Check out some similar questions!

celticfc · Mar 16, 2012, 07:31 PM

Everyone has their own opinion and some people will not have the best and right opinions.

paraclete · Mar 16, 2012, 09:21 PM

Originally Posted by celticfc

everyone has their own opinion and some people will not have the best and right opinions.

I think every opinion has been offered here but what is at the root of the discussion is the same as for other healthcare debates, some people just don't want to be part of a pool, without realising that that is exactly what insurance is.
When you are young and healthy or rich enough not to care, health insurance doesn't seem important, but comes a time for most where the bills are bigger than the bank account. Some here think that charity begins with a decision, but in reality it begins with attitude.

tomder55 · Mar 17, 2012, 01:42 AM

going back to the auto insurance example ,the higher the risk the higher the premiums charged . So initially a young driver ,being inexperienced ,are a higher risk. Then if they prove they can drive safetly the premiums drop ;but if they continue to be a high risk ,they continue to get charged higher rates ,or in some instances they get dropped and lose the privilege to drive .
It wouldn't work that way in a medical plan . A medical plan takes that model and turns it on it's head. The safer bet is on the young... and yet they pay the same premium as the ones who are in constant doctor care .

In fact ,using the auto insurance = Obamacare example ,if a person chose to not own a car ,and is just a pedestrian ,they are still forced to carry comprehensive insurance for the privilege of being alive... you know... some time in the future they may own a car.

JudyKayTee · Mar 18, 2012, 05:37 AM

Originally Posted by celticfc

everyone has their own opinion and some people will not have the best and right opinions.

Who determines the best and right opinions?

paraclete · Mar 18, 2012, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by tomder55

going back to the auto insurance example ,the higher the risk the higher the premiums charged . So initially a young driver ,being inexperienced ,are a higher risk. Then if they prove they can drive safetly the premiums drop ;but if they continue to be a high risk ,they continue to get charged higher rates ,or in some instances they get dropped and lose the privilage to drive .
It wouldn't work that way in a medical plan . A medical plan takes that model and turns it on it's head. The safer bet is on the young ....and yet they pay the same premium as the ones who are in constant doctor care .

In fact ,using the auto insurance = Obamacare example ,if a person chose to not own a car ,and is just a pedestrian ,they are still forced to carry comprehensive insurance for the privilage of being alive ....you know.... some time in the future they may own a car.

Tom your analagy is not quite correct The highr risk might be with those in constant care but the principle is a pool where people contribute over a period, because unlike the car insurance the risk cannot be calculated so precisely since the value of the individual care that is going to be provided cannot be calculated but the value of the vehicle is known. As to your pedrestrian, this person is just as much a risk since no one can calculate who or where illness will strike, and in any case pedrestrians get run down; another bad analagy

You should think about it like this, you are all on a cruise liner and you would like to think there is a doctor on board, in fact you would think twice about taking the voyage without one

excon · Mar 18, 2012, 02:59 PM

Hello again, wingers:

You people who don't want the government involved in your health care, AREN'T doing a very good job.. Right wingers in Kansas are making a law that is going to require that a doctor LIE to his patient, if telling the truth MIGHT result in an abortion...

That's Got to disgust you SMALL government wingers, right?

No?? How come?

excon

tomder55 · Mar 18, 2012, 03:50 PM

It's wrong to not provide the patient with all pertinent information available through diagnostics wheter your position is pro-life or pro-abortion. A sonogram and information about the pregancy should be provided in all cases. No ?

paraclete · Mar 18, 2012, 04:29 PM

You are right Tom some people go to ridiculous lengths to push their agenda

excon · Mar 18, 2012, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by tomder55

A sonogram and information about the pregancy should be provided in all cases. No ?

Hello again, Dr. tom:

NO!

I thought you wingers didn't want the government IN the doctors office with you... But, it's OK when the government is ENFORCING something YOU want them to enforce.. That ain't right...

The key here, is whether the DOCTOR thinks it's appropriate - NOT you, and NOT a right wing politician.

excon

talaniman · Mar 18, 2012, 05:46 PM

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Dr. tom:

NO!

