Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, El:

So, just ONE phone call and a form is ALL that stands in the way of getting a charity to pay some six figures worth of medical costs for an uninsured person...

Is that your story? You're sticking to that, huh? Like Barney Frank said to the dinning room table he was talking to at the time, what planet do you normally reside on?

---

That's exactly what I'm saying.

Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Or are you just making it up as you go along.

Those charities are DESIGNED to help people pay for the health care they otherwise can't afford. If they ain't doin' that, what are they there for?

So in essence you are saying that all of the charities listed by people on this website are ALL failing to do the job of helping people get healthcare... and so are ALL the insurance companies, ALL the hospitals that give free care to people who can't pay for it, AND so is Medicare and Medicaid. Nobody without insurance can get their health care from ANY of these organizations, according to your argument.

All of these are failures at accomplishing their stated goals.

But the government, who has bankrupted Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, is going to do what all these organizations can't.

Is that your story? You're sticking to that, huh? Like Barney Frank said to the dinning room table he was talking to at the time, what planet do you normally reside on?

Don't you get tired of being proven wrong so often?

Quote:

---

PS> Please try to read my stuff a little better. I AM pretty clear, unless of course, you WANT to twist what I say... But, as usual, I ain't going to let you get away with it...

My recognition above that there ARE charity's doesn't mean that I think ALL charity's PAY whatever any applicant asks them to, even if they fill out the FORM.. I'm STILL laughing at your suggestion that they do.

---

And what I recognize is that you are WRONG about that. Oh, you're right that charities won't cover EVERYTHING... just the important stuff necessary to keep people alive and relatively healthy. They don't pay for boob jobs or hair transplants or for botox. But they WILL pay for heart surgery, cancer treatments and organ transplants.

That's what they are DESIGNED to do.

So unless you are arguing that every single one of those charities has FAILED at their jobs, then people DO have access to the care they need, even if they don't have insurance.

And again, I'm not going to let you get away with evading a simple question:

How many people die in this country from lack of healthcare? How widespread is this "crisis" in our healthcare system that is supposedly driving this mad rush to nationalization? Give me facts and figures and sources to back them up.

Just the facts, man. I don't want your opinions, your assumptions, or your conclusions. Just give me the facts on how many people die each year due to lack of health care. That was YOUR statement of the reason we need health care reform. Until you can prove that there is even a widespread problem, much less a crisis, there's nothing to discuss and no reason to even push for nationalization.

Unless nationalization is the goal in and of itself, rather than better access to care.

Which by now we all know it is.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Unless nationalization is the goal in and of itself, rather than better access to care.Which by now we all know it is.

---

Hello El:

So, everybody is getting health care, nothing is wrong, and this whole thing is simply a left wing plot to nationalize our health care system??

That's your story now?? I got one word for you. Ku ku. Maybe that's TWO words.

excon

PS> Uhhh, Dude?? I thought the goal was to kill old people... That's NOT your story anymore??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

So, everybody is getting health care, nothing is wrong, and this whole thing is simply a left wing plot to nationalize our health care system???

???

---

Hey Ex, you have finally got the picture, it's a communist plot to take over those there U-nited S-tat-es of Am-er-ic-a. And it is so devious Mao himself could not have thought of it, he just has to contend with selling the last capitalist the rope to hang himself, or was that Marx? I get the two confused, anyway they are well advanced on their plot. Now I wonder what happens when these com-mun-ista succeed in killing the GOOSE that laid the golden egg?

I find it strange that the rightists, fascists that they are, could possiblely conceive that to look after the average joe properly could actually be detrimental to the well being of society as a whole. They might care to ask how it is that a nation with universal health care actually has one of the strongest economies in the world right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

I find it strange that the rightists, fascists that they are, could possiblely concieve that to look after the average joe properly could actually be detrimental to the well being of society as a whole. They might care to ask how it is that a nation with universal health care actually has one of the strongest economies in the world right now.

