could not hold back....complete moron and unemployable.

What do we do with him?  Let him starve and die in the street?


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 8, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> I think our society needs a basic safety net. Three hots and a cot plus basic medical care to keep you alive. *No matter how undeserving a person you are*, I don't want people begging door to door, living out of dumpsters or dying in the streets because they lack medical care



why?.....why should i help a person who is standing in the help needed line,when he is telling me to "go fuck myself and no i dont want to work you asshole just give me my food and monthly check and get the fuck out of my way"......why should i help an ass like that?....someone who actually needs the aide....no problem.....Undeserving one....problem.....


----------



## Bern80 (Apr 8, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Yes. You and no other tax payer are responsible for his choices. Sticking with this example, let's say government provides this person all the things you say it should.  Shelter, food, health care, maybe even some welfare money, how are you really helping this person? How are you making him a better person and not the jack ass that he is by showing him he doesn't need to do anything at all to get these things? Doesn't need to learn any social skills. Doesn't need to learn any marketable skills and in fact can be a grade a piece of shit to everyone he meets, but he's still gonna get all of those things because YOU think it's the compassionate thing to do. All I can tell you is that simply isn't compassion for your fellow man.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 8, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Then we will have a situation like we did in the 1930's

Vagrants going door to door looking for handouts, Hoovervilles, petty thefts from homes, no sanitation,unchecked diseases, 

USA as Calcutta


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 8, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> What do we do with him?  Let him starve and die in the street?



yep.....and then remove the carcass and realise that we have just lost one person who WILLINGLY was a dredge on society.....and he did not have to be and was fully able to change his/her attitude......its on him/her.....Society just got relieved of a genuine asshole.....


----------



## Bern80 (Apr 8, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



That's a broad generalization to avoid addressing the basic psychological issues that you are ignoring. No we won't have the streets of calcutta. In fact psychology suggests you would move closer to that the MORE a government tries to do for its people. Do you think it's a coincidence that France has some of the most generous welfare benefits of an industrialized country AND one of the highest unemployment rates of an industrialized nation?

This isn't some theory I dreamed up, winger. These are basic principles of psychology. Why would I do what I don't have to do? Why expend the energy if someone else will expend the energy to provide me a house, food and healthcare? You really think that if government didn't do anything for people the whole of society would slump to its knees twiddling it's thumbs collectively wondering whos going to take care of their survival? That is as counter intuitive a notion as I've ever hear. Necessity is the mother of invention is a famous phrase because it's TRUE. If you have to, unless you are the laziest most obstinate waste of space on the planet, you WILL find a way.


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 8, 2011)

*Does Anyone Really Want National Health Care? *

I doubt anyone that is young and healthy thinks about it much.  I know I didn't.  Americans have developed a million excuses to ignore the future.  They would rather invest a hundred hours a year to watching American Idol than invest anything in the people that brought them into this world.

The Christian Fundamentalists are the worst hypocrites of all.  They cry to the heavens about family values and ALWAYS support policies that further destroy the family.  

I know you won't be...because you HAVE NO CONSCIENCE..but you should be ashamed of yourselves.

I feel sorry for our ancestors that fought and died in WWII... You people were not worth the sacrifice.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 8, 2011)

HUGGY said:


> *Does Anyone Really Want National Health Care? *
> 
> I doubt anyone that is young and healthy thinks about it much.  I know I didn't.  Americans have developed a million excuses to ignore the future.  They would rather invest a hundred hours a year to watching American Idol than invest anything in the people that brought them into this world.
> 
> ...



you?......which people?.....you mean pieces of shit like Douger?....the X-American....if so....i agree.....


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 8, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Certainly glad to see that you agree with every single one of the first nine....
> ...



*"...the word "sponsored" conveys absolutely no meaning *and is clearly written to imply that OPM itself is offering those plans directly and thus they're somehow functioning as public options. That, however, is false."

Really? Just *'accidently' *fell into that sentence?

I've noticed before that the *folks who are dying for the government to take over healthcare *battle against all logic, going so far as to *refuse to admit *an obvious conclusion unless their side specifically admits same.

