[HelpinHere]

So, after all this debate, can it be agreed that:
The united states MAY have UHC, but it is impossible to tell the future so we'll just have to wait and see?

I really don't see how arguing about all of this is supposed to answer the OP's question, or the point.

[tomder55]

Perhaps it is a pointless exercise. But the OP got to see both sides of the issue vigorously debated .

If you have a crystal ball you could answer the question but since this was posted on a discussion board ,one would properly assume the question would be "discussed" .

For my 2 cents ;I think only on boards like this will the OP get all sides of the issue.

[HelpinHere]

Perhaps it is a pointless exercise. But the OP got to see both sides of the issue vigorously debated .

If you have a crystal ball you could answer the question but since this was posted on a discussion board ,one would properly assume the question would be "discussed" .

For my 2 cents ;I think only on boards like this will the OP get all sides of the issue.

Yep, both sides of the argument, but when you get in all about bailouts with no direct link to the healthcare, I think it kind of defeats the purpose.

Ooh... I thought this was originally posted somewhere else. Was it moved, or am I mistaken?

I'll take that two cents, thank you!

[tomder55]

I note your critique that we often go off on tangents only loosely related to the question . I have to give my share of mea culpa about that. The biggest reason for this is the habit here of c/p a part of a reply to support or refute.
I try to connect it back to the OP but often fail. These questions take on a life of their own here.

[ETWolverine]

I note your critique that we often go off on tangents only loosely related to the question . I have to give my share of mea culpa about that. The biggest reason for this is the habit here of c/p a part of a reply to support or refute.
I try to connect it back to the OP but often fail. These questions take on a life of their own here.

Well, that is why this was set up as a Current Events discussion board in the Member Discussions section rather than as a Political or Current Events Q&A board. Discussions are MEANT to go off on tangents, whereas Q&As are supposed to be specific to the question asked.

I have no problem with letting a discussion take us wherever it goes. That's part of the fun of this section of AMHD.

Elliot

[HelpinHere]

Yes, I agree, but I originally thought that this was posted in current events, not discussions, that's why I brought it up...

:o I didn't check before I posted... :p

[excon]

will the united states ever have universal healthcare?

Hello again, mad:

I don't know about universal health care... But, I read on page 1245, Paragraph 3.b through 4.c that the government has found a cure for hair loss.. Plus, if you read carefully on page 1416, hidden in the words, you'll find the solution to the auto industry's woes.

This bill will do it all.

excon

[ETWolverine]

This bill will do it all.

excon

Yep... and bankrupt the country in the process. As well as most individuals who join it, but who won't be able to afford the taxes that stem from it.

It'll do anything... except let you keep what you earn, let you get decent health care, or give you the freedom of alternatives to the government plan.

Elliot

[Synnen]

Again--I wouldn't have a problem with it IF:

1. The government could show that they're in any way, shape, or form capable of balancing a budget.

2. You get the health care "card" equal to what you paid into the program. Didn't pay anything? You ONLY get basic and emergency care--by which I mean that you can get a flu shot, immunizations, a yearly checkup, and treatment for any medical, life-threatening emergency. This does not count towards counseling, psyciatric care, elective surgeries, or the sniffles. It doesn't count towards treatment of acne, or dieting plans, or smoker cessation plans (yes, I know how bad smoking is and how hard it is to quit--all it takes is ONE carton's worth of cigarettes not bought to have the money for a cessation product.). It DOES count toward any form of birth control. It DOES count toward abortions. It also counts towards mandatory sterilization of anyone NOT paying into the UHC fund who still manages to get pregnant or impregnate someone else. There's no excuse for that when keeping your zipper up, your legs crossed and FREE birth control can help you control yourself from having a child you can't afford.
3. A GED or High School Diploma is a pre-requisite for receiving medical benefits for yourself or your children.
4. After retirement, you must have paid in at least 5 years worth of dues to receive medical care (we could extend Soc Security long enough to cover those already retired, or within that 5 year range). Again, how much care you get is completely dependent on how much you paid into the program.
5. Dependents may receive care based on your program, so that house-wives and house-husbands still exist. Their "pension" plans are much the same--it's based on what is put in.

If we're just going to hand out free medical care to idiots who can't manage money or can't get off their rear ends and WORK, then I want no part of it.

I refuse to pay according to my ability for someone else to use all of the funds toward their need. If that's what will happen, I'll quit my job, apply for Welfare, and have free medical care and food for the rest of my life on the taxpayers' dollars, without actually paying taxes myself. Hell, me quitting my job might actually put my husband and I out of the highest tax bracket for our income level, and we might actually get a tax RETURN every year, instead of actually withholding at the highest amount, adding on an extra $100 per paycheck and STILL paying in about $3k every year.

