# Oops: CBO Says GOP Health Care Alternative Leaves 52 Million Uninsured By 2019



## Modbert (Nov 5, 2009)

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10705/hr3962amendmentBoehner.pdf



> By 2019, CBO and JCT estimate, the number of nonelderly people without health insurance would be reduced by about 3 million relative to current law,* leaving about 52 million nonelderly residents uninsured. The share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance coverage in 2019 would be about 83 percent, roughly in line with the current share.* CBO and JCT estimate that enacting the amendments insurance coverage provisions would increase deficits by $8 billion over the 20102019 period.



House Republicans offer alternative healthcare proposal -- latimes.com



> By comparison, the House Democratic bill would reduce the number of nonelderly Americans without coverage to around 18 million over the next decade.



» Republicans Preparing Alternative Health Care Reform Bill The Speakers Lobby « FOXNews.com



> Boehner was thin on details about the Republican bill. But his spokesman Kevin Smith said indicated that the Republican effort "will cover millions more Americans" than the Democrats plan.



 




No wonder Republicans never truly released any sort of plan, it fucking sucks.


----------



## DiamondDave (Nov 5, 2009)

Then all they have to do is BUY IT THEM-FUCKING-SELVES

You have the choice to buy insurance or not.. as long as it is made available, it is upon you to do what it takes to purchase it for yourself if you want it... and that is what this and other options are about... not some fairytale leftist wish for healthcare provided to you by the government at the expense of someone else


----------



## VaYank5150 (Nov 5, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> Then all they have to do is BUY IT THEM-FUCKING-SELVES
> 
> You have the choice to buy insurance or not.. as long as it is made available, it is upon you to do what it takes to purchase it for yourself if you want it... and that is what this and other options are about... not some fairytale leftist wish for healthcare provided to you by the government at the expense of someone else



Adn just who do you think is paying for the uninsured's care now when they go to the local emergency room?  The health insurance fairy?


----------



## saveliberty (Nov 5, 2009)

52 milllion sounds better than the Democratic plan which will leave everyone without private coverage.


----------



## Modbert (Nov 5, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> Then all they have to do is BUY IT THEM-FUCKING-SELVES
> 
> *You have the choice to buy insurance or not.. as long as it is made available, it is upon you to do what it takes to purchase it for yourself if you want it... and that is what this and other options are about.*.. not some fairytale leftist wish for healthcare provided to you by the government at the expense of someone else



Women who are survivors of Domestic Abuse can be denied or lose their insurance for simply that fact. What's your solution then?

Besides, who do you think pays for the uninsured now when they go to the hospital? 

Preexisting conditions are wrong. Republicans will not be changing that. All Republicans are doing with their plan is helping Big Business. Serving Big Business and not the American people. Health Bills was one of the number one reasons for bankruptcy in this country last year. Each year, more and more go broke because of the rising costs of Health Insurance among other things.

We need a solution. To sit there and do nothing would bring no good. I'm just curious by the way, you're a Christian against Gay Marriage correct?


----------



## DiamondDave (Nov 5, 2009)

VaYank5150 said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Then all they have to do is BUY IT THEM-FUCKING-SELVES
> ...



Ahhh... but if you choose not to go to the hospital that has handed out 'free care' to illegals or those who do not pay, then you don't have to.... and lest ye not forget that other things do cover those no-pays like donations, endowments, volunteer clinic time by doctors, etc.... and the hospital does indeed try and bill those who end up not paying.. and there are plenty of uninsured that do pay out of pocket

More to it than just that, yank


----------



## Si modo (Nov 5, 2009)

Again, Dogbert?  From 10/12/2009:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/91171-medical-malpractice-reform-savings-would-be-small-cbo-report-says.html


----------



## saveliberty (Nov 5, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Then all they have to do is BUY IT THEM-FUCKING-SELVES
> ...



So why does Obamacare have a six month waiting period for pre-existing conditions.  Someone with cancer or a serious heart condition gets a death sentence.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Nov 5, 2009)

So we increase the deficit by $8 to $10 billion to insure 3 million more people?


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Nov 5, 2009)

Yes it's so terrible that it actually manages to reduce costs,reduce the deficit,not raise taxes,and doesn't fine or imprison American Citizens for not having Health Insurance. Yea it's just so terrible. Hey I'll still take it over Reid & Pelosi's disastrous Behemoths any day.


----------



## Modbert (Nov 5, 2009)

Si modo said:


> Again, Dogbert?  From 10/12/2009:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/91171-medical-malpractice-reform-savings-would-be-small-cbo-report-says.html



This is the final letter result to John Boehner. You're a sad dumb troll. If you would like to have a discussion about that thread, respond there.


----------



## DiamondDave (Nov 5, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Then all they have to do is BUY IT THEM-FUCKING-SELVES
> ...



1) I think there should be laws against coverage refusal for pre-existing conditions.. but that the market should determine what the charges for each insurance policy should be based on risk, etc
2) You WANT improvement for your agenda.. you do not "NEED" a government 'solution'
3) Your finances and your well being are your personal issue.. whether it be your treatment, how you pay for it, whether you go bankrupt, whether you have to do without cable tv, whether you have to work 3 jobs to pay for something, or whatever else
4) Christianity is not about forced support... nice try... so if I wish to continue donating to the church or St. Jude's children's fund out of the goodness of my heart, that is up to me.. but not up to you to force me to do so
5) Being against gay marriage but for equality in civil unions for legal means such as inheritance, power of attorney, joint tax returns, etc has nothing to do in this discussion... but nice try


----------



## Modbert (Nov 5, 2009)

saveliberty said:


> So why does Obamacare have a six month waiting period for pre-existing conditions.  Someone with cancer or a serious heart condition gets a death sentence.



Again, you seem to think this is me supporting "Obamacare" it's not. I want true reform in whatever way it can occur. The GOP plan is definitely not that sort of reform.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 5, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Again, Dogbert?  From 10/12/2009:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/91171-medical-malpractice-reform-savings-would-be-small-cbo-report-says.html
> ...


And the letter is a summary of the report, a report which came out weeks ago and you couldn't be bothered to read the report then, rather you parroted what someone in the press said.  That's what you do; you parrot.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Nov 5, 2009)

LibocalypseNow said:


> Yes it's so terrible that it actually manages to reduce costs,reduce the deficit,not raise taxes,and doesn't fine or imprison American Citizens for not having Health Insurance. Yea it's just so terrible. Hey I'll still take it over Reid & Pelosi's disastrous Behemoths any day.



But it doesn't decrease the deficit. It increases the deficit by $8 to $10 billion. And insures just 3 million more people.

I'm wondering ..... if you were actually HONEST about the bill, would you still favor it? Do you have to deceive yourself into thinking it reduces the deficit to be able to favor it or other proposals?


----------



## Oddball (Nov 5, 2009)

> Oops: CBO Says GOP Health Care Alternative Leaves 52 Million Uninsured By 2019


Again, starting with the deeply flawed premise that the best way to pay for something is to pass the buck to a third party.


----------



## Modbert (Nov 5, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> 1) I think there should be laws against coverage refusal for pre-existing conditions.. but that the market should determine what the charges for each insurance policy should be based on risk, etc
> 2) You WANT improvement for your agenda.. you do not "NEED" a government 'solution'
> 3) Your finances and your well being are your personal issue.. whether it be your treatment, how you pay for it, whether you go bankrupt, whether you have to do without cable tv, whether you have to work 3 jobs to pay for something, or whatever else
> 4) Christianity is not about forced support... nice try... so if I wish to continue donating to the church or St. Jude's children's fund out of the goodness of my heart, that is up to me.. but not up to you to force me to do so
> 5) Being against gay marriage but for equality in civil unions for legal means such as inheritance, power of attorney, joint tax returns, etc has nothing to do in this discussion... but nice try



1.) You do realize that a pre-existing condition against a woman who was a victim of domestic abuse is just as bad as making her pay out the nose?

2.) I want improvement for this country. The GOP plan will not do anything.

3.) You seem to be in agreeing with Dubya that it's really American to have 3 jobs. Despite the fact even with 3 jobs you still can't afford health insurance.

4/5.) Christianity is not about forced support. However, whatever happened to being your brother's keeper. You seem to lap up the whole part about Gays in the Bible but not that part. Why is that? 

By the way, what you're proposing is this:

Separate but equal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Nov 5, 2009)

This new Republican Plan reduces costs,reduces the deficit,doesn't raise taxes,and most importantly doesn't fine or imprison American Citizens for not having Health Insurance. Hey it's not a perfect plan but it's much better than anything Pelosi & Reid have offered up.


----------



## Modbert (Nov 5, 2009)

Si modo said:


> And the letter is a summary of the report, a report which came out weeks ago and you couldn't be bothered to read the report then, rather you parroted what someone in the press said.  That's what you do; you parrot.



I'm not parroting and you're trolling. So again, if you would like to discuss that thread, go to that thread.


----------



## Modbert (Nov 5, 2009)

LibocalypseNow said:


> This new Republican Plan reduces costs,reduces the deficit,doesn't raise taxes,and most importantly doesn't fine or imprison American Citizens for not having Health Insurance. Hey it's not a perfect plan but it's much better than anything Pelosi & Reid have offered up.



Except it does nothing to actually solve the health insurance crisis.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 5, 2009)

What crisis?


----------



## Si modo (Nov 5, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > And the letter is a summary of the report, a report which came out weeks ago and you couldn't be bothered to read the report then, rather you parroted what someone in the press said.  That's what you do; you parrot.
> ...


I'll say the same thing I said in that thread you made weeks ago.  You  parrot what others tell you to think.  The CBO report clearly indicates that the savings are more than significant with the Republican's proposals.


----------



## Modbert (Nov 5, 2009)

Si modo said:


> I'll say the same thing I said in that thread you made weeks ago.  You  parrot what others tell you to think.  *The CBO report clearly indicates that the savings are more than significant with the Republican's proposals*.



Because it doesn't do anything. It certainly is cheap to put a Bandage on a gaping wound.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Nov 5, 2009)

Jack the deficit by $8 to $10 billion to achieve no significant results???????

Now THERE'S a real plan????????????????????


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Nov 5, 2009)

The fining and possible imprisoning of American Citizens for not having Health Insurance was always a No-Go for me with the Democratic plan. This Republican Plan does not include that so i can now consider it a real possibility for Health Care reform. Hey just my opinion anyway.


----------



## DiamondDave (Nov 5, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > 1) I think there should be laws against coverage refusal for pre-existing conditions.. but that the market should determine what the charges for each insurance policy should be based on risk, etc
> ...



1) I said I believe there should be laws that keep such things revolving around pre-existing conditions from happening..... I have already agreed with you....
2) You want improvement... do what you can with your funds to do it.. raise voluntary monies.. start a charity.. start your own insurance company that has a will to provide to those who are in harder situations... but you do not have the right to do your 'improvement' for personal well being of one at the expense of the personal freedoms of another
3) Nice try, asshole.. what I am saying and have been saying is your well being, your earnings, how you pay for things you want and need, what insurance you have or buy, etc is on YOU... and if you got to go back to school, train yourself better, work 2 or 3 jobs, or whatever else to earn the extra money you want or need, then so be it.. that is on you, buddy boy
4&5) I never used anything form the bible for or against gay marriage or my stance on it.. but nice try... and as I already stated, Christianity is not about forced support, but your choice to do things out of the goodness of your own heart.... not about you forcing me to contribute or do things for what you wish could be done for YOUR wishes

By the way.. I am not proposing anything of the sort.. but nice try... try actually reading what I have stated that I support.. not what you make up to try and paint your picture


----------



## DiamondDave (Nov 5, 2009)

nodoginnafight said:


> Jack the deficit by $8 to $10 billion to achieve no significant results???????
> 
> Now THERE'S a real plan????????????????????



