The Bitter Health Care Debate
- Thread starter Joesitz (RIP)
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2003
Yeah. I really do wonder if it will make any difference, and if this difference will be positive. Things in the bill are certainly "not what they appear to be". Take even the whole pre-existing condition thing. The insurance companies still get to charge up to 300% more for them. Sigh...
Mathman.....you're on the right track!
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
Indeed. $250 to prevent his decaying body to clutter up the land.
The only rationale we have is to use euthanasia and eliminate these poor wretched burdensome people God will understand.
Reagan came close this. He closed all the federally funded hospitals for the mentally ill. They were clothed and thrown into the streets for the churches to take care of, and many died. I got a $200 rebate on my income tax. God was happy for me.
We should also ban all those books which portray the struggle of the poor. We are now at the stage of mercy killing and book burning. Progress is our goal.
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2005
I was reading an article on the passing of this bill and I came across this quote:
House minority leader John Boehner slammed the bill moments after passage.
"Not even Ebenezer Scrooge himself could devise a scheme as cruel and greedy as Democrats' government takeover of health care," the Ohio Republican said in a statement.
It's cruel and greedy to want to extend health care coverage to 30 million of your citizens??
The bills would ban insurance companies from denying coverage for those with pre-existing conditions. The legislation would also for the first time make health insurance mandatory for nearly everyone in the U.S., provide subsidies to help low-income people buy it, and induce employers to provide it with tax breaks for small businesses and penalties for larger ones.
Sounds like a step in the right direction to me!
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2009/12/24/health-care.html
House minority leader John Boehner slammed the bill moments after passage.
"Not even Ebenezer Scrooge himself could devise a scheme as cruel and greedy as Democrats' government takeover of health care," the Ohio Republican said in a statement.
It's cruel and greedy to want to extend health care coverage to 30 million of your citizens??
The bills would ban insurance companies from denying coverage for those with pre-existing conditions. The legislation would also for the first time make health insurance mandatory for nearly everyone in the U.S., provide subsidies to help low-income people buy it, and induce employers to provide it with tax breaks for small businesses and penalties for larger ones.
Sounds like a step in the right direction to me!
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2009/12/24/health-care.html
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2003
"are there no prisons? no poor houses?"
"oh, there are plenty of those..."
"Good! For a moment I was worried."
yes that's what I want. MANDATORY health care. I'm sorry, where's my free choice in all of this? what if I don't want a crap for insurance run by the government? who are these that are the "nearly" the ones that don't have to follow the rules? I'll bet it's teh pres and his cronies... because they're not dumb enough to want it.
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2005
I think this is the biggest part I don't understand and maybe I am missing something obvious but, who doesn't want health insurance? Wouldn't you rather not pay for your medical services? :scratch:
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
I think it is something like this.
There are a few people in the U.S. who, like Toni, feel as a matter of principle that they are responsible for making their own way in the world without relying on Big Brother to pay the way. He who pays the piper calls the tune. The govenment calls way too many tunes as it is.
There are many, many more people, however, who would be glad to receive free stuff, like medical services, but they do not want to pay for these services for other people.
Then there are those, like the Senator quoted above, who don't like the bill because they are Republicans and it is their duty to be against anything the Democrats propose, and vice versa.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2003
why is it anyone ELSE'S responsibility to take care of ME? It's MY responsibility once I hit adulthood. Children can get covered by many state and government programs... if their parent(s) cannot afford to cover them (be it because they don't have health insurance).
I agree, no one should be denied health care; I don't agree that it's a natural right to have health INSURANCE. no where does it state that in the constitution.
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2005
Thanks for the explanation, Mathman. I especially like your last paragraph, because that Republican who I quoted before seems to fit this to a T
I don't understand how people could justify the reasoning in the second paragraph. I guess it's just a mentality. I like this segment from Sicko:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoBHDKwgSEY
What do the American adults without health insurance do then? Does anyone look out for them? Also, isn't it the insurance companies that frequently deny their clients coverage so they end up having to pay for something anyways, even if they are covered?
Sounds like a broken system to me that desperately needs repairing!
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2003
I pay for it out of pocket. I don't EXPECT someone else to come in and provide it for me. Not every company is out of it for the $$.
Knowing the federal government I don't see this as being ANY different if they were running it.
Any system that the government runs is broken the moment it's implemented. our government and our national debt is already insanely huge. my life is more important than that, and I'll hold to the right that it's ultimately MY CHOICE.
what happens when, down the line, a woman gets pregnant and her beliefs say that she should not terminate the pregnancy even though it will likely do HER body harm. Under this system she could become a "Nearly all get covered" and so she's denyed health care by the government's doctors. I don't trust that this system would even allow her to go to the dr. without insurance of some kind (much like you're not allowed to drive without proof of insurance. you can be fined).
yes I do think that this will happen. it may not be in writing, but career politicians LOVE loopholes, and I do think they are just that type of evil. Republican, Democrat, Independant, etc. They're all looking out for themselves and their career. Which is NO different than a doctor who charges 500 bucks an hour.
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2005
And what if you can't afford it?? If someone is down on their luck; has lost their house and job, and gets slammed with a HUGE bill from the hospital, what exactly becomes of them? What if you are homeless?