I've mentioned this before as a liberal technique..."fail to connect the dots...."
It's is the kind of *dishonesty* contained in a statement such as "well...it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is...."

It's called 'sophistry,' and means the intention of deceiving.

Your similarly worded disagreement with the reality of the march toward both a public option and a total takeover of the healthcare system stands out in your statement:

"...*the word "sponsored" conveys absolutely no meaning*..."

It is essential for you to deny that English is a language with which you are comfortable, or else your statement would be met with peals of laugher.


The legislation total a bit over 2800 pages, because the Dependancy Party that passed same wanted total and absolute control, and toward that end used *specific language...such as the word 'sponsored.'*

It means, in this context:

*A legislator who proposes and urges adoption of a bill.*

Read more: sponsor: Definition, Synonyms from Answers.com


Now only a fool would argue that the legislation encourages private control of the healthcare system....wouldn't you agree?
And the folks who wrote the legislation would only sponsor actions that promote government control....wouldn't you agree?

From the definition above, and the following rhetorical question, it is clear to any who want to see, that this government *'sponsors' plans that move healthcare toward government control, i.e., a 'public option' *that engendered such disapproval that they pretended that it had been removed from the bill.....

it hasn't been, *merely camoflaged*.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 8, 2011)

HUGGY said:


> *Does Anyone Really Want National Health Care? *
> 
> I doubt anyone that is young and healthy thinks about it much.  I know I didn't.  Americans have developed a million excuses to ignore the future.  They would rather invest a hundred hours a year to watching American Idol than invest anything in the people that brought them into this world.
> 
> ...



It's a shame that you are so easily led.


----------



## Greenbeard (Apr 8, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> The legislation total a bit over 2800 pages, because the Dependancy Party that passed same wanted total and absolute control, and toward that end used *specific language...such as the word 'sponsored.'*
> 
> It means, in this context:
> 
> *A legislator who proposes and urges adoption of a bill.*



This is bizarre. The word "sponsored" isn't from the ACA, it's from your list. _"The law requires the US Office of Personnel Management to sponsor at least two health plans ..."_ That word doesn't actually appear anywhere in the section of the law related to the multi-state plans. And the example you use of the word's meaning here is nonsensical in this context.

The implication of your list is that OPM is acting as a public insurer and thus the multi-state plans are somehow public options. Let's be very clear: if you chose a public health insurance option, your insurer wouldn't be Blue Cross, it wouldn't be Anthem, or Aetna or any other insurer--it would be a public insurer, like CMS (or, theoretically I suppose, a body like OPM). If, however, you choose a multi-state plan in an exchange, your insurer _will_ be one of those (or some other) private insurers. That's because they're not public options, they're private options that contract with OPM, just like the myriad of private options available to federal employees through the FEHBP.

It's not clear to me whether you're simply not familiar with what public insurance (and thus, the proposed public option) is, or what private insurance is, or you're just full of shit. It sounds like all the above, with a generous helping of paranoia.


----------



## Shogun (Apr 8, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



BERN won't stop until our suburbs look more like the ghettos of Calcutta, dude.  Remember, having a microwave means you are too rich for social safety nets.


----------



## Shogun (Apr 8, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



I'm dying to see evidence of this "Basic Principles of Psychology" you have just painted yourself in a corner with.  Please, provide evidence that what you speak of is 1. a basic principal of anything and 2. some kind of standard and accepted theory in the realm of psychology.

Which, is pretty laughable since it would be a product of sociology before psychology but.. hey, I don't want to goad you too much before taking a gander at where you are pulling this bullshit from.


----------



## Shogun (Apr 8, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...




You can't make health care less expensive when your kind bitch about any regulation meant to reduce the cost of health care.

Nice dodge, by the way.  I see you don't want to address the FACT that a waiting list doesn't imply lack of service like your total disregard for poor people does. 

Interesting but not surprising.