Yeah.. you would rather support the one that spends over a trillion to worsen the quality of the system and infringe on personal rights

Now that's brilliant


----------



## nodoginnafight (Nov 5, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > Jack the deficit by $8 to $10 billion to achieve no significant results???????
> ...



Where did I say that? Please provide the quote or link.


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Nov 5, 2009)

Hey at least you can actually read the Republican Plan. The Reid & Pelosi behemoth can't even be interpreted or understood by the same people who wrote it. So how can anyone else possibly understand it? The Republican Plan is far more coherent. They had me as soon as they took out the fining & possible imprisoning of American Citizens for not having Health Insurance. The cutting costs and no higher taxes was a nice bonus too.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Nov 5, 2009)

at least you finally let go of the "reduces the deficit" nonesense.


----------



## DiamondDave (Nov 5, 2009)

nodoginnafight said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...



So you support neither... same as me

Then I guess the question is better asked of which one do you support more.?? Or asking if you support the government giving care of personal responsibility and well being to the non-contributor at the sake of the contributor?


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Nov 5, 2009)

They've been locked out by the Democrats on all Health Care meetings yet they have managed to come up with a far more realistic & coherent plan. I have to give the Republicans some credit for accomplishing that feat.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Nov 5, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



My main goals are to provide an affordable option for the "working poor" and to get primary care out of the ER . I'd like to achieve these as efficiently and cost effectively as possible.

I'm waiting to see what gets through the process before deciding which I think  achieves those goals better.


----------



## DiamondDave (Nov 5, 2009)

nodoginnafight said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...



Provide or make available??

And if you do mean provide?? Then forcing the payment of the personal well being of one non-contributor at the expense of the contributor??


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Nov 5, 2009)

Hey look,this Republican plan doesn't fine or imprison American Citizens for not having Health Insurance. So this plan can be a starter for me. I still have no idea what Reid & Pelosi's massive debacle is all about. That plan is so awful i don't even think Pelosi & Reid understand that mess. Yikes!


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



Come on ,Dave....haven't you heard?  Health Insurance is a RIGHT.  Its not about being able to afford it, or improving your position in life so that it is more accessible, or prioritizing your families needs...  its about what you are OWED....


----------



## nodoginnafight (Nov 5, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



Provide an affordable option. And if that means forcing people to cover themselves to reduce the costs that the rest of us pay for their healthcare, then that's fine with me. Why should I be paying for 100% of their healthcare (our current system) without expecting them to contribute a dime themselves? If they earn enough money to get cable TV, then they have enough money to contribute to their own healthcare without choosing to spend their money on other things and letting me pick up 100% of the tab for their healthcare.

If subsidizing their coverage means that now I'm only responsible for 50% of their healthcare costs instead of the 100% we currently pay - then I consider that progress.

Taxpayers subsidize public health as it is - I want to see us do it more cost-effectively. Getting primary care out of the ER is a big step in that direction.


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Nov 5, 2009)

The Republican Plan at least preserves some Freedoms & Liberties. The Democrat plan is just an oppressive & incoherent Socialist debacle.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 5, 2009)

nodoginnafight said:


> Provide an affordable option. _*And if that means forcing people*_.....



That says it all, right there.


----------



## Dr.House (Nov 5, 2009)

Dude said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > Provide an affordable option. _*And if that means forcing people*_.....
> ...



Makes you wonder what other things he'd like to force upon his fellow Americans...


----------



## nodoginnafight (Nov 5, 2009)

Does the Republican preserve the "freedom" of others to spend their money on things other than healthcare secure in the knowledge that the rest of us will pick up 100% of their healthcare costs for them?

affording those people that "FREEDOM" costs the rest of us a whole lot of money. Do they really need for us to preserve that "right" for them?

So glad you "freedom warriors" are out there fighting for those "rights." I for one, hope you lose.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 5, 2009)

nodoginnafight said:


> Does the Republican preserve the "freedom" of others to spend their money on things other than healthcare secure in the knowledge that the rest of us will pick up 100% of their healthcare costs for them?
> 
> affording those people that "FREEDOM" costs the rest of us a whole lot of money. Do they really need for us to preserve that "right" for them?


Flawed premise.......again.

Who says people who have no insurance are deadbeats by default?


----------



## DiamondDave (Nov 5, 2009)

nodoginnafight said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...



I consider that theft and the infringement of the rights of others....

Is it progress if I only paralyze 50% of your body and not leaving you in a coma after I beat the snot out of you?? And because it's 'progress' it is not wrong?

There are things that exist to subsidize treatments and causes and hospital bills and so many other things... those are charities and those should be supported and encouraged.. but I would never condone you being forced to contribute to one

Otherwise.. I appreciate you explaining things in your first paragraph


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Nov 5, 2009)

Yea the whole Fining and possibly imprisoning American Citizens for not having Health Insurance was always a No-Go for me with the Democratic plan. At least this Republican Plan dumps that awful stuff. It's not a perfect plan but at least it preserves some Freedoms & Liberties. Pelosi & Reid's massive Socialist debacle does the exact opposite.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Nov 5, 2009)

Pull a segment of a quote and try to argue with THAT rather than the entire position.

Pretty typical of folks who just come here to curse and namecall.

If YOU want to protect the rights of other to choose to dig into YOUR wallet to pay 100% of their healthcare costs - knock yourself out - to each his or her own I guess. But like I said, I hope you lose.


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

nodoginnafight said:


> Pull a segment of a quote and try to argue with THAT rather than the entire position.
> 
> Pretty typical of folks who just come here to curse and namecall.
> 
> If YOU want to protect the rights of other to choose to dig into YOUR wallet to pay 100% of their healthcare costs - knock yourself out - to each his or her own I guess. But like I said, I hope you lose.



This lib has an interesting way of saying "You owe it to me to pay for my health insurance"


----------



## nodoginnafight (Nov 5, 2009)

It appears there are those who are so entrenched in hyper-partisan rhetoric, that they will pay double what they should be paying just to protect  their rhetoric.

Sad and tragic .... but not completely unexpected.


----------



## Emma (Nov 5, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...


lol

Of course you do.


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

nodoginnafight said:


> It appears there are those who are so entrenched in hyper-partisan rhetoric, that they will pay double what they should be paying just to protect  their rhetoric.
> 
> Sad and tragic .... but not completely unexpected.



Actually, most of us would like to see a system where individuals take responsibility for themselves, instead of elevating every one of their wants into a right, thereby forcing the responsible to take care of the Left.


----------



## Emma (Nov 5, 2009)

nodoginnafight said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...



Amen. Although I'd hesitate to call it primary care,  I know what you mean.


----------



## Meister (Nov 5, 2009)

You know what pisses me off...well, I'm going to tell you.  We have millions of Americans that can afford to buy their own insurance, and for whatever reason decide not to.  Then of those, there will be a percentage of them that has something go wrong with them, that turns out to be catastrofic as far as expense.  Then they try to get insurance after the fact, and are denied. Then we have to pay for their stupidity.  There is something wrong with this kind of mindset.  If they had insurance to begin with, they wouldn't have the problem of being denied.  Can it get any simpler than that?


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

nodoginnafight said:


> It appears there are those who are so entrenched in hyper-partisan rhetoric, that they will pay double what they should be paying just to protect  their rhetoric.
> 
> Sad and tragic .... but not completely unexpected.



And I am aware that there are expenses involved with taking care of those that will not take care of themselves.  Unlike you, I am unwilling to just say "fuck it, here's my wallet" to everyone lefty that wants to increase the number of outreached hands.


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

Meister said:


> You know what pisses me off...well, I'm going to tell you.  We have millions of Americans that can afford to buy their own insurance, and for whatever reason decide not to.  Then of those, there will be a percentage of them that has something go wrong with them, that turns out to be catastrofic as far as expense.  Then they try to get insurance after the fact, and are denied. Then we have to pay for their stupidity.  There is something wrong with this kind of mindset.  If they had insurance to begin with, they wouldn't have the problem of being denied.  Can it get any simpler than that?



yeah- if we just force insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions, or have a public option that does,  the problem you describe won't explode....


----------



## nodoginnafight (Nov 5, 2009)

Yes, by all means try to hold onto the myth of "free" healthcare if that's what it takes to defend nonsensical hyper-partisan rhetoric.

If a person is truly needy and truly can't afford a dime towards their own healthcare costs, that's one issue. If a person COULD contribute toward their own healthcare but opts to exercise their "freedom" to choose to spend their money on other things confident in the knowledge that everyone else will pick up 100% of their healthcare costs - that's a completely different matter imho.

Health reform should address both - which will ease the costs. One big reason costs are skyrocketing is to cover the expenses of those who pay nothing for THEIR service. And make no mistake - we ALL pay for that.


----------



## DiamondDave (Nov 5, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > VaYank5150 said:
> ...



Yes.. in actuality you do.... I have chosen to have procedures done at certain hospitals rather than others, even though they were farther away... some of those choices because of the facility, some based on cost, and yes even one because I found out that the elective surgery that I was having was much more expensive there... and I did do research and find out that that hospital was giving 'free' care in a clinic to illegals (it had been reported in the news a couple years before).. I discussed options with my doctor and decided on a private surgery center which was cheaper.. you can honestly deduce that one of the reasons it could be cheaper was because the private center was not handing out stuff to illegals and passing the cost off onto other patients


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

ThePickledPunk said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > You know what pisses me off...well, I'm going to tell you.  We have millions of Americans that can afford to buy their own insurance, and for whatever reason decide not to.  Then of those, there will be a percentage of them that has something go wrong with them, that turns out to be catastrofic as far as expense.  Then they try to get insurance after the fact, and are denied. Then we have to pay for their stupidity.  There is something wrong with this kind of mindset.  If they had insurance to begin with, they wouldn't have the problem of being denied.  Can it get any simpler than that?
> ...



The problem you describe is why we have reformed Bankruptcy laws that make it very difficult to get a chapter 7 as opposed to a chapter 13.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Nov 5, 2009)

Meister said:


> You know what pisses me off...well, I'm going to tell you.  We have millions of Americans that can afford to buy their own insurance, and for whatever reason decide not to.  Then of those, there will be a percentage of them that has something go wrong with them, that turns out to be catastrofic as far as expense.  Then they try to get insurance after the fact, and are denied. Then we have to pay for their stupidity.  There is something wrong with this kind of mindset.  If they had insurance to begin with, they wouldn't have the problem of being denied.  Can it get any simpler than that?



VERY good points - Sad to say some folks are out there defending the "right" of others to make that foolish choice and force the rest of us to pick up the tab.


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

nodoginnafight said:


> Yes, by all means try to hold onto the myth of "free" healthcare if that's what it takes to defend nonsensical hyper-partisan rhetoric.
> 
> If a person is truly needy and truly can't afford a dime towards their own healthcare costs, that's one issue. If a person COULD contribute toward their own healthcare but opts to exercise their "freedom" to choose to spend their money on other things confident in the knowledge that everyone else will pick up 100% of their healthcare costs - that's a completely different matter imho.
> 
> Health reform should address both - which will ease the costs. One big reason costs are skyrocketing is to cover the expenses of those who pay nothing for THEIR service. And make no mistake - we ALL pay for that.



The only dopes that believe in free healthcare are you dopes on the left.


----------



## VaYank5150 (Nov 5, 2009)

Meister said:


> You know what pisses me off...well, I'm going to tell you.  We have millions of Americans that can afford to buy their own insurance, and for whatever reason decide not to.  Then of those, there will be a percentage of them that has something go wrong with them, that turns out to be catastrofic as far as expense.  Then they try to get insurance after the fact, and are denied. Then we have to pay for their stupidity.  There is something wrong with this kind of mindset.  If they had insurance to begin with, they wouldn't have the problem of being denied.  Can it get any simpler than that?



Hence the provision forcing people to buy insurance...


