The debate in Congress is how to penalize people who choose to not sign onto an insurance plan . They have threatened fine and or imprisonment for people who refuse .
Now ;if this plan they propose is so great then why would they need to threaten people to participate. You would think the uninsured would rush to sign up... no ?

:d

And once again---Congress itself will not be using the public plan they're coming up with.

They'll stay with their nice, cushy, special service medical and dental coverage that they've already got.

It's official . RINO Olympia Snowe is breaking ranks . Now the Dems can claim any Senate bill as bi-partisan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

It's official . RINO Olympia Snowe is breaking ranks . Now the Dems can claim any Senate bill as bi-partisan.

---

We've been Snowed again.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:

Your post, yet again, confirms MY suspicion that your opposition to health care reform has NOTHING to do with health care reform, and EVERYTHING to do with defeating Obama at every turn. This due to your wacko belief that health care reform, or anything he does for that matter, is the first step in a communist takeover...

You and the Wolverine are sharing the tin hat.

excon

---

Defeating bad policy that will cost trillions to the taxpayor, and none of the proposals cover 100% OF AMERICANS.

By the way, you never answered why YOU DON'T GO TO THE VA? Why do you want government dictated healthcare for others but don't participate in it yourself?


G&P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

btw, you never answered why YOU DON"T GO TO THE VA?

---

Hello again, in:

This isn't about me. I thought we covered that in the gay marriage debate. I ain't gay, but that doesn't stop me from doing the right thing.

excon

Avoiding the question?

Is the right tihing to subject the American people to British NICE results [ poorer cancer results - a true measure of a healthcare system ] or to VA style mishaps like hiv from colonoscopies, higher surgical mortality in some cases, medical information breaches?

Is the right thing MORE government intervention - the type of which led to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac [ the root of the housing collapse ], gas rationing and shortages like in the 70s? This is the same government that is printing money so fast that you advise to buy gold.

Is that the right thing?

How about all the things that ET has mentioned
Regarding REAL reform?


G&P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

How about all the things that ET has mentioned
regarding REAL reform?

---

Hello again, in:

You guys talk about tort reform as though that's the panacea - the magic bullet that will SOLVE the problem... You say the cost of malpractice insurance drives up the costs REAL high. You may be surprised to find out that I agree.

But, instead of limiting the amount of money a maimed person gets from the INSURANCE company, why don't we make malpractice insurance illegal? If we did that, then a maimed person can only sue for what a doctor has. That'll END all the ambulance chasing trial attorney's you hate so much. That'll end the monstrous awards - OK it won't end them - but WE won't be paying for them - the doctor will, and what's wrong with that?

And, if it's INSURANCE that costs soooooo much, that it drives up the costs sooooo much, just imagine how much we'll save if we eliminated it altogether. Besides that, why should EVERYBODY pay for a doctors mistakes??

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

And, if it's INSURANCE that costs soooooo much, that it drives up the costs sooooo much, just imagine how much we'll save if we eliminated it altogether. Besides that, why should EVERYBODY pay for a doctors mistakes???

---

Why should I pay for insurance for all these years while someone gets a free ride until they get sick?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, in:

You guys talk about tort reform as though that's the panacea - the magic bullet that will SOLVE the problem.... You say the cost of malpractice insurance drives up the costs REAL high. You may be surprised to find out that I agree.

But, instead of limiting the amount of money a maimed person gets from the INSURANCE company, why don't we make malpractice insurance illegal? If we did that, then a maimed person can only sue for what a doctor has. That'll END all the ambulance chasing trial attorney's you hate so much. That'll end the monstrous awards - ok it won't end them - but WE won't be paying for them - the doctor will, and what's wrong with that?

And, if it's INSURANCE that costs soooooo much, that it drives up the costs sooooo much, just imagine how much we'll save if we eliminated it altogether. Besides that, why should EVERYBODY pay for a doctors mistakes???

excon

---

First of all, as I have mentioned before, the Tort Reform that I prefer is similar to the Texas model in which there are no limits on awards. The reform is in creating a board that determines whether a case has merit BEFORE it ever hits the court system. Frivolous cases are thrown out immediately, and meritorious cases move forward inimpeded, and without any limitations on awards. So there's your entire argument right down the crapper. Again.

Second of all, what about the other 9 items I mentioned? No comments on them? No issues?

Well, you know what? I'd be willing to give up on tort reform if I got the other 9 items on my list. If tort reform is such a non-starter, I'll take the other 9 in exchange for giving that one up.

Oh, and I got a number 11 for my list... Tom mentioned it earlier in this thread, so hat tip to him.

11) Eliminate the Health Insurance Company exemption from the anti-trust laws, thus increasing the potential for competition industry-wide.

Any comments, excon? Got anything to say about the other 10 items on my list? Or are you stuck on tort reform, which would NOT limit or cap awards to injured parties as you claim?