[ETWolverine]

Again--I wouldn't have a problem with it IF:

1. The government could show that they're in any way, shape, or form capable of balancing a budget.

2. You get the health care "card" equal to what you paid into the program. Didn't pay anything? You ONLY get basic and emergency care--by which I mean that you can get a flu shot, immunizations, a yearly checkup, and treatment for any medical, life-threatening emergency. This does not count towards counseling, psyciatric care, elective surgeries, or the sniffles. It doesn't count towards treatment of acne, or dieting plans, or smoker cessation plans (yes, I know how bad smoking is and how hard it is to quit--all it takes is ONE carton's worth of cigarettes not bought to have the money for a cessation product.). It DOES count toward any form of birth control. It DOES count toward abortions. It also counts towards mandatory sterilization of anyone NOT paying into the UHC fund who still manages to get pregnant or impregnate someone else. There's no excuse for that when keeping your zipper up, your legs crossed and FREE birth control can help you control yourself from having a child you can't afford.

I'm with you so far. And given some of our past discussions on the topic of sex ed, I'm pleasantly surprised by your position on this.

Personally, I happen to believe that the best form of birth control for any woman is an aspirin... squeezed tightly between the knees. And the best for any man is to have to see the first half hour of "There's Something About Mary" over and over again.

3. A GED or High School Diploma is a pre-requisite for receiving medical benefits for yourself or your children.

I'm not sure of my position on this one. Certainly I think that a GED or HS Diploma is desirable... but should it be a prerequisit for government health insurance? If a HS dropout can get private insurance, why should he be banned from getting government insurance if it is available. Do we have a HS Diploma requirement for Medicare or Medicaid? Should we? I don't know.

I think your GOAL is laudible. I'm just not sure it is either fair or enforcable.

4. After retirement, you must have paid in at least 5 years worth of dues to receive medical care (we could extend Soc Security long enough to cover those already retired, or within that 5 year range). Again, how much care you get is completely dependent on how much you paid into the program.

That actually seems fair to me. What you pay for is what you get out of it.

5. Dependents may receive care based on your program, so that house-wives and house-husbands still exist. Their "pension" plans are much the same--it's based on what is put in.

Again, that seems fair, as long as the working spouse's contributions can be counted toward the house-spouse's "account".

If we're just going to hand out free medical care to idiots who can't manage money or can't get off their rear ends and WORK, then I want no part of it.

I refuse to pay according to my ability for someone else to use all of the funds toward their need. If that's what will happen, I'll quit my job, apply for Welfare, and have free medical care and food for the rest of my life on the taxpayers' dollars, without actually paying taxes myself. Hell, me quitting my job might actually put my husband and I out of the highest tax bracket for our income level, and we might actually get a tax RETURN every year, instead of actually withholding at the highest amount, adding on an extra $100 per paycheck and STILL paying in about $3k every year.

We are in general agreement with these points.

But one thing that you don't address is freedom of choice within a public system... the ability to pay OUTSIDE the system for what cannot be purchased within the system. If government insurance won't cover my hip replacement, I want the option of being able to either pay for it with supplementary insurance or out of pocket. Under a single-payer system, that would NOT be permitted. I want that level of choice.

So add freedom of choice to your list, and I could possibly agree to what you are proposing.

Elliot

[Synnen]

Elliot,

Meant to throw that in there. Posting from work, so it took me about an hour to type that up, and just forgot to add it..

[ETWolverine]

Elliot,

Meant to throw that in there. Posting from work, so it took me about an hour to type that up, and just forgot to add it..

Then consider us to be in agreement on this one. :):):)

Elliot

[speechlesstx]

Speaking of open mikes, the uproar over Joe Wilson being heard shouting out "You Lie!" at Obama has taken some interesting turns. Though he's already apologized Pelosi is threatening him with a "resolution of disapproval" if he doesn't also apologize on the House floor (no mention of when anyone will demand Harry Reid do the same in he Senate for calling Bush a liar).

Obama and Democrats have sworn all along that the reason for Wilson's shout out doesn't exist in the bills. So why did they make this move today?