----------



## Emma (Nov 5, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



Using limited ED resources for other than urgent / emergent care adds to health care costs for us all. _Regardless_ of what hospital you choose to go to.


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

nodoginnafight said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > You know what pisses me off...well, I'm going to tell you.  We have millions of Americans that can afford to buy their own insurance, and for whatever reason decide not to.  Then of those, there will be a percentage of them that has something go wrong with them, that turns out to be catastrofic as far as expense.  Then they try to get insurance after the fact, and are denied. Then we have to pay for their stupidity.  There is something wrong with this kind of mindset.  If they had insurance to begin with, they wouldn't have the problem of being denied.  Can it get any simpler than that?
> ...



TRANSLATION-  Force even those with very little risk to buy insurance.  Do not allow individuals to assess risk for themselves.  Make individuals accountable by limiting freedom...


----------



## nodoginnafight (Nov 5, 2009)

ThePickledPunk said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > It appears there are those who are so entrenched in hyper-partisan rhetoric, that they will pay double what they should be paying just to protect  their rhetoric.
> ...



But apparently you ARE the one who is willing to hand over your wallet. YOU are not advocating forcing people who CAN pay to pay anything. I am the one who says if they CAN pay they should. You're just handing over your wallet to protect some imagined right to have everyone else pick up the tab for your healthcare.

You've gotten it flipped.


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

nodoginnafight said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > You know what pisses me off...well, I'm going to tell you.  We have millions of Americans that can afford to buy their own insurance, and for whatever reason decide not to.  Then of those, there will be a percentage of them that has something go wrong with them, that turns out to be catastrofic as far as expense.  Then they try to get insurance after the fact, and are denied. Then we have to pay for their stupidity.  There is something wrong with this kind of mindset.  If they had insurance to begin with, they wouldn't have the problem of being denied.  Can it get any simpler than that?
> ...



At least you are very clear in your belief that Government should control even the most basic of human functions...


----------



## VaYank5150 (Nov 5, 2009)

ThePickledPunk said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...




So, you would be in favor of allowing our healthcare facilities to turn away anyone who chooses not to buy health insurance and cannot pay for the care out of pocket?


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

nodoginnafight said:


> ThePickledPunk said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...



bullshit, bitchtits.  People should pay for their own health insurance.  And handing that function over to the government will be the most expensive of all solutions.


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

VaYank5150 said:


> ThePickledPunk said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...



Nope.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Nov 5, 2009)

ThePickledPunk said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



You're getting very twisted by trying to spin the situation to fit your rhetoric. You claim everyone has a right to YOUR wallet to pay for THEIR healthcare and any attempt to mitigate that is an intrusion upon liberty????????

Sorry man, that just doesn't fly.

And btw - DRSmith never claimed to be a doctor - D.R. happen to be his initials.


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

VaYank5150 said:


> ThePickledPunk said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...



Your solution is the most expensive one available.


----------



## Meister (Nov 5, 2009)

ThePickledPunk said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Actually, what your doing in the early years IS paying for service that your not using.  If you wait until your in the years needing it, the insurance companies are losing  with payouts.  I feel that it's all offset in a persons lifetime of being insured.  What I'm trying to say is that your paying it forward.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Nov 5, 2009)

> People should pay for their own health insurance.


Exactly - people should pay what they can really afford for their insurance.
So how come you're so adament in defending their "right" not to and just dig into YOUR wallet to pay it for them?


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

nodoginnafight said:


> ThePickledPunk said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...



No, darlin- you are spinnin.  Noone has a right to reach into my wallet to pay for what is their responsibility.  

And your "attempt to mitigate" statement is the understatement of the year.  What you mean is "take control".


----------



## DiamondDave (Nov 5, 2009)

VaYank5150 said:


> ThePickledPunk said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...



But those facilities and hospitals should be allowed to take action (including legal action) to recover the monies they are owed by those who do not pay....

Just as some hospitals assist families in trying to find charities, foundations, etc that are willing to help with expenses... or are willing to put people on payment plans with little or no interest so that they may pay over time since they cannot afford to pay for it all at once

And please also remember that not all things covered by health insurance are emergency situations.. and that things the contributors would end up paying for, for the non-contributors, would increase


----------



## nodoginnafight (Nov 5, 2009)

ThePickledPunk said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> > ThePickledPunk said:
> ...



You're twisted again. YOUR solution - or lack thereof - is EXACTLY what is forcing people into the ER for primary care - the most expensive option available.


----------



## VaYank5150 (Nov 5, 2009)

ThePickledPunk said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> > ThePickledPunk said:
> ...



So.....how do you plan to pay for THEIR healthcare?


----------



## DiamondDave (Nov 5, 2009)

nodoginnafight said:


> > People should pay for their own health insurance.
> 
> 
> Exactly - people should pay what they can really afford for their insurance.
> So how come you're so adament in defending their "right" not to and just dig into YOUR wallet to pay it for them?



Then who is required to pay for the parts that they cannot afford for their insurance??

People should pay for their own personal care.. or approach voluntary organizations that exist off of voluntary donations my individuals to ASK for assistance... which is not the same as thinking they are entitled to it or owed it at the expense of others


----------



## nodoginnafight (Nov 5, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> > ThePickledPunk said:
> ...



EXACTLY the opposite is true. Uninsured patients are turned away by doctors and are forced into the ER for non-emergency care.

THAT is what is happening and THAT is what is contributing mightly to skyrocketing costs for everyone.


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

Meister said:


> ThePickledPunk said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...



I am not disagreeing with you about the mechanics of it.  Insurance companies definately make more money if they can force individuals with low risk to buy a policy.


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

VaYank5150 said:


> ThePickledPunk said:
> 
> 
> > VaYank5150 said:
> ...



Why should I pay it?


----------



## VaYank5150 (Nov 5, 2009)

ThePickledPunk said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> > ThePickledPunk said:
> ...



You're paying it now.  So, if you don't change anything, we will continue to have millions uninsured, overcrowded emergency rooms and you will STILL be paying for it.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Nov 5, 2009)

VaYank5150 said:


> ThePickledPunk said:
> 
> 
> > VaYank5150 said:
> ...



I can't understand why this is such a difficult concept for some ??????

Oh well

Later yank - hey I see where on another thread you got some well-deserved props.


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

nodoginnafight said:


> > People should pay for their own health insurance.
> 
> 
> Exactly - people should pay what they can really afford for their insurance.
> So how come you're so adament in defending their "right" not to and just dig into YOUR wallet to pay it for them?



well, we agree that people should behave a certain way.  We disagree on the level of intrusiveness we believe government should be involved in.  Hungry people steal food, contributing to higher food costs.  Maybe we should allow government to be in charge of food distribution?  And I have seen a lot of people without insurance.  None has come anywhere close to my wallet.


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

VaYank5150 said:


> ThePickledPunk said:
> 
> 
> > VaYank5150 said:
> ...



no, i am not.


----------



## Emma (Nov 5, 2009)

VaYank5150 said:


> ThePickledPunk said:
> 
> 
> > VaYank5150 said:
> ...


ED as 'primary care' is the most inefficient means of providing care, adding billions to our costs as well as reducing the quality of healthcare provided.


----------



## Emma (Nov 5, 2009)

ThePickledPunk said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> > ThePickledPunk said:
> ...





Like hell you're not. Just because you don't receive an itemized statement doesn't mean you're not paying for this.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Nov 5, 2009)

> Hungry people steal food, contributing to higher food costs.


So WE MADE IT A CRIME!!!!!
Government got involved and made stealing a crime!!!!!!!!!! Unfair intrusion into a individual's personal liberty to steal ?????????????????????????

Man you really are twisting yourself into a tizzy -


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Nov 5, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> Yes.. in actuality you do.... I have chosen to have procedures done at certain hospitals rather than others, even though they were farther away... some of those choices because of the facility, some based on cost, and yes even one because I found out that the elective surgery that I was having was much more expensive there... and I did do research and find out that that hospital was giving 'free' care in a clinic to illegals (it had been reported in the news a couple years before).. I discussed options with my doctor and decided on a private surgery center which was cheaper.. you can honestly deduce that one of the reasons it could be cheaper was because the private center was not handing out stuff to illegals and passing the cost off onto other patients



By law and by oath a doctor can not turn away a person in desperate need of care.  Every single hospital treats its share of people that can not pay, and they in turn pay for that by increasing the cost of treatments.

Your argument that you can somehow avoid paying for those that can not pay for their own care is false.


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

Emma said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> > ThePickledPunk said:
> ...



Nothin a few TRILLION wont cure


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

Emma said:


> ThePickledPunk said:
> 
> 
> > VaYank5150 said:
> ...



right.


----------



## DiamondDave (Nov 5, 2009)

nodoginnafight said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > VaYank5150 said:
> ...



No.. they are not forced to, they CHOOSE to go to the ER for the most basic care... I do think that ER's should be able to turn away those who are there, without means to pay, who are not there for emergency care... that responsibility is on the individual to pay a doctor or a clinic or whatever else to have their VD checked or be told they have a cold or that they sprained their knee...

And as stated.. most doctors and hospitals DO have financial departments and counselors that DO try and help people find the charities and foundations to help those in need.. and many doctors DO volunteer their time in free clinics, etc... just as many medical companies do donate supplies to those same clinics


----------



## Emma (Nov 5, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> *But those facilities and hospitals should be allowed to take action (including legal action) to recover the monies they are owed by those who do not pay*....
> 
> Just as some hospitals assist families in trying to find charities, foundations, etc that are willing to help with expenses... *or are willing to put people on payment plans with little or no interest so that they may pay over time since they cannot afford to pay for it all at once*
> 
> And please also remember that not all things covered by health insurance are emergency situations.. and that things the contributors would end up paying for, for the non-contributors, would increase


What planet do you live on? Seriously. 

Hospitals DO come after you for payment through legal action. And sure, some will allow for "payment plans", require it to be paid within an absurdly short amount of time before they move on to collections.


----------



## Emma (Nov 5, 2009)

nodoginnafight said:


> EXACTLY the opposite is true. Uninsured patients are turned away by doctors and are forced into the ER for non-emergency care.
> 
> THAT is what is happening and THAT is what is contributing mightly to skyrocketing costs for everyone.


And hospitals can "fire" patients, only allowing them to obtain treatment in cases of true emergency.


----------



## VaYank5150 (Nov 5, 2009)

nodoginnafight said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> > ThePickledPunk said:
> ...



I did??  That never happens to me?


----------



## DiamondDave (Nov 5, 2009)

Dr.Traveler said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Yes.. in actuality you do.... I have chosen to have procedures done at certain hospitals rather than others, even though they were farther away... some of those choices because of the facility, some based on cost, and yes even one because I found out that the elective surgery that I was having was much more expensive there... and I did do research and find out that that hospital was giving 'free' care in a clinic to illegals (it had been reported in the news a couple years before).. I discussed options with my doctor and decided on a private surgery center which was cheaper.. you can honestly deduce that one of the reasons it could be cheaper was because the private center was not handing out stuff to illegals and passing the cost off onto other patients
> ...



And hence I went to a private surgery center.. and avoided such things.. they only do surgeries, planned surgeries... they do not give out free VD shots and look at your boo-boos.. and it was indeed cheaper to do it

Just as I chose to give the stitches needed to my own child... I avoided the charge for the emergency clinic or the ER.. and I chose not to deal with the deductible, which would have been more than what it cost me to give her 3 stitches myself

You do have choices... unfortunately you cannot avoid the overcharging institutions all the time... but you CAN reduce your support of the system that hands out care for those who don't do what is necessary to take care of their own responsibilities


----------



## Emma (Nov 5, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



There is *no* Federal law that requires hospitals to treat everyone that darkens their doorways. There may be some states that require that, but I don't know of any offhand.