----------



## Shogun (Apr 8, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Liberty said:
> ...



Your partisan predictions amount to very little.  You'd insist that baby jesus hates Obamacare if it didn't sound so fucking retarded.  And, you'd still try it if you thought the suggestion would shit on a liberal.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 8, 2011)

Shogun said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...



Unlike you, I can back up what I say.
Read the following and then reconsider who sounds like what...

1. 	Total federal and state Medicaid *spending will skyrocket *from 4427 billion in 2010, to $896 billion in 2019.  https://www.cms.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/NHEProjections2009to2019.pdf

2. . The office of the Actuary at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) predicted that the spending on CLASS will exceed the premiums, and 
Over the longer term, *expenditures would exceed premium receipts, and there is a very serious risk that the program would become unsustainable * https://www.cms.gov/ActuarialStudies/Downloads/PPACA_2010-04-22.pdf

3. . With each passing year *new taxes will be imposed*. As disclosed on the attached chart from the
California Hospital Association:
 2011: A 2.5% excise tax is imposed on pharmaceuticals. (This is part of the plan to pay for the
reform law.) This cost  which will be in the billions of dollars - will be passed on to health care
providers, primarily hospitals, who already operate with very thin margins, and will be under
great financial pressure to raise their rates to pay for it, with resulting price pressure on health
insurance premiums.
 2012: That excise tax increases to 3%.
 2013: A separate 2.9% excise tax on medical devices will begin. The same pass-through will take
place, creating the same pressures on providers and on insurance premiums.
 2014: An $8 billion fee on health insurance premiums kicks in. Obviously consumers will bear
this *tax and their premiums will rise.*Because of all these costs, *Obamacare is generally unsustainable*. Here is one study that addresses that
issue:
Obamacare: The Real Price Tag is a Moving Target | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

4. 	Shortly after Obamacare was signed into law, AT&T, Caterpillar, John Deere, Verizon, and several other *big companies reported to investors- as required,  that the law would take quite a bite out of future earnings.* They were considering dropping employee health insurance. dumping the health care coverage they provide to their workers in exchange for paying penalty fees to the government. AT&T, Verizon, others, thought about dropping health plans - May. 5, 2010

a.	Makes sense, as the law would penalize the companies $2,000 per employee if they didnt offer the insurance, as opposed to over $7,000 per worker for a comprehensive package. Former CBO director Holtz-Eakins this may be the start of a 35 million worker avalanche that will move into subsidized coverage, at a cost of over *$1 trillion more *to the total cost of Obamacare over the next ten years. Opinion: Resetting the 'Obamacare' baseline - Douglas Holtz-Eakin and James C. Capretta - POLITICO.com


I challenge you to find any error in the above!!!


Will you remain an idiot, or will you do some research and think for yourself???


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 8, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > The legislation total a bit over 2800 pages, because the Dependancy Party that passed same wanted total and absolute control, and toward that end used *specific language...such as the word 'sponsored.'*
> ...



Under Section 1334(a), the director of OPM, the agency that runs the federal civil service, is to contract with selected health insurers to offer multi-State qualified health plans through each Exchange in each State.

Is this sponsorship, or would you care to elucidate the basis of said 'selection'?


The OPM-sponsored plans must meet the minimum benefits package, the rating and coverage rules as specified elsewhere in Title I, and state licensure and other state health insurance requirements that are not inconsistent with PPACA. Otherwise, in contracting with these selected insurers, the director of OPM, with a few qualifications, is to replicate the contractual authority over the multi-state plans that he currently exercises in administering the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) under chapter 89 of Title V of the U.S. Code. Under Section 1334(a)(4) of the new law, it is clear that the director shall implement this subsection in a manner similar to the manner in which the Director implements the contracting provisions with carriers in the FEHBP.
Office of Personnel Management and Public Health Insurance Option | The Heritage Foundation


----------



## Greenbeard (Apr 8, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> Is this sponsorship, or would you care to elucidate the basis of said 'selection'?



That's what I'm asking you, you're the one that introduced the word without any effort to define it. If contracting with private insurers via a competitive bidding process is what you're talking about, that's fine. But that's certainly not what a public option is.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 8, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Is this sponsorship, or would you care to elucidate the basis of said 'selection'?
> ...