---

Clete, no one is saying the system is perfect. No one wants people to be denied health care... and as far I know no one is being denied health care. Even The One himself (who has yet to put forth health care plan of his own) switched the focus of his rhetoric from "health care" to "insurance coverage," perhaps that's because we ARE getting health care and excellent care at that.

I'm all for looking after the average Joe, but I adamantly oppose the government having so much control over such a very personal aspect of my life. I also have worked hard, paid my own way and I darn well expect every other able-bodied person in this country to do the same to the very best of their ability. That probably makes me a racist, but I'm tired of whiny people expecting government to take care them when they can darn sure take care of themselves. We need LESS government intrusion, fewer government mandates and we need to change this pathetic entitlement mentality.

I make no apologies for loving my freedom, demanding government return to its proper role, expecting to get to keep what I earn and especially for telling a bunch of lazy people to get off their a$$ and take care of themselves. So there. Feel free to rip me apart for my lack of compassion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Until you can prove that there is even a widespread problem, much less a crisis, there's nothing to discuss and no reason to even push for nationalization. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Or are you just making it up as you go along.

---

Hello again, El:

I know you don't believe me. But maybe you'll believe the Seattle Times... Here's the link: Local News | Ailing Market jeweler struggles without health insurance | Seattle Times Newspaper. If you don't want to read it, I'll understand, so I'm going to post the first couple paragraphs..

-----------------------------------------

Susan Sauls has liver and lung cancer. She has lost weight, her hair is gone and she's constantly nauseous from aggressive treatments. But she goes into her work studio every day to piece together pendants and earrings for her business at Pike Place Market.

"I don't have a choice; I have to work," Sauls said. "If I don't work, I don't have income."

Without income, she can't pay for her medical treatments because she's uninsured. As a small-business owner who makes $22,000 to $28,000 a year, her income is too high for her to qualify for any government health plan but too little for her to afford private coverage.

And the 60-year-old Kent resident has medical bills adding up to more than $100,000.

-------------------------

How come her friends don't tell her about charity? Don't they know that ALL she has to do is make ONE phone call and fill out ONE FORM, and they'll pay for EVERYTHING?? How come the newspaper doesn't know that and tell her? How come the only person in the world that knows that is YOU??

It's because you make it up, and we ALL know it...

excon

I thought she lived in Oklahoma and Sen. Coburn was taking up her case. Now it's a Seattle Jeweler? Tell her to go south and get universal care in Oregon. If they won't pay for her treatments they might at least offer to end her suffering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Tell her to go south and get universal care in Oregon. If they won't pay for her treatments they might at least offer to end her suffering.

---

Hello again, Steve:

That's your answer?? She should kill herself?? You don't agree with Elliot that she should make her phone call??

You guys are pathetic.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

That's your answer???? She should kill herself????

---

LOL, you know that's not my answer. I was just trying to figure out how a woman in Oklahoma became a woman in Seattle, which is just north of a state that does have universal care... a state which apparently DOES think that's the answer. Ain't universal health care wonderful?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

LOL, you know that's not my answer. I was just trying to figure out how a woman in Oklahoma became a woman in Seattle, which is just north of a state that does have universal care ... a state which apparently DOES think that's the answer. Ain't universal health care wonderful?

---

Hello again, Steve:

I don't know why you think the Oklahoma woman is the same as the Seattle woman.. Finding people like that ISN'T hard. There's LOTS of them... I only looked at the front page of my home town newspaper, and there she was.

excon

PS> By the way, Washington offers death with dignity too.

PPS> I don't understand your post. It looks like you're giving up. I WOULD too, if I were you, given the evidence. Just this woman and her plight alone should be enough to convince you, but you want to make fun instead...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

I don't know why you think the Oklahoma woman is the same as the Seattle woman..