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

nodoginnafight said:


> > Hungry people steal food, contributing to higher food costs.
> 
> 
> So WE MADE IT A CRIME!!!!!
> ...



whether stealing crime is a food has no relevance to the discussion at hand.  The act still contributes to higher food costs, and it is the increase in costs that leads you to want to have the government in more control of our lives.  So why not have the government take over food distribution?  Dont you think it would save money?  Of course not.  And neither will it save money to have government force individuals to purchase government insurance.  The expense of such action will go far beyond dollars and cents  Apparently, you attribute your lack of understanding to spin.  More likely, you contracted syphilis at one of the fish houses you attend, and its late stage.


----------



## Emma (Nov 5, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> Just as I chose to give the stitches needed to my own child... I avoided the charge for the emergency clinic or the ER.. and I chose not to deal with the deductible, which would have been more than what it cost me to give her 3 stitches myself



You sutured your own child?


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > *But those facilities and hospitals should be allowed to take action (including legal action) to recover the monies they are owed by those who do not pay*....
> ...



irresponsible people have a myriad of ways to deal with irresponsible debt.


----------



## Emma (Nov 5, 2009)

ThePickledPunk said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



So healthcare expenses are now "irresponsible debt" 

You people are hilarious.


----------



## DiamondDave (Nov 5, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > *But those facilities and hospitals should be allowed to take action (including legal action) to recover the monies they are owed by those who do not pay*....
> ...



And it is and should continue to be their right to come after you.. whether you consider it to be 'absurdly short' amount of time or not... as you are not owed taking care of your personal well being by anyone else

And as for the planet I live on.. the same one I lived on when I was under the poverty line... when I did whatever I had to do to take care of myself, without thinking that everyone else owed it to me.. the same planet where my neighbor, with a very sick child with a genetic disorder, worked with the doctor and hospital financial counselor to hook up with a charitable organization to help with their son's expansive medical care costs... and the same planet where those neighbors did not insist that everyone else OWED it to them, where the dad worked a second career at night, sold his vehicles for cheap disposable cars, took out a loan, and slashed things out of their expenses until the charitable help kicked in


----------



## Emma (Nov 5, 2009)

You _really_ believe private charity can pick up the slack?


----------



## DiamondDave (Nov 5, 2009)

Emma said:


> ThePickledPunk said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...



The irresponsible part is not doing everything you can to pay for it... getting your second job.. cutting out  extras like cell phones, satellite TV, DVD players, restaurant meals, etc... also not planning for things with a savings account, paying for health insurance instead of an Escalade, etc


----------



## DiamondDave (Nov 5, 2009)

Emma said:


> You _really_ believe private charity can pick up the slack?



I know they can.. as I have seen it with my neighbors... though they still have a lot of expenses they pay for out of pocket, the private charity has helped them a ton... and their family, neighbors, and friends have all contributed to and have done work for the charity that helped them out because we CHOSE to support a great charity like that

When you reduce the size of govt... ensuring that we don't pay 50% of our income in various taxes to support the bloated government.. charities can benefit even more

You really think government (funded by citizen contributors) exists to pay for your personal well-being responsibility?


----------



## Emma (Nov 5, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > ThePickledPunk said:
> ...



I can tell you from watching this system devastate people I've cared for over the last 25 years that what you describe is not the norm for those buried under healthcare debt.


----------



## VaYank5150 (Nov 5, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



Please tell me you are a doctor.


----------



## DiamondDave (Nov 5, 2009)

VaYank5150 said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Traveler said:
> ...



No.. Mom is an RN.. and I did field medic duties with the emergency med kits in the Army... given more than my share of stitches.. taken 'em out... not every little thing requires a Dr.


----------



## Emma (Nov 5, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> No.. Mom is an RN.. and I did field medic duties with the emergency med kits in the Army... given more than my share of stitches.. taken 'em out... not every little thing requires a Dr.


That makes me feel a bit better.

So. Where did you get the sutures, needle, novacaine, etc.?


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

Emma said:


> ThePickledPunk said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...



They sure can be.


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

ThePickledPunk said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > ThePickledPunk said:
> ...



If I fail to get insurance, fail to save up for a medical emergency, and end up in an emergency room, how would you describe my decision-making process?


----------



## VaYank5150 (Nov 5, 2009)

ThePickledPunk said:


> ThePickledPunk said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...



Non-existent?


----------



## DiamondDave (Nov 5, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...



And I can tell you that what you subscribe to, that others owe your personal well being and personal care to you at their expense, is not the standard as set in the foundation of our republic

It is still irresponsible for someone not to do what they can, all that they can, to pay for their own personal needs... it is more irresponsible when we see those people expect and accept 'assistance' when they still have money to spend on smokes, lottery tickets, cable TV, pizzas, video games, etc


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



Tsk Tsk   it would be so much easier- and ultimately better for our country- if you would forego your antiquated notion of responsibility and let government protect you from yourself.  Right Emma and Nodog?


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

VaYank5150 said:


> ThePickledPunk said:
> 
> 
> > ThePickledPunk said:
> ...



irresponsible seems to work as well- at least if I fail to pay my hospital bills


----------



## Emma (Nov 5, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...


Yes, it is. And I'm telling you that the ones I've cared for over the years have been devastated, lost their savings, retirement, income, homes. I suppose that should make you feel so much better to know they were left with nothing.


----------



## Emma (Nov 5, 2009)

ThePickledPunk said:


> ThePickledPunk said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...


If you didn't have the resources to do so, or was denied insurance so that you couldn't have it regardless of ability to pay, how would you describe that?


----------



## DiamondDave (Nov 5, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > No.. Mom is an RN.. and I did field medic duties with the emergency med kits in the Army... given more than my share of stitches.. taken 'em out... not every little thing requires a Dr.
> ...



As stated.. Mom is an RN.. I have supplies still from the past... had no novacaine.. had I believe 4% topical lydocaine and some betadine to sterilize the area... like I said.. nothing that was too much a big deal in the situation.. except trying to calm the daughter down


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...



I am sure that is not the first time they were "victims"


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

Emma said:


> ThePickledPunk said:
> 
> 
> > ThePickledPunk said:
> ...



If I didnt have the resources-  more than likely i made a series of poor career moves.  If I was denied insurance?  Id have to know why.  If its because I waited until I had cancer to try and get insurance- I'd say cry me a river.


----------



## DiamondDave (Nov 5, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...



many people are left with nothing for various reasons.... but.. whether you care if I lose all my savings or I care that you lose yours is not of any legal consequence... you are not owed that savings, just as you are not owed personal assistance for your personal responsibilities...

I can care and help out my friends who need it.. I can care and support a charity... I can care and start a fund raising drive... but you have no recourse to think you have the right to forcibly take it from me for your personal responsibility take take care of yourself


----------



## Maple (Nov 5, 2009)

nodoginnafight said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> > Yes it's so terrible that it actually manages to reduce costs,reduce the deficit,not raise taxes,and doesn't fine or imprison American Citizens for not having Health Insurance. Yea it's just so terrible. Hey I'll still take it over Reid & Pelosi's disastrous Behemoths any day.
> ...



The republican plan would reduce premiums by about 10%, making it much more affordable for people and small business to insure themselves and their employees. 

The problem which has existed is that health care premiums have continued to rise, making it unaffordable for millions of people. Get that cost reduced significantly and people will be able to afford it and they will purchase it.

It does not take a government take over to do this. There are private sector reforms that can take place that will significantly reduce the costs of health care insurance and increase the number of people who get health insurance, and reduce the deficit at the same time. That's what needs to happen here.

Anything short of accomplishing that will be a disaster for this country. The dems bill will only increase the taxes we pay on everything to support the public option, it will cause rationing and it will cut billions out of the medicare plan. It will also cost millions more to lose their jobs, business simply can't afford to pay an 8% payroll tax in fines to the government.


----------



## Maple (Nov 5, 2009)

ThePickledPunk said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > ThePickledPunk said:
> ...



I know one person who came down with cancer, had no health insurance, and medicaid picked up the total cost of her treatment, hospitalization, everything. To say that people are denied health care because they do not have health insurance is absolutely absurd. It just doesn't happen.


----------



## Emma (Nov 5, 2009)

ThePickledPunk said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...


You know what? 

Fuck you. 

I work oncology. I've watched people who've worked hard their entire life, done all the right things, saved and scrimped and put aside their nest eggs only to lose everything simply because they dared to come down with cancer. 

Or my coworker who is at retirement age and after spending _decades_ of her life devoted to caring for others, continues to work in spite of her _own_ medical issues (and yes, she works more than one job) in order to pay off the mountain of medical debt incurred over the last 10 years caring for her son with MS (don't worry though, he died recently). 

Or the man we admitted for the third time with pneumonia, easily treated by antibiotics and MDIs; he too works in construction and as a laborer, but without insurance he can't afford the cost of the prescriptions that will actually cure his infection and the social worker can't find any assistance for which he would qualify. Of course, the infection not only doesn't go away because he isn't getting the full course of treatment, but continued half-assed antibiotic therapy only increases the chances of him developing resistance (hey! that affects you and yours, too. _now_ do you give a shit?) Haven't seen him in a while. Maybe he's dead too. 

So again. 

Fuck you.

Grayson was dead on.


----------



## DiamondDave (Nov 5, 2009)

Emma said:


> You know what?
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> ...



Caring does not mean that you are owed it.... as stated in my other post... 

I can care and feel bad for your situation.. I can care and help out a friend in need of my own choice and free will.. I can care and feel touched from a story and contribute to a charity.. I can volunteer my time as I care for others.. the list goes on....

But the use of 'giving a shit' or 'caring' is an attempt to incite an emotional response to the plea for your agenda.. thinking it can be used to get others to cave in their personal rights for your wish for a gain that you personally cannot or will not provide.. the problem is that is all great when seeking donations, but no so great with the concept of forced support thru taxation and mandated redistribution


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

Emma said:


> ThePickledPunk said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...



I wouldn't touch your filthy carcass with Barney Franks dick.  So you can keep hopin- but it aint gonna happen.  Lose sixty pounds, let your mullet grow out, and shave your pits and maybe I'll treat you to some doggie.  Not much you can do with your face except hide it.

Life aint fair.  I will not fuck you.  And you may think its unfair- but I really dont give a shit.  You are fat.  You are ugly.  I dont get that drunk.   As for your friend with cancer- why does she not have insurance?  Why should she not use her nest egg- because she wants a comfy retirement?  She has cancer, you bushpushin dyke.  Its fuckin expensive, with or without insurance.

And your coworker.  Whats her excuse.  Im bettin she doesn't make em- you do for her.


----------



## Emma (Nov 5, 2009)

ThePickledPunk said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > ThePickledPunk said:
> ...


Point out where in that post I stated I have a friend with cancer who is uninsured. 

Learn some basic reading and comprehension skills and get back to us, moron.


----------



## shane (Nov 5, 2009)

Healthcare as i state in my blog is a ever growing issue that noone will be truly happy with.
We shouldnt be forced into buying healthcare, and we need tort reform.
Instead of their proposed options, I am a true and firm believer in Tort Reform. Tort reform will help take the pressure off the doctors. With tort reform, doctors wont have to run all theses unnecessary tests just to cover their butts. This also would yield billions of dollars by lifting the ever rising cost of malpractice insurance and, as mentioned above, take away defensive medicine. 

A doctor, before even opening the door of his office, is hit with some 200,000 dollar malpractice insurance charge. Who exactly do you think will be paying this large sum of money for insurance? Youre misguided if you believe your doctor is going to foot this bill. They will simply pass this price onto the consumer making prices skyrocket all because greedy humans go after very rare mistakes that may be made (I blame the lawyers more than the humans in the lawsuits, mostly because of the high cost of lawyer fees).


----------



## Mike458877 (Nov 5, 2009)

Emma said:


> ThePickledPunk said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...




Emma, I understand your passion and your frustration. Though I don't agree with your choice of words for personal expression, that is your choice. 