I believe you know exactly what it is:

The public health insurance option is a proposed government-run health insurance agency which competes with other health insurance companies.Public health insurance option - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"...contracting with private insurers via a competitive bidding process ..." This is exactly the sort of obfuscation that I've seen from your side before, from you specifically.

You understand what the selection, and sponsorship entail....total control. Yet you pretend it is other wise....

"Under current law, the director of OPM is authorized to negotiate rates and benefits for health plans, and in the conduct of those negotiations, there are very few limitations on the directors authority. In disputes with federal employee organizations and unions, federal courts have routinely upheld the directors discretion in these areas. "
Office of Personnel Management and Public Health Insurance Option | The Heritage Foundation

Total control means the 'public option.'
The PPAPA controls the private insurers in this option right down to marketing of their product, the language used, and every other aspect.

Paranoia? No, but your dissembling is hard to hide.


----------



## Greenbeard (Apr 8, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> "...contracting with private insurers via a competitive bidding process ..." This is exactly the sort of obfuscation that I've seen from your side before, from you specifically.



Mmhmm. I'm referring to current U.S. law.



> You understand what the selection, and sponsorship entail....total control. Yet you pretend it is other wise....



Total control of what? I'm curious what you think the FEHBP is. Do you think think it's public insurance? Do you think the interaction of the insurers offering plans in the FEHBP with providers resembles the interaction those providers would have with a public insurer?

If you don't like the concept of contracting with health plans, you're really not going to like states that choose an active purchaser model for their exchange.


----------



## Bern80 (Apr 8, 2011)

Shogun said:


> You can't make health care less expensive when your kind bitch about any regulation meant to reduce the cost of health care.



Complying with regulations costs money. Thus costs can't go down. When government passes regs that tell insurance companies what they must provide, that adds costs.



Shogun said:


> Nice dodge, by the way.  I see you don't want to address the FACT that a waiting list doesn't imply lack of service like your total disregard for poor people does.
> 
> Interesting but not surprising.



Because anyone with a brain can see the fallacy of the statement. If I'm waiting I'm not being serviced, am I.


----------



## Shogun (Apr 8, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > You can't make health care less expensive when your kind bitch about any regulation meant to reduce the cost of health care.
> ...



I'm more of a " the cost of regulation to prohibit thalidomide babies is just fine" sorta guy, BERN.  Sue me.

And, your assumption of brains is about as profound as your standards for a social net, BERN.  Microwaves need not apply.


Of course you are being serviced, BERN, just not as quickly as the guy with the aneurism.  Maybe you should tip the ambulance driver to let you know that the concept of WAITING usually implies what you are WAITING for.


----------



## rdean (Apr 8, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > I do.....I DO!
> ...



Insurance companies don't own hospitals.  They don't employ doctors or nurses.  Common sense tells you have paying the CEO of Cigna 120 million dollars means lot's and lot's of insurance policies are skimmed.  Common sense says "adding a layer of cost will increase the overall cost".  How can right wingers not understand this?  It's so obvious.  I mean, come on.  Does this really have to be explained?  Really?


----------



## Bern80 (Apr 8, 2011)

rdean said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



It's not hard to understand at all. Which is why people like YOU ought to be able to see that it would eliminate an awful lot of layers of cost if people had the ability to pay for services directly.


----------



## rdean (Apr 9, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



A single payer system would be less expensive than using the emergency room as "primary care".  Which is what millions of Americans are doing right now.  First, the middle class is getting fleeced by insurance companies.  Then they are taxed to keep open "emergency rooms".  I for one, think "emergency rooms" are a good idea.  No one on the left wants to see anyone suffer.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 9, 2011)

rdean said:


> No one on the left wants to see anyone suffer.



are you sure about that Dean?.....no one?.....not one fucking lefty?,...but yet i bet that you will say EVERYONE on the Right does....right Dean-o.....