The controversy over Republican Rep. Joe Wilson's shouting out "You Lie!" at the President over his claim that illegal immigrants wouldn't benefit from health-care reform apparently sparked some reconsideration of the relevant language. "We really thought we'd resolved this question of people who are here illegally, but as we reflected on the President's speech last night we wanted to go back and drill down again," said Senator Kent Conrad, one of the Democrats in the talks after a meeting Thursday morning. Baucus later that afternoon said the group would put in a proof of citizenship requirement to participate in the new health exchange — a move likely to inflame the left.

Just exactly what can we believe from Obama and the Dems on this?

[excon]

Just exactly what can we believe from Obama and the Dems on this?

Hello Steve:

When them death panels are gone, we can believe 'em... They're still there, ain't they?? Wolverine??

excon

[tomder55]

Speaking of open mikes, the uproar over Joe Wilson being heard shouting out "You Lie!" at Obama has taken some interesting turns. Though he's already apologized Pelosi is threatening him with a "resolution of disapproval" if he doesn't also apologize on the House floor (no mention of when anyone will demand Harry Reid do the same in he Senate for calling Bush a liar).

Obama and Democrats have sworn all along that the reason for Wilson's shout out doesn't exist in the bills. So why did they make this move today?



Just exactly what can we believe from Obama and the Dems on this?

Well for one thing ;responding to the outburst that brought the issue to the forefront, the administration did a Friday night ,under the radar clarification of it's polices regarding illegals participating in the President's plan .

The White House tonight is providing the below clarification on what the president's health-care proposals would mean when it comes to the issue of illegal immigrants.

The question, as we all know, arises from the Wilson "You lie" outburst, and the core claim that notwithstanding specific bill language barring illegal immigrants from participating in the "exchange," as a practical matter, there is no way of verifying the citizenship of applicants -- which is the current state of play. Republicans say that then means illegal immigrants would end up being enrolled in plans -- bill language or no bill language.

Today, for the first time as far as we know, the administration is backing a provision that would require proof of citizenship before someone could enroll in a plan selected on the exchange.

Here, the administration also concedes that hospitals would be compensated with public funds for the care of undocumented immigrants.



The bullet points sent tonight by the White House:

• Undocumented immigrants would not be able to buy private insurance on the exchange. Those who are lawfully present in this country would be able to participate.
• Undocumented immigrants would be able to buy insurance in the non-exchange private market, just as they do today. That market will shrink as the exchange takes hold, but it will still exist and will be subject to reforms such as the bans on pre-existing conditions and caps.
• Verification will be required when purchasing health insurance on the exchange. One option is the SAVE program (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements) which states currently use to make sure that undocumented immigrants don't participate in safety-net programs for which they are ineligible.
• There would be no change in the law that requires emergency rooms to treat people who need emergency care, including undocumented immigrants. There is already a federal grant program that compensates states for emergency room costs associated with treatment of undocumented immigrants, a provision sponsored by a Republican lawmaker.

WH on health care, illegal immigrants - First Read - msnbc.com

Well done Joe Wilson. In this case the truth trumps protocol .You would never had been heard had you not lost control. The fact is that Republicans had tried to make similar safeguards and verifications in HR3200 amendments and were blocked by the Congressional Dems. Wilson had served on one of those committees

The question now is ;will the President veto the final bill if his outline is not included in it ? I kind of doubt it.

[ETWolverine]

Hello Steve:

When them death panels are gone, we can believe 'em... They're still there, ain't they??? Wolverine???

excon

Well, I haven't seen any chages to sections 142, 143 and 1233 of the House bill. So... yes, they're still there.

Elliot

[NeedKarma]

Well, I haven't seen any chages to sections 142, 143 and 1233 of the House bill. So... yes, they're still there.

Elliot

LOL! You're still trying this stuff?

[ETWolverine]

LOL! You're still trying this stuff?

Just until those sections are eliminated from the Bill or the Bill is killed.

Until then, what is on paper is very clear, easy to read, and clearly harder and harder to deny... Obama wasn't able to convince anyone that there aren't death panels, because people have read the bill and understand what it says now.

Now... you can argue that insurance companies ALSO have death panels if you wish. But you can't deny that this Bill has them.

Or you can... but nobody will believe it anymore. Not if they read the bill.

Elliot

[NeedKarma]

Until then, what is on paper is very clear, easy to read, and clearly harder and harder to deny...

Except that you can't quote a direct quote from the bill to prove your point, you always need to "read between the lines" or link the text with some other external material.

But you can't deny that this Bill has them.

I vehemently deny it.

[excon]

I vehemently deny it.

Hello again, NK:

Who you talking to? The dinning room table again?? I've told you about that stuff...

excon