We in our family also understand these frustrations as many in the family are in healthcare, here and in Europe. Clearly Emma anytime a person cannot receive the needed care due to money, it is wrong. With that I myself can agree 100%. In fact Emma I work daily with just those people and I myself was in that boat and still am to a degree. No, I do not have cancer, but I do suffer from a chronic disease which almost took my life. 

However, even with all of this understood, we must be very careful about how we go about fixing what needs fixed and salvaging all of the things which are right about the quality of our medical care. 

One side wants to hit the problem with a nuclear weapon and change it all into a structured plan which is a proven failure and which also makes people suffer. If anyone doubts this travel to the villages in Europe and speak to the people. 

The other side want to throw a pebble on a problem which is much greater than that. 

We need better thinking, better solutions and this problem cannot be solved in a few months in Washington. We must do better! I feel we can do better, but, it is going to take a great deal more than rushing through legislation on such a complicated problem. 

As you are in the field then you know full well that the problem is not the quality of care or medical science in this nation. So why do anything which could threaten that? Further, why tear down only to build a model which has also been proven to leave people suffering, physically, emotionally and financially? 

Emma, we can do better and we must demand that both sides work to do better. They (both sides) need to get this damn political ideology out of the mix and deal with the nuts and bolts of the situation. 

Again, I certainly respect and understand your passion and frustration. I know it's real and I know you care, but, let's be the people we are and demand the best, not total change or half measures! 

Just my thoughts.

Mike


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Nov 5, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > You _really_ believe private charity can pick up the slack?
> ...



Charities can only act as a safety net when the economy is sound enough to enable charitable giving.  When the economy crashes, the charities are among the hardest hit.

That's the basic reason that many of the Federal Welfare programs came into being in the 30's and 40's.  The need was there prior to that. The need is always there.  However, in the face of an economic collapse the traditional ways of meeting that need failed.

That's why health care is an issue now.  As people lose their jobs, even the privately insured are losing their insurance.  Those uninsured still get sick, only now with greater frequency as their decreased income translates to decreased nutrition and a lack of preventative medicine.  Health care costs money they can't afford, so they sink deeper into debt, declare bankruptcy, etc, and we with insurance pay the bills.


----------



## Emma (Nov 5, 2009)

Thanks. I normally don't react in such a manner, but the snarky comment (_"I am sure that is not the first time they were "victims"'_) put me over that edge and I stand by what I said to that idiot.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Nov 5, 2009)

ThePickledPunk said:


> If I fail to get insurance, fail to save up for a medical emergency, and end up in an emergency room, how would you describe my decision-making process?



If you can't get insurance due to a pre-existing condition (Which is common), then it doesn't matter how much you save.  You'll still be wiped out.  Dad's final hospital stay cost $80,000.  Thank god insurance covered most of that.  What it didn't cover life insurance and us kids did.

I've got pretty solid savings and investments and I make x2 what my Dad made and an $80,000.00 hospital bill woud wipe me out.


----------



## Emma (Nov 5, 2009)

Dr.Traveler said:


> ThePickledPunk said:
> 
> 
> > If I fail to get insurance, fail to save up for a medical emergency, and end up in an emergency room, how would you describe my decision-making process?
> ...


My patients often talk to me about their medical bills. It hits them all hard. One lady recently told me the maintenance meds she has to take to stay alive cost her over $25K a month. Who the hell can afford that?


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Nov 5, 2009)

Emma said:


> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > ThePickledPunk said:
> ...



Nobody.  That's the problem.

There are Pharmacy companies that give out prescriptions to help folks.  Dad struggled with Epilepsy his whole life, and the medications that allowed him to have a somewhat normal life (Only 1-2 seizures a day) were astronomical.  Forutnately, he was able to get hooked up with a program that got him his meds for free.

Dad got his insurance through Mom's work towards the end of his life.  Thank god for that.  If he hadn't got insurance at the end, then my Mom would be wiped out and us kids would be in serious trouble.

That's what's at stake here.  The current medical system is such that you can be completely wiped out from just one hospitalization.  If you don't have, or can't get insurance then its game over.


----------



## Oldandtired (Nov 5, 2009)

The CBO's non partisan role is to offer a non paretisan analysis.

WHen the CBO came out with numbers that criticized the HR 3200, the libs and the dems kicked and screamed about how the CBO is usually never right.

Now the CBO comes out with an anlaysis of a GOP altrernative, and the CBO is ALWAYS opn target.

Interestingly, has anyone heard the GOP say the CBO is clueless like the dems did a few months back?


----------



## Emma (Nov 5, 2009)

Dr.Traveler said:


> If you can't get insurance due to a pre-existing condition (Which is common), then it doesn't matter how much you save.



Insurance will pick up on _anything_ to claim "pre-existing condition", even if that information is _false_. I was denied insurance while I was in school because of a pre-existing 'biliary tract disorder'. I had no such thing. Turns out they'd taken my doc's admitting diagnosis from a few years before ("rule out gallbladder disease") as justification to claim I had such a disorder. And btw, I did not have gallbladder disease. Just a case of gastroenteritis from a bug of some sort.


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Nov 5, 2009)

There is still Government funding of Abortion in the Democratic plan. The Fining and possible imprisoning of Citizens for not having Health Insurance is still in the Democratic plan as well. For these two reasons alone i cannot support the Democratic plan. The Republican Plan really does seem more reasonable and coherent. Lets hope many politicians step up and agree with me. It's going to take both Democrats and Republicans to vote this mammoth debacle down. It is vital to this nation that we see Pelosi and Reid fail. Hey just my opinion anyway.


----------



## Emma (Nov 5, 2009)

Dr.Traveler said:


> Nobody.  That's the problem.
> 
> There are Pharmacy companies that give out prescriptions to help folks.  Dad struggled with Epilepsy his whole life, and the medications that allowed him to have a somewhat normal life (Only 1-2 seizures a day) were astronomical.  Forutnately, he was able to get hooked up with a program that got him his meds for free.
> 
> ...


And that is just screwed up.


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

Emma said:


> ThePickledPunk said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...



If she is insured, she is not a good example of why we need the government involved more than they already are in insurance.  Learn some critical thinking skills, bitchtits.


----------



## Meister (Nov 5, 2009)

ThePickledPunk said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > ThePickledPunk said:
> ...



They make money at one point in a life, and shell it out at another point in a life.  If the person waits until after he needs the insurance, then he's denied for pre existing conditions...who's fault is that?  Not mine, that's why I don't believe in public option for those who could have afforded insurance.
You want people to pay for your stupidity...nope.  It's like having no auto insurance, and then want to buy it after an accident to pay for the accident...life doesn't work like that.
You seem to be pretty dense, or willy nilly with MY money.
If a person doesn't want insurance...maybe he should put up a $500,000 bond in lieu of insurance...I would go for that.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Nov 5, 2009)

Emma said:


> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody.  That's the problem.
> ...



Its getting worse.  Everytime someone goes bankrupt from Medical expenses, or flat out can't pay, that debt doesn't just dissapear.  It gets absorbed by higher costs, fueling more bankruptcies or skipping out on the bill, meaning higher costs....

It just isn't stopping.


----------



## DiamondDave (Nov 5, 2009)

Dr.Traveler said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...



Healthcare is an issue, but a personal one... while it feels good to say that we want to help others... the government is not to be there for your feelings

Charities suffer with a down economy, but so does taxation... so that argument means nothing to me....

As for preventative medicine and 'decreased nutrition', that is on you... I don't care if you have to beg, if you have to work picking lima beans, or if you have to work as a stripper... your personal needs are your personal responsibility.. you don't get to take away my personal rights for your personal benefit..


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Nov 5, 2009)

I keep hearing this, but given the numbers I keep hearing, I alone should know several people who have been "wiped out"

Yet, I know no one and I know no one who knows ANYBODY who has been wiped out.  Sounds like more liberal scare tactics to me.  BTW - according to the libs I should have drowned due to sealevel rise, dehydrated due to no water, frozen to death AND burned to death by now.

Gee.  Really?


----------



## Maple (Nov 5, 2009)

Emma said:


> Thanks. I normally don't react in such a manner, but the snarky comment (_"I am sure that is not the first time they were "victims"'_) put me over that edge and I stand by what I said to that idiot.




Emma, there are solutions in the private sector and I would think that you would be concerned about a national take over of our health care system, especially being that you are a health care provider. 

I really would not think that you, as a professional, would want to be placed under government control. I realize that the insurance industry needs to be reformed so that more people can be covered, but that public option would overwhelm health care providers to a point that rationing would have to go into place and of course, reduce the quality of care we now enjoy. It's unreasonable to think that we can insure an additional 40million people and retain quality with the same number of physicians and health care providers we have today. It's just not possible.

There are other solutions and this all can be handled in a step by step fashion with a reasonable outcome for all. We need to take small steps with this because if we allow the federal government full control of our health care options, we will end up with a health care system that has the compassion of the IRS, the efficiency of the Postal Service and will look like the aftermath of Katrina.

" A government big enough to give you everything you need is big enough to take everything you have." Thomas Jefferson


----------



## Emma (Nov 5, 2009)

ThePickledPunk said:


> If she is insured, she is not a good example of why we need the government involved more than they already are in insurance.  Learn some critical thinking skills, bitchtits.



I haven't said anything on this thread about a friend with cancer, dumbass.


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

Dr.Traveler said:


> ThePickledPunk said:
> 
> 
> > If I fail to get insurance, fail to save up for a medical emergency, and end up in an emergency room, how would you describe my decision-making process?
> ...



Insurance is not meant to cover pre-existing conditions.  You really want to purchase a policy BEFORE the car accident...


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Nov 5, 2009)

And I know four people in my life who have confronted cancer -

My Dad - finally dies of old age at 88 - NOT wiped out.
My friend - Dead from cancer - NOT wiped out financially.
My friend - Survivor, NOT wiped out.
Coworker - Survivor - NOT wiped out.


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

Meister said:


> ThePickledPunk said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



I agree wholeheartedly with everything you have said, except the "you want people to pay for your stupidity" part.


----------



## DiamondDave (Nov 5, 2009)

Dr.Traveler said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Traveler said:
> ...



And most everyone is just one civil lawsuit judgment away from being completely wiped out.. You get a government bailout for that too??

Most everyone is one tornado, hurricane, or rock slide away from being wiped out... you get free housing at the expense of everyone else now too because you are simply owed it?

Most everyone is one good robbery away from losing all that they own.. You get full replacement of all your stuff from the government, at taxpayer expense, for that too??

Personal shit happens in life... that bad can bring us all to the brink.. does not mean we are owed or entitled to a reset button at the expense of others


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Nov 5, 2009)

ThePickledPunk said:


> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > ThePickledPunk said:
> ...



Right now, it doesn't matter what your pre-existing condition is.  If you have one, you get refused coverage for all of your future illnesses.

You seem to be intentionally missing the point.  Insurance is not available to people with pre-existing conditions, and health care costs are now high enough you can be wiped out in one visit, even if you save an enormous amount of your income against a rainy day.

The reason we all should care, is that when someone is wiped out, the rest of us pay the bill.


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

Emma said:


> ThePickledPunk said:
> 
> 
> > If she is insured, she is not a good example of why we need the government involved more than they already are in insurance.  Learn some critical thinking skills, bitchtits.
> ...



you still have a fat ass and I still wont sleep with you.  You did mention a woman with cancer that apparently has insurance as an example of why we need a public option.


----------



## Maple (Nov 5, 2009)

Dr.Traveler said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...



I am hearing horror stories from people who are looking for jobs many have been out of work for over a year. If you look at the exit polling in the Virginia and New Jersey elections, they all stated that the economy was the first of their concerns, health care was way down the list.

When you don't have a job, you don't have money to pay for rent, food, clothing, anything. There's the priority right now, it's not health care, it's jobs and the economy.