----------



## Immanuel (Apr 9, 2011)

Harry Dresden said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > No one on the left wants to see anyone suffer.
> ...



Unless, of course, the person who would suffer doesn't believe in gay marriage or is anti-abortion or worse yet, wants a smaller and limited government.  Then that person can rot in hell for all they care.

Immie


----------



## rdean (Apr 9, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



I'm curious.  Why do right wingers claim they want "smaller government" when they want to intrude in so many other people's lives.  Why don't they leave the gays and the women alone.  Most right wingers I talk to don't even know any gays.  Doesn't make sense to go after those you don't know and don't care about just so you can make their lives miserable.


----------



## Bern80 (Apr 9, 2011)

rdean said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



If you're worried about the middle class getting fleeced by insurance companies than the middle class should stop using insurance companies for everything under the sun. If you want people to stop using emergency rooms as primary care you work on reducing the costs of the resource and increasing it's supply. Single payer is not going to address any of that. It's an easy way out solution for people that just want things to cost less to the consumer, but it's kind of like spraying novicaine on a gushing wound as if the fact that it doesn't hurt anymore makes things all better.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 9, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > "...contracting with private insurers via a competitive bidding process ..." This is exactly the sort of obfuscation that I've seen from your side before, from you specifically.
> ...



I love it when you pretend you don't understant that Obamacare is the complete and utter command and control of health insurance...

"...Total control of what?..."
'Cause then I get to explain things like the degree of control by the feds...

	Obamacare was intended to have one national exchange to regulate all health insurance, and to distribute subsidies. Forced to  back down on that idea, he got fifty instead! Under Title I, *state officials are instructed that they shall establish an American Health Benefit Exchange,  (AHB) in each state.* The secretary of HHS will make grants to each state to set them up, determining the amount of money, whether or not to renew depending on whether the state is making progress in meeting the new federal insurance requirements, and *other benchmarks that the secretary may see fit *to establish. And the secretary has the power to decide if the state exchanges are *qualified, *as of January 1, 2013.

a.	These exchanges will be the central vehicle* for the federal government to control and regulate the health insurance market.* Washington will dictate exactly how they work, and step in and set them up if not satisfactory. PPACA, Public Law 111-148, section 1321(c) (1)


----------



## Greenbeard (Apr 9, 2011)

So we've progressed from you explaining that the FEHBP and, in fact, any insurance plan contracted by OPM is a public option because it's under "total control" of the feds to you now claiming that _every_ plan in an exchange is under "total control" of the feds.

Does that mean every insurance plan in an exchange is a "public option" in your conception of the term? For that matter, is every plan currently regulated under HIPAA a public option?

I'm asking because it's very difficult to follow your train of thought; you have a very ADHD style. In the middle of discussing one thing you abruptly jump to another. And then on to another again.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 10, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> So we've progressed from you explaining that the FEHBP and, in fact, any insurance plan contracted by OPM is a public option because it's under "total control" of the feds to you now claiming that _every_ plan in an exchange is under "total control" of the feds.
> 
> Does that mean every insurance plan in an exchange is a "public option" in your conception of the term? For that matter, is every plan currently regulated under HIPAA a public option?
> 
> I'm asking because it's very difficult to follow your train of thought; you have a very ADHD style. In the middle of discussing one thing you abruptly jump to another. And then on to another again.



Based on the frequent pretense on your part that PPACA is anything less than a total government take-over of heathcare insurance, it seems evident that you are either an apparatchik of the left wing of this government, a devotee of totalitarian thinking, or one who has a financial stake in said take-over.

Is this the case?
Hoping for an honest response.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 10, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > So we've progressed from you explaining that the FEHBP and, in fact, any insurance plan contracted by OPM is a public option because it's under "total control" of the feds to you now claiming that _every_ plan in an exchange is under "total control" of the feds.
> ...



Excellent!
Your 'honest response' was a neg rep! You couldn't admit that I was correct in my analysis of your attempts to cloud the issue!

Rather than admit that you are "an apparatchik of the left wing of this government, a devotee of totalitarian thinking, or one who has a financial stake in said take-over." you did what any churl would do!


