 |
Hello again:
I addition to sGt's cogent remarks, I suggest simply listing a bunch of charity's where people CAN get help doesn't tell me that they DO get help.
Besides, in THIS great country, when a person gets sick, it's a time when they should be taken care of. Instead, we require a large percentage of them to start begging... That is DISGUSTING, plain and simple.
excon
I don't know who begs for health care, if you want health care you get health care. If you can't pay it you don't pay it. We've been round and round on this, and while it sucks that indigents and others clog up our ER's THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO WITHOUT HEALTH CARE.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Nobody has to go without health care in this country already and you all know it.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I DON'T know it. You SAY people get care at the ER or from charity's, but I DON'T BELIEVE IT! If you are UNINSURED and you need an operation to cure your CANCER, you won't get it at the ER, and I don't believe that a charity is going to pay for it.
People DO die from being without health insurance in this country, and you all know it.
excon
People die for other reasons, they don't die from "being without insurance." I read where this study that says all these thousands die from being without insurance was a myth. They used old data and many of those who died actually died with insurance that was acquired after the study period if I recall. I will post it if I can find it again, but meanwhile stop buying into every talking point... that's what you tell us to do isn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Now for a nice spin on your claim...
Quote:
CNN reported that 45,000 die each year because they don't have health insurance and there were 2,426,264 total deaths in the U.S. last year according to the CDC.
Since 45,000 didn't have health insurance it is logical to assume that 2,381,264 had health insurance but died anyway.
So if you have health insurance be prepared to die.
We now return you to normal programming.
What you have proven is death is inevitable so it is pointless to have health insurance, you will die whether you have it or not. Therefore what is this debate about, surely not the benefits of health insurance. Health insurance is a method of paying now for the costs you might incur later, but as your system works on the assumption you are healthy and employed anyway, you are not getting the cover you are actually paying for. This is because insurance is not about meeting costs or making payouts but accumulating wealth. It is about risk management, and you are the risk. Premiums will always exceed costsQuote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
So you need a different principle in operation to achieve the objective of covering the costs of illness. A social contract where you pay into a pool and the pool meets your costs when incurred. This is what has been implemented in countries with universal health care and it works well. Perhaps this pool might be administered by an insurance company for a fee, or you may have some form of additional cover, but it is definitely a bad principle to have the fox in change of the hen house as is the case now.
This may be the best worded argument for a universal coverage system I have ever seen.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
You think the fox is guarding the hen house now? Wait until the Feds are guarding it. Unbelievable. LOL!Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
We now know that if the Senate bill is passed you could be put into jail if you refuse to sign on to an insurance plan.
Ensign receives handwritten confirmation - Live Pulse - POLITICO.com
I'm guessing that penalty will not apply to illegal aliens .
I'm wondering how many in DC are thinking of this mandate as a revenue enhancement for the government. A $2000 per year "penalty" versus a $500 per month premium... this much math a lot of people can do.
Hello:
So, the new secret plot the Dems are hatching up is to put people in JAIL if they don't buy insurance, huh? Would that be BEFORE or AFTER they've seen the death panel? But, of course, if you're a Republican or white, the OTHER secret plots would have already disposed of you. Same thing if you're poor or old.
So, I wonder whose going to be left to put in jail?
excon
What secret plot? Here's the note to Sen. Ensign, it speaks for itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve:
I can't read it. It's JIBBERISH. If I read it correctly, please explain, in ENGLISH, what the following phrase means?
"... wilful failure to file, pay, maintain appropriate records and the like, may be charged... "
That sentence makes absolutely NO sense. "Pay" what, to whom, and for what isn't mentioned...
In fact, it looks like a sanction for violation of a TAX code rather than anything to do with the health care debate...
Help me out here.
excon
So... we should pay according to ability, and get use according to need?Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
"Who is John Galt?"
Do I have to do all the work for you? Follow the links in the article tom linked to...Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
"Americans who fail to pay the penalty for not buying insurance would face legal action from the Internal Revenue Service, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation."
You'd be right, under the Senate plan if you don't buy insurance the IRS would enforce the penalty which COULD be imprisonment.Quote:
In fact, it looks like a sanction for violation of a TAX code rather than anything to do with the health care debate...
Thank you, It helps to think outside the systemQuote:
Originally Posted by Catsmine
Yes, that's the idea because you don't know when you might have the need and lack the means to pay. Serious illness often removes the means to pay at time of greatest needQuote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
Sarge,Quote:
Originally Posted by sGt HarDKorE
Have you ever heard of free clinics?
Pretty much every urban hospital has a free clinic system attached to it specifically to help the people we are talking about. There are also churches and other groups that run free clinics. Pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies also fund free clinics throughout the country.
You are worried about these systems running out of money, but you aren't worried about the government --- which just announced that it will be operating Social Security in the red over the next two years due to high unemployment and increased retirement, and which has bankrupted Medicare and Medicaid, and which currently has a $3 Trillion budget deficit and over $50 trillion in unfunded debt (including money owed to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid), and which has a deficit net worth of $-12 Trillion --- is going to run out of money?
Please explain how you can come to that conclusion logically. Do you really think that the government is BETTER at handling money than the private sector?
Elliot
Now explain to me, if help is demonstrably available (by your own admission, now) but people don't take advantage of that opportunity, why it is MY problem to help them? Or any other tax-payer's problem? Or the government's problem?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
These people aren't being denied the care they need. They are refusing to take that care... at least according to your own statement above that the charities ARE there but people don't use them. That's THEIR problem, not mine or any other taxpayer's.
We don't require them to beg. The charities are there for them to take advantage of without having to beg for one red cent. At WORST they have to fill out a form that is no more onerous to complete than the form they would have to fill out at their doctor's office anyway.Quote:
Besides, in THIS great country, when a person gets sick, it's a time when they should be taken care of. Instead, we require a large percentage of them to start begging... That is DISGUSTING, plain and simple.
Excon
The help is available without the government getting involved. You know it, we know it, the American people know it... and that is why they ain't buying the crap that Obama is selling. Why you continue to buy it and try to sell it to others is beyond me.
Elliot
Well if Excon doesn't believe it, it must not be true. Even if it is demonstrable that it IS true.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Great argument excon. Right about on par with NK's argument that if he hasn't seen it, then the government statistics of Canada must be wrong.
Well, your belief is WRONG.Quote:
If you are UNINSURED and you need an operation to cure your CANCER, you won't get it at the ER, and I don't believe that a charity is going to pay for it.
Not because they have to... they only die in this country from "lack of health care" because they don't take advantage of what is available to them from other sources.Quote:
People DO die from being without health insurance in this country, and you all know it.
Excon
And how many people die in this country from lack of healthcare? How widespread is this "crisis" in our healthcare system?
I'll bet it's some very small fraction of 1%, if that many. After all, the total number of Americans without health care is 3% of the population. And not all of them, not even a large portion of them, are currently sick. And of the number that are sick, a majority are not dying and have not died. Which places the actual number at much lower than 1%.
Which does NOT constitute a widespread crisis by any stretch of the imagination.
Elliot
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
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?
excon
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.
That's exactly what I'm saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
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?
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.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.
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
Hello El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
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??
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
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.
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
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.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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
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 excon
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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...
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
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.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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.
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
Hello again, Synn:Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
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
And how did that work when it was just Ma Bell monopoly ?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...
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
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.
Hello tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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
I think you take the wrong lesson from the breakup of Ma Bell.Quote:
When I could ONLY go to Ma Bell, I used to PAY a bunch of money for long distance service.
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
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?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:28 AM. |