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

Dr.Traveler said:


> ThePickledPunk said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Traveler said:
> ...



Funny- but i had back surgery in 2002.  And my insurance covers current treatment for back pain.  Now,  When my disc slipped and I sought coverage, I understand why no insurance company would touch me.


----------



## Emma (Nov 5, 2009)

ThePickledPunk said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > ThePickledPunk said:
> ...


No I didn't, moron. It was Maple who posted that, dipshit. 



Maple said:


> I know one person who came down with cancer, had no health insurance, and medicaid picked up the total cost of her treatment, hospitalization, everything. To say that people are denied health care because they do not have health insurance is absolutely absurd. It just doesn't happen.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Nov 5, 2009)

Your post misses the point.  Let me explain.



DiamondDave said:


> And most everyone is just one civil lawsuit judgment away from being completely wiped out.. You get a government bailout for that too??



If you get wiped out because you get sued, I won't end up paying that bill.  So no, I don't see the need for a bailout.



> Most everyone is one tornado, hurricane, or rock slide away from being wiped out... you get free housing at the expense of everyone else now too because you are simply owed it?



If your home gets wiped out, I won't be paying your bills.  So no.  I don't see the need for a bailout.



> Most everyone is one good robbery away from losing all that they own.. You get full replacement of all your stuff from the government, at taxpayer expense, for that too??



If your house gets robbed, I won't be the one paying your bills, so no.  No bailout.



> Personal shit happens in life... that bad can bring us all to the brink.. does not mean we are owed or entitled to a reset button at the expense of others



Unfortunately though, when it comes to health care those that can't pay are already getting a bailout at everyone else's expense.  The reason healthcare is different from every situation you listed is because *if you get wiped out by a medical bill, I'll end up having to pay it.*


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Nov 5, 2009)

ThePickledPunk said:


> Funny- but i had back surgery in 2002.  And my insurance covers current treatment for back pain.  Now,  When my disc slipped and I sought coverage, I understand why no insurance company would touch me.



Are you saying you can't get insurance now?

Great.  So if you get sick before they pass universal health care then you're yet another person I'll end up paying for.  Just great.

If that's not what you're saying, then I don't understand what your post has to do with mine.


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

Emma said:


> ThePickledPunk said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...



Toche.  But your ass is still fat.


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

Quote: Originally Posted by DiamondDave  

And most everyone is just one civil lawsuit judgment away from being completely wiped out.. You get a government bailout for that too??
If you get wiped out because you get sued, I won't end up paying that bill. So no, I don't see the need for a bailout.


of course you will.  In exactly the same way we "pay" for the uninsured.  Higher costs.


----------



## DiamondDave (Nov 5, 2009)

Dr.Traveler said:


> Your post misses the point.  Let me explain.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not if you don't choose many of the in system options..

Personally.. I think hospitals and doctors should be allowed to turn away non-emergency cases who have no means to pay.. Personally I think if you are caught spending money on entertainment while you say you can't pay for your bill for your broken arm, you should be sued and incarcerated like if you were caught being a phony with a disability claim

There are plenty of examples where you would pay... You pay on the expenses for your next car loan for someone's delinquent ass costing the company money... You pay on the next trip to Sears when Joe Blow drunkenly rides a van into the store and causes many thousands of dollars in damage when inventory must be replaced, insurance premiums go up, etc... it is a finite world and many things effect each other... still does not mean you are inherently or legally owed something to take care of your own personal needs


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

Dr.Traveler said:


> ThePickledPunk said:
> 
> 
> > Funny- but i had back surgery in 2002.  And my insurance covers current treatment for back pain.  Now,  When my disc slipped and I sought coverage, I understand why no insurance company would touch me.
> ...



Nope-  I have great insurance.  Me and my wife are covered for about 250 a month.  My point is that insurance should not cover preexisting conditions.


----------



## Polk (Nov 5, 2009)

nodoginnafight said:


> It appears there are those who are so entrenched in hyper-partisan rhetoric, that they will pay double what they should be paying just to protect  their rhetoric.
> 
> Sad and tragic .... but not completely unexpected.



Of course they would.


----------



## Polk (Nov 5, 2009)

ThePickledPunk said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > It appears there are those who are so entrenched in hyper-partisan rhetoric, that they will pay double what they should be paying just to protect  their rhetoric.
> ...



And now we just venture into more meaningless rhetoric which assumes that most people without health insurance could easily afford it but are just too cheap to buy it.


----------



## Polk (Nov 5, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> But those facilities and hospitals should be allowed to take action (including legal action) to recover the monies they are owed by those who do not pay....



They are have that ability, but as the old expression goes "you can't get blood from a turnip".


----------



## Polk (Nov 5, 2009)

Emma said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> > ThePickledPunk said:
> ...



Ayup. Anyone who has worked in healthcare will say tell you that, which is why my uncle, who is a rapid conservative on pretty much every other issue I can think of, supports universal health care.


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

Polk said:


> ThePickledPunk said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...



Them's your words.  Whether or not someone can afford health insurance is not my concern, nor my problem.  There will always be people who cant afford it, and those that refuse to pay for it.  The real question is why those folks have prioritized their lives the way the have, and whether the shortcomings of the path they have taken should be resolved by the rest of us.


----------



## Polk (Nov 5, 2009)

Emma said:


> ThePickledPunk said:
> 
> 
> > ThePickledPunk said:
> ...



Then he'd say you shouldn't have chose to have a preexisting condition.


----------



## amrchaos (Nov 5, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10705/hr3962amendmentBoehner.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That is only due to the fact that the polpulation wouuld grow by then.


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

Polk said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > ThePickledPunk said:
> ...



Right.  I suppose we ought to force insurance to cover accidents that happen before coverage was obtained.  Good idea.  Cant see any problem with that plan....


----------



## Polk (Nov 5, 2009)

ThePickledPunk said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > ThePickledPunk said:
> ...



Those aren't my words. That's your attitude. Of course, you won't say in that callous of a matter, but that's your belief.


----------



## Polk (Nov 5, 2009)

ThePickledPunk said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...



This just goes to show you don't know jack shit about the topic. No one is saying that you should be able to get insurance to cover an operation you had last year. What is being said is that it's asinine that if a man beat his wife twenty years, she can't get any insurance coverage today.


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

Polk said:


> ThePickledPunk said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



No, its not my belief.  I am well aware that there are many reasons so many people cant afford insurance.  And for the vast majority their inability is self chosen.  If you wait until you get cancer to try to get health insurance- its your own damn fault no private insurer will take you.  You gambled, you lost.  

If you own a car, have cable and internet access, and live in a three bedroom home when you could live in a one bedroom apt for half as much, yet you do not have health insurance- that's your doing.  

If you are thirty-five and working as a WalMart greeter and cant afford insurance- Im ok with that.


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

Polk said:


> ThePickledPunk said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



any evidence that this has ever happened, and if it did, how frequently?  WHich insurers denied her?


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

Polk said:


> ThePickledPunk said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



perhaps your issue is not with denying pre-existing conditions- but with what insurers consider pre-existing conditions....


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

Polk said:


> ThePickledPunk said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



and I wasn't talking about an operation I had las year.  I was talking about an illness that strikes when one is uninsured.  IE a preexisting condition


----------



## Polk (Nov 5, 2009)

ThePickledPunk said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > ThePickledPunk said:
> ...



If you have a preexisting condition, you will not be issued a policy. You've been working on the assumption that a preexisting condition bars you from getting coverage for that condition. It doesn't. It prevents you from getting coverage at all.

And insurers are allowed to consider domestic violence is a preexisting condition is eight states and the District of Columbia. 

Domestic violence as pre-existing condition? 8 states still allow it | McClatchy


----------



## Polk (Nov 5, 2009)

ThePickledPunk said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > ThePickledPunk said:
> ...



That's the whole point. Everything is considered a pre-existing condition for everything else.


----------



## saveliberty (Nov 5, 2009)

The new Democrat plan is awaiting CBO number crunching.  Since the liberals and Dems are hawking them at the moment.  What do you think Obama should do if the number greater than his $900b. limit?  If it is a deficit builder?

It was less than $73b. away at 1500 pages.  It is now at 1900 pages.  Are 400 pages going to cost less than $73b.?


----------



## Polk (Nov 5, 2009)

lawfan said:


> Yay, let's sit around talking about the Republicans plan that doesn't have a half a chance of passing instead of discussing the majority's bill that's only marginally better and way more expensive!



Because the difference between covering three million more people and covering 30 more is marginal.


----------



## saveliberty (Nov 5, 2009)

Polk said:


> ThePickledPunk said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



Hmm... change a law in eight states versus modify the entire health care industry.  Which sounds cheaper to you?  Change everything for the 16% who have a problem.  Same logic behind fix health care coverage for the 10% who don't have it at the risk to the rest who do.  Not smart.


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

Polk said:


> ThePickledPunk said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



Ive been working under no such assumption.  You are- namely that if you have a preexisting condition you cant get coverage.  WHich is far too broad to be true.  I know.  I had back surgery in 2002 when I was uninsured.  While I was recovering, I was able to get insurance.


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

Polk said:


> ThePickledPunk said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



you have presented not a single case of a woman denied coverage because of domestic violence.


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

Polk said:


> ThePickledPunk said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



Wow.  Im surprised so many millions have insurance, what with your loony statement...


----------



## MikeHoncho (Nov 5, 2009)

what i think is interesting is how the democrats try to pick apart the repubs bill. they laugh at how it will only insure 3 million more. theyre missing the point. just because the dems plan covers 36 million more people isnt something to praise. they play up that statistic like its some accomplishment, yet they dont even acknowledge that the reason they are able to cover 36 more people is by way of force. if you mandate that everyone MUST have healthcare than its only obvious that more people will have it. its stupid to even give credit to such a faulty premise.


----------



## rdean (Nov 5, 2009)

Oops: CBO Says GOP Health Care Alternative Leaves 52 Million Uninsured By 2019 

Unless they "die quickly".  That would tidey things up nicely.


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

rdean said:


> Oops: CBO Says GOP Health Care Alternative Leaves 52 Million Uninsured By 2019
> 
> Unless they "die quickly".  That would tidey things up nicely.



When you consider the uninsured that could afford it and the illegals, we are left with a very workable number.


----------



## MikeHoncho (Nov 5, 2009)

its like saying if me and my buddy have a competition on who can raise the most money with a fundrasier and he goes out door to door and asks each person if they would like to purchase his product. but i go out and tell each person at gun point that they have to buy my product, who gets more products sold? 

then i turn and brag about how much more products i sold. that seems fair.


----------



## saveliberty (Nov 5, 2009)

rdean said:


> Oops: CBO Says GOP Health Care Alternative Leaves 52 Million Uninsured By 2019
> 
> Unless they "die quickly".  That would tidey things up nicely.



I would guess the new Democratic plan will leave those people and more uninsured as it bankrupts the country more.  I can see it now:  CBO says Democrat plan to leave ALL Americans without coverage by 2015.  After forcing private insurers out of business by 2014, the government plan will fall apart from its own weight and destroy the health care industry by early 2015.


----------



## Qball (Nov 5, 2009)

The CBO also said that the bill was deficit-neutral (whereas the Dems bill is unsustainable). Maybe we're coming to understand that you really can't cover everyone under universal health care...yes, even if you spend all the money in the world.


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

MikeHoncho said:


> its like saying if me and my buddy have a competition on who can raise the most money with a fundrasier and he goes out door to door and asks each person if they would like to purchase his product. but i go out and tell each person at gun point that they have to buy my product, who gets more products sold?
> 
> then i turn and brag about how much more products i sold. that seems fair.



of the unisinsured- 

6.4 million are the medicare undercount.  They mistakenly informed the census they do not have insurance.

4.5 million are eligible for current government insurance, but have not signed up.