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, in:

This isn't about me. I thought we covered that in the gay marriage debate. I ain't gay, but that doesn't stop me from doing the right thing.

excon

---

Tom's right. Seems to me that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If nationalized health care is good enough for the uninsured guy, it ought to be good enough for you. And Congress, for that matter.

After all, you're the proponent of a single-payer government health system. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and use the VA system? If government health care is good enough for those not currently insured, and if you are pushing it for EVERYONE ELSE too (single payer proponent that you are), why not step up and show us how wonderful the system is.

But we know you won't because the VA system sucks. You know it and we know it. It's been well documented in the MSM, though right now most of the MSM is hoping that you'll ignore that little point. You wouldn't go to a VA hospital to VISIT someone there on a bet, much less trust your health to that system. You are elligible for full coverage as a war vet, and it wouldn't cost you a dime. Free health care for the rest of your life (as long as it lasts). And you STILL wouldn't touch it... because YOU know as well as we do how long you would last in the VA system.

But that's the system you are pushing for poor people... and the rest of us if you get your way.

So... put up or shut up, as the saying goes. Either get in line at the VA hospital and prove how wonderful, efficient, and effective government-run medicine is, or admit that it sucks and that you wouldn't use the system if you had another choice, and stop pushing it for everyone else.

Oh, but of course this isn't about YOU. You're just being the benevolent provider of health care to the poor on everyone else's dime.

:cool:

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phlanx

There were 58000 brave americans who died in Vietnam, and there were protests and marches against the war

45000 americans die EACH YEAR for nothing more than a lack of a health care system

Study links 45,000 U.S. deaths to lack of insurance | Health | Reuters

---

Let's not bring Americans who died in a (useless) war into this - has nothing to do with the subject at hand and while there were a few protests, mainly by College students, the protests were not on any large scale. People most definitely were not protesting in the streets on a daily basis. Very much like the current war a LOT of people were NOT against the war.

Maybe the news in the UK didn't make this clear.

Why are you - in the UK - so interested in this subject to begin with? Aren't there enough problems in the UK to worry about so you have to worry about problems in the US?

This is another subject in the category of "here's the problem." Now if only somebody had the solution!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JudyKayTee

This is another subject in the category of "here's the problem." Now if only somebody had the solution!

---

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...ml#post2029047

Elliot

Clever answer - but, again, I see a lot of what if and nothing clear cut.

Everyone has a theory/solution - but none of them appear to be acceptable or working.

That's it, this individualistic attituide, that America and its subjects have is exactly why you deserve your reputation!

We do not receive american news - instead we take a more cultural approach to the world, and learn what is happening outside our borders as well as inside

Judy are you saying I can't understand what someone from a different country thinks about something just because I am not an american??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JudyKayTee

Clever answer - but, again, I see a lot of what if and nothing clear cut.

Everyone has a theory/solution - but none of them appear to be acceptable or working.

---

Excuse me?

I listed 10 concrete, REAL steps to lower the cost of health care and make more accessible to those who cannot afford it.

Which of those was "what if"? Which of them was not clear cut?

In fact, the first one I listed, making all medical care and medical insurance expenses pre-tax, would cause an immediate decrease in costs to the consumer of 15-30% as soon as it is implemented.

You don't consider that a concrete step toward making health care more affordable and more accessible?

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phlanx

Thats it, this individualistic attituide, that America and its subjects have is exactly why you deserve your reputation!

---

That individualism is a large part of what makes America great. And by the way, we kind of take exception to being called "subjects" around here.

Where are you, NK? Canadians are speaking out...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phlanx

Thats it, this individualistic attituide, that America and its subjects have is exactly why you deserve your reputation!

We do not recieve american news - instead we take a more cultural approach to the world, and learn what is happening outside our borders as well as inside

Judy are you saying I can't understand what someone from a different country thinks about something just because I am not an american???????

---

Oh... so you think that the community-based approach... the community comes first, the individual only a distant second... is the way to go.

Yeah... the Soviet Union thought that was the way to go too. For that matter, so did those who lived under feudalism. So did those who lived in slave societies. The 'national good' was more important to them than individualism too.

The USA celebrates individualism. Our Constitution ENSHRINES it. The rights and privlidges of the individual are what make us the most prosperous nation in the world... even in the throes of the worst recession we've seen in 60 years. Our poor people have cell phones, color TVs, microwaves, and many of the same trappings that our richest have, if more modest. Can any other country say the same? Our poorest people live lives of relative luxury when compared to the poor of other countries.

And yet, despite this relative wealth, and despite our rugged individualism, the USA is still the most charitable nation on Earth. Aside from what the government gives in aid to other countries ($22.7 billion in government aid in 2007) the people of the USA, those hopelessly individualistic people, give more charity than any other nation on Earth.

The world's 10 most charitable nations - Giving- msnbc.com

Your nation is a distant 2nd, giving less than half what we give as a percentage of GDP.

(The actual dollar or pound amount you give is much lower than half of ours since our actual GDP is significantly higher than yours.)

Let's hear it for individualism.

Elliot