Wouldn't the American people stand up and say something about a situation like this though? You live in a democracy, it isn't as if it is an iron fist that is ruling. It doesn't seem like you have much faith in the government. I think our current Canadian Prime Minister is destroying our countries reputation, economy, etc. Hopefully, he will be on the outs soon.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2003
There are programs that aren't so stupidly expensive that one can't handle it. If it were me I'd have to suck it up and be put on a payment plan. i'd have to *gasp* give up a lot to pay for it but I'd still at least do my best to make it so the hospital didn't eat up the cost and stiff the next person with insurance. I'd probably not go on another vacation out of state, and netflix/cable/eating out/movies. We're so blessed in this country and people have just come to assume it's what's due them. The World/Country/Government owes me nothing.
I'm of the belief that no, the majority would not. They've already voted in to where parents have no "right" to know if their daughter goes in for a major surgery to abort her baby when she's underage. They're on the road to partial birth abortions... chances are the woman would be ridiculed for making "an insane decision. "
I don't put my faith in anyone but One. so, no, I don't trust teh government as far as I can throw it. The way they've done things in the past, and how they are planning the future gives me no reason to trust them further. The men and women in Washington - majority that is - don't give a hang about the people who voted them in those seats. To them it's a paycheck (a big one at that). As an Alaskan I'd rather trust the local government than the federal government. Alaska's a pawn in their pathetic little games, they know nothing of the way we do things up here, and yet they think they know what's best for all involved even after coming up on their pathetic excuse for a 'research trip' and they totally miss the mark. I know, I'm in a government organization that's sending a bunch of DC brainless up here this month and they continue to ignore our advice on what to expect in the "Bush communities" (rural, not fans of the former president).
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
Lets face it, opponents do want to help the poor to decent health care but not at their expense. True? and they have no suggestions. True? They're happy. with the present scheme leaving health care only to those who can afford it. Obviously!
The Government runs many programs, especially financing invasions which we all pay for even if there were no cause.like WMD. Our war in Afhanistan was simply to retaliate for 9/11 and which we have yet to do - a definite failure.The Taliban were peaceful till we went in. Our Government was the cause for Al Quaida to be in both those countries, because they were not there before
Al Quaeda originated with.Ben Laddin in Saudi Arabia and all the Terrorists for9/11 came from oil rich Saudi Arabia so Bush could not blame a nationality. Could he?
I digressed. Sorry. There are Federal programs and there are no Federal programs. Medicare which Kennedy fought hard was denounced by the anti-private interests. Now since they have learned to cheat that program, it's ok.
No?
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2005
But there are people that can't afford it! Some people cannot afford to pay for shelter, food, and insurance on top of that. If you have the choice, which one are you probably going to live without? The insurance of course. You need to have a roof over your head and food stamps only go so far. There are people who are living in low income housing, working a mimimum wage job - which I just googled is about $7.25 on average in the US. How on earth are you supposed to pay for everything making that amount of money?
Yes, people need to figure out their own problems but there should be things that a person shouldn't have to pay for. There should also be social service programs that assist the person in figuring their life out. Shouldn't the goal of a society be to have the healthiest and most educated people possible??
As a country, you should do everything you can to help make this possible. You don't turn you back on someone because they are having a hard time, imo.
that made me laugh!
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2003
THERE ARE! Why isn't the government FIXING those programs instead of incorporating a NEW program that's going to be just as BROKEN?????????????
I just want to know where they come off saying I have to have insurance, period. I don't HAVE to have it. But with this bill unless i'm somehow a "nearly all" it'll be required. That's not helping ANYONE, imho.
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2005
Perhaps the States needs to ask the countries who have government run health programs how they manage to keep them up and running. It seems to run okay in other countries.
I think the biggest problem is that the States is very much a "capitalist society" and yet has had so many problems with money. I imagine it's hard to keep government programs dedicated to helping people in in need, running when the debt to China is almost 800 billion dollards, companies are asking for government buyouts while they still receive huge bonuses, there have been TWO wars that have needed to be financed since the early 2000s, etc.
In the words of Tony Benn, "If you can find money to kill people you can find money to help people,"
Perhaps the priorities need to be realigned as well.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
I'm shocked to read what a cold person you are towards those unfortunate people who are on the lowest rung of the American Caste System. As you say, the responsibility is not yours. It's like you belong to the 'it's all about me' group. I hope I'm wrong.
If you really agree that no one should be denied health care, and your ok with it's passage in Congress, I guarentee you will pay more for that then you would pay for health insurance. There would be no reason for hospitals to lower their fees.
And by the way, you still have the option to choose your personal health wishes under this proposed scheme.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
I just do not see the merit in this particular plan. As far as I can see it says:
(a) If you want to buy some insurance, go to an insurance company and buy it, paying whatever the company charges.
(b) If you don't want to buy any insurance, you still have to go to an insurance company and buy it, paying whatever the insurance company charges.
(c) If you cannot afford insurance (this applies to the "working poor," not to the truly destitute), then you must go to an insurance company and the government will help you pay your premium to the company.
(d) The truly destitute will continue to rely on government programs like Medicaid, as they do now.
Quick, where can I buy some stock in an insurance company?
(a) If you want to buy some insurance, go to an insurance company and buy it, paying whatever the company charges.
(b) If you don't want to buy any insurance, you still have to go to an insurance company and buy it, paying whatever the insurance company charges.
(c) If you cannot afford insurance (this applies to the "working poor," not to the truly destitute), then you must go to an insurance company and the government will help you pay your premium to the company.
(d) The truly destitute will continue to rely on government programs like Medicaid, as they do now.
Quick, where can I buy some stock in an insurance company?