9.3 million are non-citizens

10 million have incomes 3 x the poverty level

5 million are between the ages of 18 and 34 and have no kids.


----------



## MikeHoncho (Nov 5, 2009)

ThePickledPunk said:


> MikeHoncho said:
> 
> 
> > its like saying if me and my buddy have a competition on who can raise the most money with a fundrasier and he goes out door to door and asks each person if they would like to purchase his product. but i go out and tell each person at gun point that they have to buy my product, who gets more products sold?
> ...



nobody reads into the numbers thats my point. the talking point is 47 million. no one looks in to how that # breaks down because it would only expose them as fools. which they are.


----------



## Polk (Nov 5, 2009)

ThePickledPunk said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > ThePickledPunk said:
> ...



If you had read the article, you'd have seen examples.


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

MikeHoncho said:


> ThePickledPunk said:
> 
> 
> > MikeHoncho said:
> ...



the left will not look at the numbers honestly- because they have not been honest about their motivations.


----------



## Polk (Nov 5, 2009)

ThePickledPunk said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > ThePickledPunk said:
> ...



It's not a loony statement. It's why there are far more people without coverage than the number that purchase insurance in the individual market.


----------



## Polk (Nov 5, 2009)

Qball said:


> The CBO also said that the bill was deficit-neutral (whereas the Dems bill is unsustainable). Maybe we're coming to understand that you really can't cover everyone under universal health care...yes, even if you spend all the money in the world.



Actually, the CBO said the Democratic bill reduces the deficit in both the first and second decade.


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

Polk said:


> ThePickledPunk said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



apparently- you did not read the article- because it cited no example, beyond one lady saying she heard about this other lady....


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

Polk said:


> ThePickledPunk said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



yes it is a loony, hyper-exxageration so common place amongst lefties.  Everything is considered a pre-existing condition for everything else.... what a crock of shit.


----------



## MikeHoncho (Nov 5, 2009)

ThePickledPunk said:


> MikeHoncho said:
> 
> 
> > ThePickledPunk said:
> ...



exactly if they really cared about insuring people who couldnt get it, why wouldnt they just expand the meticade qualifications? what they are doing is essentially what people who mismanage their credit card debt. they dont want to own up to the delequent credit card (medicare/medicade) they just transfer the balance to a new card, and magically the problem just went away. sorry the problem never goes away. it just manifests into something bigger. how people cant see it that way is beyond me.


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

Polk said:


> ThePickledPunk said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



Im not suprised that you do not see it as loony, given that you think hearsay anecdotes qualify for examples.


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

MikeHoncho said:


> ThePickledPunk said:
> 
> 
> > MikeHoncho said:
> ...



because it is human nature to gravitate towards handouts.


----------



## Meister (Nov 5, 2009)

Polk said:


> ThePickledPunk said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



Please explain that...because it really doesn't make any sense


----------



## Meister (Nov 5, 2009)

Polk said:


> Qball said:
> 
> 
> > The CBO also said that the bill was deficit-neutral (whereas the Dems bill is unsustainable). Maybe we're coming to understand that you really can't cover everyone under universal health care...yes, even if you spend all the money in the world.
> ...


The first decade is paid going forward, as we would be taxed immediately, and no benefits until 2013, and not up to speed until 2015.  The second decade is too far out and according to the CBO, to be precise as to specific costs.


----------



## Mr. Peepers (Nov 5, 2009)

> If I fail to get insurance, fail to save up for a medical emergency, and end up in an emergency room, how would you describe my decision-making process?



If you make $10 an hour, which is now becoming the norm for entry level jobs, how on EARTH can you afford to:

1.  Get any insurance, including company offered.
2.  Afford to save any money at all, especially for an emergency health fund.
3.  Make any other decision other than to go to the ER if you are truly ill and can't afford to pay full price at a clinic.

My colleague in New Jersey is getting laid off at the end of November from job paying $40k a year.  Every job that she has interviewed for is paying $10 or less because there is so much competition for jobs, desperate people are taking anything to have money coming in.  That's less than HALF of what she used to make. Oh, and she was diagnosed with MS this past year, so she'll probably have a field day getting covered.  Yeah, she's SO irresponsible.  And where do you suppose these extra two and three part time jobs are, hmm?  You are truly not living in the real world.

Health care is completely out of reach for all but the extremely wealthy.  Private and company insurance is out of reach for the majorty of the people in this country seeing as the average income is 40K.  It's one thing if you're single on that amount, but if you're supporting a family, forget about it.  The insurance companies care about nothing but profit.  We will have an alternative one way or another.  Get used to it.


----------



## DiamondDave (Nov 5, 2009)

Mr. Peepers said:


> > If I fail to get insurance, fail to save up for a medical emergency, and end up in an emergency room, how would you describe my decision-making process?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ever consider getting 2 $10 an hour jobs?? Ever consider advancing yourself you be qualified for jobs that pay more???

Luxury skybox tickets are out of reach for me too.. and I would want them really bad.. does that mean I am owed that too at someone else's expense??? How about wanting to sustain myself on the all black truffle die?? You supposed to provide that too???


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

Mr. Peepers said:


> > If I fail to get insurance, fail to save up for a medical emergency, and end up in an emergency room, how would you describe my decision-making process?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My wife and I receive healthcare.  We live on 70k a year.....in San Diego.  Not exactly rich.  And over 200 million people in this country have health insurance.  Of those that dont, only about ten million truly cannot afford it.  You are hysterical.


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> Mr. Peepers said:
> 
> 
> > > If I fail to get insurance, fail to save up for a medical emergency, and end up in an emergency room, how would you describe my decision-making process?
> ...



Maybe you are not owed skybox tickets, but we really should be forced to at least give you tickets in the first twenty rows.


----------



## saveliberty (Nov 5, 2009)

Mr. Peepers said:


> > If I fail to get insurance, fail to save up for a medical emergency, and end up in an emergency room, how would you describe my decision-making process?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Dems say 47 million are not covered with 300 million Americans.  Sounds like 253 million have coverage.  That leaves it out of reach for no more than 47 million.  Of those, some just don't want coverage or can't afford COBRA.


----------



## Mr. Peepers (Nov 5, 2009)

> Ever consider getting 2 $10 an hour jobs??



Well considering it's next to impossible to get ONE $10 an hour job, sure.  It's not like she's turning them down.  And skybox tickets won't bankrupt you, ruin your credit or make you lose your house if you don't get them.  Tickets are a want, not a need.  Health insurance is a need if you are not wealthy.  You need to be healthy and able to work.  You need to work to make money.  If you don't make enough money, you can't afford health insurance.  If you don't have health insurance and get really sick, you can lose your job.  If you can't work, you can't make money.  See the cycle dumb neocons?



> My wife and I receive healthcare. We live on 70k a year.....in San Diego. Not exactly rich. And over 200 million people in this country have health insurance. Of those that dont, only about ten million truly cannot afford it. You are hysterical.



If I lost my job tomorrow, there is no way I could afford health insurance.  I can barely afford what I'm paying now with my company insurance.  70K a year is a lot of money, no matter where you are.  You don't see anything wrong with this picture?  It's okay to be one job loss and one major sickness away from complete financial and credit ruin because I don't make enough to significantly "save for an emergency"?  Yeah, I could get another 2 or 3 jobs if I never slept.


----------



## saveliberty (Nov 5, 2009)

Mr. Peepers said:


> > Ever consider getting 2 $10 an hour jobs??
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yet the government is going to fine you if you don't pay for coverage.  What is your problem.  Get insurance Mr. Unemployed.


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

Mr. Peepers said:


> > Ever consider getting 2 $10 an hour jobs??
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Health Insurance is not a necessity.  It is a want.  Just like a car- and for many, even less important.  70k a year is not a lot of money in SD- I assure you.  We have one car, live in an apartment, and live paycheck to paycheck.  We are not wealthy.  And neither are most of the 200 million + that have insurance.  And yes,  it is perfectly ok to be one job loss and one major illness away from financial ruin.  Millions live that way.  What happens to the family with a single earner that does not purchase life insurance, and dies unexpectedly?  FInancial ruin.  Should government provide life insurance as well?  Why cant you take care of yourself when so many can?


----------



## amrchaos (Nov 5, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> Then all they have to do is BUY IT THEM-FUCKING-SELVES
> 
> You have the choice to buy insurance or not.. as long as it is made available, it is upon you to do what it takes to purchase it for yourself if you want it... and that is what this and other options are about... not some fairytale leftist wish for healthcare provided to you by the government at the expense of someone else





What the left is trying to do/say is that some people cannot afford healthcare at the present cost and are going uninsured.

Since Hospitals take anyone that is injured, the hospitals need to have a method of covering their finances so they can hold up their obligations to society.  So this is really about keeping the hospitals afloat.

Translation--about covering the nations medical expenses--including those that cannot pay.   Two more steps and you at the the left belief in UHC. (Of course, one step is a political step to the left.)


----------



## Mr. Peepers (Nov 5, 2009)

Obviously, I do take care of myself.  I have health insurance SO THAT I CAN GO TO THE DOCTOR IF I NEED TO.  And yes,  I do see health care as a need.  It is a need for public health for one, especially with all the pandemics to come due to our overuse of antibiotics in the food supply.  It is a need for the future productivity and prosperity of this country.  If you can't see that, you're less bright than I thought.  I certainly do not want to live in the country that you people want.  If it ever becomes the callous, brutal and joyless place ruled by corporations and the wealthy... wait - sounds familiar - hello Russia!... I will want no part of it.


----------



## amrchaos (Nov 5, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> Mr. Peepers said:
> 
> 
> > > If I fail to get insurance, fail to save up for a medical emergency, and end up in an emergency room, how would you describe my decision-making process?
> ...



No one is talking about Luxury skybox tickets--which is a luxury item.

What is being referred to is health coverage which has become a necessity.

In a down economy--the ability to hold on to 2 jobs should be considered difficult.  Also it takes time and planning to advance oneself while trying to survive.

The concept of trying to solve the problem in terms of "individual responsibility" hinges on the concept that individual can  actually achieve the goal intended.  In this case, the individual may not be able to and survive(at least for the time required to do the things you suggests).  Thus the attractiveness of a collective solution.


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

Mr. Peepers said:


> Obviously, I do take care of myself.  I have health insurance SO THAT I CAN GO TO THE DOCTOR IF I NEED TO.  And yes,  I do see health care as a need.  It is a need for public health for one, especially with all the pandemics to come due to our overuse of antibiotics in the food supply.  It is a need for the future productivity and prosperity of this country.  If you can't see that, you're less bright than I thought.  I certainly do not want to live in the country that you people want.  If it ever becomes the callous, brutal and joyless place ruled by corporations and the wealthy... wait - sounds familiar - hello Russia!... I will want no part of it.



so why should the government not also provide life insurance?  Millions of families would be wrecked if their breadwinner died suddenly.  Why dont you care about those people you big stupid callous meanie?


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

Mr. Peepers said:


> Obviously, I do take care of myself.  I have health insurance SO THAT I CAN GO TO THE DOCTOR IF I NEED TO.  And yes,  I do see health care as a need.  It is a need for public health for one, especially with all the pandemics to come due to our overuse of antibiotics in the food supply.  It is a need for the future productivity and prosperity of this country.  If you can't see that, you're less bright than I thought.  I certainly do not want to live in the country that you people want.  If it ever becomes the callous, brutal and joyless place ruled by corporations and the wealthy... wait - sounds familiar - hello Russia!... I will want no part of it.



Russia has nationalized health insurance, sweetie.


----------



## Mr. Peepers (Nov 5, 2009)

> so why should the government not also provide life insurance?



Life insurance costs next to nothing.  Medical care costs more than most people can even begin to afford. And by the way, Russia is not "nationalized".  30% of the money coming in comes from payroll taxes and workers are required to BUY health insurance.  Oh, and don't forget about the under the table bribes you have to pay to be treated.  Hey, free market!