I thought you wingers didn't want the government IN the doctors office with you... But, it's ok when the government is ENFORCING something YOU want them to enforce.. That ain't right...

The key here, is whether the DOCTOR thinks it's appropriate - NOT you, and NOT a right wing politician.

excon

LOL Ex, you nailed 'em. The opposition for Obamacare said it would create bureaucracy between you and your doctor and I will be darned if the right wing isn't determined to make its so!

Its like their politics, absent of facts, and based in the thought that they know better for you what you need. I guess that's why they calculate the value of a car, and the value of human life. So it doesn't cost as much to replace either. Flawed logic, as is the flat tax (earth?) theory.

tomder55 · Mar 18, 2012, 05:55 PM

And you don't want the government in your bedroom and your doctors office . You just want the government to provide the care free.

excon · Mar 18, 2012, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by tomder55

and you don't want the government in your bedroom and your doctors office . You just want the goverment to provide the care free.

Hello tom:

You're getting close.. I just want the government to write the checks, and I'm willing to pay higher taxes for it.

excon

paraclete · Mar 18, 2012, 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by tomder55

and you don't want the government in your bedroom and your doctors office . You just want the goverment to provide the care free.

Always with the overstatement of the argument, you just want to be personally recognised for your philanthropy

speechlesstx · Mar 19, 2012, 07:46 AM

Ex you seem to be straddling both sides of the fence. Correct me if I'm wrong but for the mandate it seems you think if a Catholic hospital accepts Medicaid or Medicare or a tax exemption that would be justification for the feds to be in the middle of things.

But when it comes to you wanting the government to write the check for you, you think they wouldn't have a right to be in your bedroom or doctor's office?

Dude.

excon · Mar 19, 2012, 08:03 AM

Hello again, Steve:

Ummm, not really.

A hospital isn't a church and doesn't qualify for a religious exemption... Being PAID by the government for services rendered, is further PROOF that it's NOT a church. Governments DON'T receive services from church's and DON'T pay them. Given that it's a hospital WITH employees, it should be treated NO differently than ANY hospital with employees.

To your next point.. I want the government to write the checks for my health care. That's all. If we made a LAW that says, the government shall write checks and THAT'S ALL, then that's ALL the government will do. Seems simple enough to me.

excon

speechlesstx · Mar 19, 2012, 08:26 AM

Ex, you still apparently believe Catholic hospitals don't have expenses. I thought you knew how such things worked, like when the government writes the check the government has the say. Ask any Medicare patient or provider. And remember, Obama said if we liked or plans and providers we could keep them? He lied.

You're worried about Petraeus spying on you through your dishwasher but you believe if the government writes a check for your healthcare and stay and out of your affairs? Dude!

NeedKarma · Mar 19, 2012, 08:29 AM

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

You're worried about Petraeus spying on you through your dishwasher but you believe if the government writes a check for your healthcare and stay and out of your affairs? Dude!

Since the first part of the statement is not true it follows that the other part is not true either.

tomder55 · Mar 19, 2012, 08:31 AM

There will be a slew of private employers who are not affiliated in any way with the Catholic church who will bring this outrageous overstep of executive authority to court over violations of their 1st amendment free exercise of religious conscious rights .

The President stepped into it big time .

excon · Mar 19, 2012, 08:47 AM

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

but you believe if the government writes a check for your healthcare and stay and out of your affairs? Dude!

Hello again, Steve:

I don't know WHY you have such a problem with government OBEYING the law. Somehow, you just think they're just not going to. I have NO idea why you think that..

Let's take Social Security... They WRITE me a check every month. They're NOT in my business. They don't CARE where I spend the money. They don't decide to pay me based on anything OTHER than what the numbers say. They don't care whether I'm white, sick, a homosexual or a raving maniac. They PAY. That's ALL they do, and it works fine.

Why you think they couldn't or WOULDN'T do the same thing with your doctors bills, is beyond me.

excon

speechlesstx · Mar 19, 2012, 09:00 AM

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Since the first part of the statement is not true it follows that the other part is not true either.

The first part is true and even if it weren't I believe that would be logical fallacy. Do you just enjoy being proven wrong?