---

Just trying to figure out which story you're telling, you were talking about a woman in Oklahoma as your example then it switched to a lady in Seattle. I have the utmost empathy for these folks and I know there are others, I just disagree with a massive overhaul of the health care system, giving the feds so much power over our health care as the solution.

There was a day when your distrust of the federal government was obvious and it blows me away that you're fighting so hard to give them this kind of power. The instance in Oregon I cited should tell you the kind of incompetence we can expect if it goes national. If you want to take care of people - as we all do - then let's do it right without rebuilding this nation from the ground up which is what this President and this Congress seem hellbent on doing.

I followed that logic, actually.

Here's the bottom line: I have yet to meet a doctor who thinks we need UHC. I have yet to meet a doctor who thinks that the SAME PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE will not be getting treatment under UHC--it's just that the STANDARD for choosing which people do and do not get treatment will change.

Frankly, Ex--it SHOULD be the people who can afford it who get health care, and the people who can't afford it who do not.

By YOUR logic, there should be a nationalized phone company that's administered by people paying the SAME BILLS that they've always paid, getting less covered areas, paying more for any extras--but by gum, everyone should have a phone! And air conditioning! Do you know how many people die in MN every year because their apartments are too hot?
http://www.severeweather.state.mn.us...t_can_kill.pdf -look on the right side! In 1995, in states that are in the same zone as MN (WI and IL) had almost 800 deaths because of heat! Why aren't we providing FREE air conditioning to all of those people who can't afford it!

Seriously--it's unfortunate that some people cannot get health coverage right now. But that doesn't mean that UHC is the answer. Changing our EXISTING program would be a much better start to the whole process. If they find that changes DO NOT WORK, after giving them a real try, then YES, we can talk about UHC.

But in the meantime, where are the families of those without insurance? How about we change laws so that you can purchase coverage for people in your family who you may or may not live with, but can claim as a partial dependent or some such? I'd be HAPPY to purchase extra insurance through work for my mother if she did not have insurance! Open up competition across state lines for insurance companies (which by the way, WILL be forced out of business by this--and THEN there will be MORE people without jobs in this country). Allow people to tailor their insurance needs more easily.

What you're not seeing is this, Ex: It's waaaaaay more expensive to go out and buy a whole new car than it is to fix your car when it breaks down. Sometimes you HAVE to do it, but to me the whole UHC movement is like having a flat tire on your car and buying a new car instead of changing the tire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

There was a day when your distrust of the federal government was obvious and it blows me away that you're fighting so hard to give them this kind of power.

---

Hello again, Steve:

I'm glad you mentioned that. I am STILL no lover of government... In fact, I'm the same free market guy you came to know and love... But, when private business gets government to DISTORT the free market to their advantage, government is the ONLY one who can DISTORT it back...

You wonder, I'll bet, how a free market guy like me could think such stuff. Elliot keeps on telling us that the free market, if left alone, WOULD work... I don't disagree...

It's the "left alone" part that I don't agree with, and the market ISN'T free. It's manipulated. In fact, they don't want to be left alone. They WANT the government to tip the scales to THEIR advantage, and that's what happened. Don't believe me?? Then answer this question. If honest and open competition in the free marketplace was ALL that a health insurance company needed to do to make money, WHY do they spend BILLIONS of $$$'s and even MORE BILLIONS on lobbying congress?? I KNOW why and so do you. They do it to get laws that GUARANTEE them profits WITHOUT having to compete for them, and that's what they did. That kind of stuff doesn't work out in OUR favor too well.

Now, if they didn't distort the market in their favor, I wouldn't be in support of the government distorting it back. But they DID, and I AM.

excon

PS> The same thing can be said for the financial system and its collapse. They lobbied congress to tip the scales in their favor, and congress obliged. If the banks served US, instead of the BANKERS, I wouldn't be in support of regulating them, either. But, they DON'T, and I DO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

What you're not seeing is this, Ex: It's waaaaaay more expensive to go out and buy a whole new car than it is to fix your car when it breaks down. Sometimes you HAVE to do it, but to me the whole UHC movement is like having a flat tire on your car and buying a new car instead of changing the tire.