Russian health-care system badly ailing<br> Graft is rife, staffing short in the nation's poorly equipped hospitals,and it shows in death rates - Chicago Tribune

Russia has some of the worst health care anywhere... unless you're wealthy.


----------



## Polk (Nov 5, 2009)

Meister said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > ThePickledPunk said:
> ...



It makes perfect sense. The number of people buying insurance as individuals is smaller than the number who are uninsured.


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

Mr. Peepers said:


> > so why should the government not also provide life insurance?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The death of a wage earner is, in most cases, far more financially disastrous than medical care.  Why shouldn't the government insure every wage earner?  Why are you so mean and heartless?


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

Polk said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



I am sure you have some factual basis to support this


----------



## saveliberty (Nov 5, 2009)

ThePickledPunk said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



"The percentages of people covered by private health insurance and by employment-based health insurance both decreased slightly in 2007, the Census numbers showed, although the number of those covered by employment-based insurance, 177.4 million, was not statistically different from 2006."

Census: Fewer Americans Lack Health Insurance - 8/26/2008 - insurancenewsnet.com

Just Polk talking out his ass again.


----------



## Emma (Nov 5, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> Personally.. I think hospitals and doctors should be allowed to turn away non-emergency cases who have no means to pay.



They can.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 5, 2009)

nodoginnafight said:


> It appears there are those who are so entrenched in hyper-partisan rhetoric, that they will pay double what they should be paying just to protect  their rhetoric.
> 
> Sad and tragic .... but not completely unexpected.


Look who's talking about remaining entrenched in their hyper-partisan rhetoric! 

BTW, who is to say what anyone "should be paying" for this or that?


----------



## Mr. Peepers (Nov 5, 2009)

> The death of a wage earner is, in most cases, far more financially disastrous than medical care.



That is untrue and you know it.  

Medical Bills Leading Cause of Bankruptcy, Harvard Study Finds


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

Mr. Peepers said:


> > The death of a wage earner is, in most cases, far more financially disastrous than medical care.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Just because medical bills are the leading cause of BK does not mean that medical bills tend to be more disastrous financially than the death of a primary wage earner.  Remember- you can recover from BK....   nice try, though.


----------



## Mr. Peepers (Nov 5, 2009)

Yes, actually, it does.  If you lose your spouse, you can still work.  If you get cancer, or have a heart attack or stroke with no insurance, then lose your job and house due to unpaid (or unpayable) medical bills, it makes things a wee bit harder.  How many people lose their "breadwinner" - (aren't all people required to win bread at this point?), compared to those being ruined by a $500,000 medical bill.  Come on!  Open your partisan eyes.  If there were a true low cost option with teeth, there wouldn't be an issue, but there ISN'T.


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

Mr. Peepers said:


> Yes, actually, it does.  If you lose your spouse, you can still work.  If you get cancer, or have a heart attack or stroke with no insurance, then lose your job and house due to unpaid (or unpayable) medical bills, it makes things a wee bit harder.  How many people lose their "breadwinner" - (aren't all people required to win bread at this point?), compared to those being ruined by a $500,000 medical bill.  Come on!  Open your partisan eyes.  If there were a true low cost option with teeth, *there wouldn't be an issue,* but there ISN'T.



Liberal lala land.  If only we could enact (insert social program) life would be a wonderland of daisies amidst fields of green, where unicorns would prance and faeries flitter....


----------



## DiamondDave (Nov 5, 2009)

ThePickledPunk said:


> Mr. Peepers said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, actually, it does.  If you lose your spouse, you can still work.  If you get cancer, or have a heart attack or stroke with no insurance, then lose your job and house due to unpaid (or unpayable) medical bills, it makes things a wee bit harder.  How many people lose their "breadwinner" - (aren't all people required to win bread at this point?), compared to those being ruined by a $500,000 medical bill.  Come on!  Open your partisan eyes.  If there were a true low cost option with teeth, *there wouldn't be an issue,* but there ISN'T.
> ...



And the guy only means low cost for SOME.... 

Because... that way others that they deem 'evil' can pay more to make up for it....  because only selective equality matters... not equal treatment under the law.. forced equal results for their pet project group

Or if not that, they can deem how much a Dr. makes is 'enough'.. or how much profit for an office or a hospital or a drug company or whatever else is 'enough'... expanding that power of government to control what you can get for your talent and services... 

With the freedom to succeed comes the freedom to fail... and that makes them FEEL bad.. so they selectively try and safety net to 'protect' from failure, by infringing on the freedom of others


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 5, 2009)

Bingo.


----------



## Polk (Nov 5, 2009)

ThePickledPunk said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...









16% > 5%


----------



## Polk (Nov 5, 2009)

saveliberty said:


> ThePickledPunk said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



At no point does that article state that more people are covered by individual insurance purchase than are uninsured.


----------



## DiamondDave (Nov 6, 2009)

Mr. Peepers said:


> > Ever consider getting 2 $10 an hour jobs??
> 
> 
> 
> ...



First off idiot, try and understand that there is a difference between a neo-con, a conservative, and a republican... before you make yourself look even more ignorant 

Second.. Healthcare or health insurance is not a NEED.. try understanding Maslovs hierarchy of needs, you twit.... health insurance is a want, a luxury... .water is a need, food is a need, shelter is a need.... and you are not OWED them by anyone either


----------



## HUGGY (Nov 6, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> Mr. Peepers said:
> 
> 
> > > Ever consider getting 2 $10 an hour jobs??
> ...



You're a real peach davey.  Its obvious that no americans were worthy of your service.


----------



## Care4all (Nov 6, 2009)

STOP the tax write -off to businesses on their taxes for their help in paying your health care....

see how long your company pays the coverage of it....

if we do not get health care costs in line, our businesses will not be able to compete globally, with all other country's businesses that do not pay for health care, but have a national health care plan paying for it through taxes.

we do need to discuss this aspect of health care.

more and more businesses are dropping their health care benefit, because they simply can not make a profit and keep their businesses alive, with it.

Also, why do we, the tax payer, have to pay 80% of the cost of all government civil service employee health care insurance....while we the tax payer, do not get the same privilege of our gvt paying for 80% of our health care when we are working as well?  what makes the man behind the counter at Unemployment or Welfare just handing out checks to people, or someone at baggage claim keeping the luggage on the moving ramp.... worthy of my tax dollars to pay for his health insurance?

IF we REALLY want government OUT OF HEALTH CARE and REALLY want the ''free market'' to work, then it should be OUT OF THE HEALTH CARE BUSINESS for EVERYONE....including those mentioned above and ALL those private businesses getting a tax break from us taxpayers, for it....

picking one area to be government free of help, WHILE enjoying your own government involvement and help through business tax write offs, or us tax payers paying it for you as a ''benefit'' to federal employees etc....

that's only logical, no?


----------



## saveliberty (Nov 6, 2009)

Polk said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > ThePickledPunk said:
> ...



No Polk it just tells you 177.4 million are covered by employment-based insurance.  You are supposed to know that Obama and the Dems use a number of about 47 million as uninsured.  Was that your best reply?  Lame ass Polk.  Go home.


----------



## Polk (Nov 6, 2009)

saveliberty said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



Notice I never said employment-based insurance. I specifically referred to policies purchased on the individual market. Learn to read.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 6, 2009)

Care4all said:


> STOP the tax write -off to businesses on their taxes for their help in paying your health care....
> 
> 
> ...that's only logical, no?


No...Go the other way with that one.

Make all medical expenses and insurance_* fully*_ tax deductible for all who purchase them on their own.

It's not commonly known that the self-employed don't enjoy the same full tax deduction for their insurance that larger companies do.


----------



## Meister (Nov 6, 2009)

Polk said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



And that is why I was confused with what you said, on such a stupid comparison.  Your looking at a small portion of the picture...try looking at the whole picture....like the 177 million.....plus the individual insurance...it dwarfs what your trying to spin.  A fail on your part


----------



## Polk (Nov 6, 2009)

Meister said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



The entire market isn't relevant to the discussion of provisions used by insurance companies to deny policies in the individual market.


----------



## Meister (Nov 6, 2009)

Polk said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...


oh brother...


----------



## Care4all (Nov 6, 2009)

Dude said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > STOP the tax write -off to businesses on their taxes for their help in paying your health care....
> ...



But isn;t THAT STILL *government manipulation* or *government "help"* or *Government being involved* in your health care?

(Though I happen to agree with you, we should get the SAME deduction as businesses do on our health care expenses)

I'm just trying to play devil's advocate so to say and understand these one liners that are continually said, like:  "I want government OUT OF HEALTH CARE" or "I don;t want government involved in Health Care"  etc....

And IF THE FREE MARKET were to be relied on to "Take care of this problem" if the government stayed out of it.....

Then this means OUT OF IT, including the funding of medical degrees to funding medical schools, to funding hospital emergency rooms, to funding the R and D for pharmaceuticals and other medical research, to giving tax breaks to companies for it, to not offering it to all federal emplyees, to MEDICAID and MEDICARE....

ONLY THEN, can we actually say, that the free market, was given a chance to work, and solve this "problem" of ours where prices are too high...imo.

And anything SHORT of THAT is just making excuses for ones own government help that they are benefiting from, while disregarding the need for others to get gvt help in another manner or means, again, imo.

care


----------



## Oddball (Nov 6, 2009)

Fair enough.....Given my druthers,  there'd be no direct tax on incomes and production at all.

As for the rest of it, I'm all on board for that too, up to and including the abolition of the FDA and returning of the screening/approval process to a market-based operation (i.e. Underwriter's Laboratories).


----------



## Polk (Nov 6, 2009)

Dude said:


> Fair enough.....Given my druthers,  there'd be no direct tax on incomes and production at all.
> 
> As for the rest of it, I'm all on board for that too, up to and including the abolition of the FDA and returning of the screening/approval process to a market-based operation (i.e. Underwriter's Laboratories).



Because, you know, that worked so well.


----------



## saveliberty (Nov 6, 2009)

Polk said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



Yes, I figured that was going to be your spin from many posts back.  Congress isn't trying to fix the problem in just the individual market are they?  They want to change the entire landscape of the industry.  That is why it is relevant.  If it was just the individual market, government could just allow across state line competition and reduce or eliminate pre-existing conditions.  Good luck getting out of the corner you painted yourself into.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 6, 2009)

Polk said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Fair enough.....Given my druthers,  there'd be no direct tax on incomes and production at all.
> ...


What the hell are you talking about?


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 6, 2009)

saveliberty said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



All the lefties efforts are just steps in the movement towards single payer healthcare and the destruction of insurance for profit.  At least some on this board, misguided as they may be, are willing to admit it.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 6, 2009)

What is relevant is this -- either the health insurance industry gets on board and begins accepting that it has responsibility to the health of America, or it goes buh-bye.


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 6, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> What is relevant is this -- either the health insurance industry gets on board and begins accepting that has responsibility to the health of America, or it goes buh-bye.



If the industry has acted within the bounds established, it has fulfilled its responsibility.  The same problems we currently have will be multiplied if the private industry goes "buh-bye" and the industry is taken over by the least efficient business model known to man.  Why transform something that benefits 200 million Americans, when other solutions are available to improve the current problems?

Answer:  because the current leftist desire for a single-payer system is motivated by a desire to "equalize" evryone's misery.  There are only about 10 million legitimately uninsured individuals.  Issues with denial of coverage can be tackled.  Skyrocketing costs will dramatically increase if there is no bottom-line for insurance providers to be concerned with.


----------



## saveliberty (Nov 6, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> What is relevant is this -- either the health insurance industry gets on board and begins accepting that has responsibility to the health of America, or it goes buh-bye.



Thanks for admitting you support a socialist government.  It amounts to a bloodless coup.


----------