By sending me a neg rep you have validated exactly what I wrote: you are no more than a mouthpiece for the statist Obamacare!


----------



## JohnA (Apr 11, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> JohnA said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


 glad you agree with me 

 my basic human right to  run my life 

 without interferance 


my right  to liberty 
 liberty to choose what i buy and what i choose not to 


 my right to happiness 
 if happiness means keeping as much of my hard erned  cash as i can . 


 glad you  agree  
 the problem as i see it you are adament in preserving and promoting everybody else life with out regard to  my RIGHTS


----------



## LilOlLady (Apr 13, 2011)

Depend on what you mean by national healthcare? Most American are already covered by national healthcare. Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans healthcare, SCHIP. County health clinics.
How would you suggest we cover the 40 million that have no healthcare at all? And don't qualify for free County care?


----------



## confussed (Apr 14, 2011)

Anything is better than what you have now.


----------



## Bern80 (Apr 14, 2011)

confussed said:


> Anything is better than what you have now.



If anything was better than we have now, people here would be flocking to other countries to be treated instead of the other way around. Your statement is simply false. Our health care system works fine for the vast majority of this country in terms of accessibility.


----------



## CandySlice (Apr 14, 2011)

Who is happy about Obamacare besides the makers of X-BOX and weed? Lets see. You stay on your parents healthcare until you are 26, get Obamacare to buy your medical marijuana, kick in a few food stamps for munchies and before you know it this whole country is Bill and Teds Excellent Adventure 3
                                                                                                   D.Miller


----------



## auditor0007 (Apr 14, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> confussed said:
> 
> 
> > Anything is better than what you have now.
> ...



They aren't quite flocking yet, but some have started seeking treatment in other countries.  As a matter of fact, certain insurance companies have begun toying with the idea of making medical care outside of the US as part of their insurance packages as a way to keep costs down.  The higher our costs become, the more we will see of this.


----------



## Truthseeker420 (Apr 14, 2011)

Being on a waiting list is better than having no health care and if you do have health care it is because you are healthy and have not got kicked out.


This is the ranking of health care systems (estimates for 1997) according to the World Health Organization (2000).[1]

Ranking Country Expenditure Per Capita 
1  France 4 
2  Italy 11 
3  San Marino 21 
4  Andorra 23 
5  Malta 37 
6  Singapore 38 
7  Spain 24 
8  Oman 62 
9  Austria 6 
10  Japan 13 
11  Norway 16 
12  Portugal 28 
13  Monaco 12 
14  Greece 30 
15  Iceland 14 
16  Luxembourg 5 
17  Netherlands 9 
*18  United Kingdom *26 
19  Ireland 25 
20  Switzerland 2 
21  Belgium 15 
22  Colombia 49 
23  Sweden 7 
24  Cyprus 39 
25  Germany 3 
26  Saudi Arabia 63 
27  United Arab Emirates 35 
28  Israel 19 
29  Morocco 99 
30  Canada 10 
31  Finland 18 
32  Australia 17 
33  Chile 44 
34  Denmark 8 
35  Dominica 70 
36  Costa Rica 50 
*37  United States *1


----------



## Truthseeker420 (Apr 15, 2011)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_w3xk3jCYo&feature=BFa&list=PL759F1A8B4C37422D&index=3]YouTube - Health Care? - Our Congress is Privatized[/ame]


----------



## Mr Liberty (Apr 15, 2011)

HUGGY said:


> Mr Liberty said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



Are you always so emotional? 
 I support highway funds, if they are funded by gasoline tax.  These are voluntary.
Police and fire are supported by state and local taxes.
Water and sewage are paid for by a monthly bill.
Next you will tell me that the military is socialism.
Socialism is an evil ideology.  It has failed in all of its form all over the world.  It is going to fail here very soon.  When it does you'll most likely blame the rich.  Marxist always do. 
Political freedom is not sufficient for me.  I want economic freedom as well.
Finally: you seem to be unable to present an argument with resorting to using an appeal to ridicule.


----------