---

Exactly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

By YOUR logic, there should be a nationalized phone company that's administered by people paying the SAME BILLS that they've always paid, getting less covered areas, paying more for any extras--but by gum, everyone should have a phone

---

Hello again, Synn:

If the phone companies lobbied congress, so as to manipulate the market to their advantage, in the same way that HEALTH INSURANCE companies do, you're right... But, they don't. In fact, the free market competition in THAT industry provides us with CHEAP disposable cell phones with an HOUR of prepaid minutes for only $30. EVERYBODY can afford to call their momma...

Plus, you are RIGHT even further, Synn, in the sense that there ARE certain commons which SHOULD be held by ALL of us, and be FREE for ALL of us to use... Kind of like fire protection and crime protection... You don't get a bill when your house is on fire, and you shouldn't get a bill when you get sick.

excon

Quote:

---

If the phone companies lobbied congress, so as to manipulate the market to their advantage, in the same way that HEALTH INSURANCE companies do, you're right... But, they don't. In fact, the free market competition in THAT industry provides us with CHEAP disposable cell phones with an HOUR of prepaid minutes for only $30. EVERYBODY can afford to call their momma...

---

And how did that work when it was just Ma Bell monopoly ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

WHY do they spend BILLIONS of $$$'s and even MORE BILLIONS on lobbying congress??? I KNOW why and so do you. They do it to get laws that GUARANTEE them profits WITHOUT having to compete for them, and that's what they did. That kinda stuff doesn't work out in OUR favor too well.

---

Then we need to fix this lobbyist problem and Obama promised to do just that. Well guess what, another broken promise. He seems to be on a record pace for breaking promises.

This President and this Congress are moving too fast and too wide in scope. If they can't fix such "fundamental" things as lobbyist influence and if they can't clean their own house of corruption then I darn sure don't want their hands on our health care. Obama promised "fundamental change," let him start in his own neighborhood and THEN we can tackle things like health care properly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

and how did that work when it was just Ma Bell monopoly ?

---

Hello tom:

Not too good. When I could ONLY go to Ma Bell, I used to PAY a bunch of money for long distance service. But, since the government broke 'em up, it's free. I wonder how much I'd be paying NOW if the government DIDN'T do that. I wonder if poor people would have been able to afford to call home.. I'll bet not.

What's your point?

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Then we need to fix this lobbyist problem

---

Hello again, Steve:

The people should be able to LOBBY congress. Even the richest of the rich should be allowed. We don't have a lobbying problem. We have a TERM LIMIT problem...

If our congressman could only run for ONE term, then they'd have NO NEED to take money for the next campaign. Plus, he'd have to go BACK to the society and LIVE under the laws HE passed. Given that he would have to satisfy NOBODY, maybe he could try to satisfy his constituents.

But, when it costs MILLIONS to run, his hand is Always out. He's bought and paid for by people with more money than me.

excon

Quote:

---

When I could ONLY go to Ma Bell, I used to PAY a bunch of money for long distance service.

---

I think you take the wrong lesson from the breakup of Ma Bell.
Ma Bell was a quasi-government approved monopoly running the telephones like a utility company .Of course it was inefficient .There was no competition until it was deregulated.

Same is true in the insurance business. I still contend that the various state and federal mandates limits competition and drives up the costs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

The people should be able to LOBBY congress. Even the richest of the rich should be allowed. We don't have a lobbying problem.

---

No? Then what's that tax cheat Tom Daschle, a major health insurance Lobbyist, doing with the President's ear still? Isn't that exactly what you're talking about as the problem, health insurance companies tipping the government scales to THEIR advantage? Surely there are no favors being passed between Obama, Congress and K Street are there?

Absolutely we all have the right to lobby Congress, but Congress and paid lobbyists seem to have a bit of an ethics problem don't you think?