Health Care: When did Health Care Insurance become anything other than a privilege? [Archive]

Farmersfan

07-27-2009, 07:54 AM

I think the question has to be asked: Do we lead the world or do we follow?
The type of healthcare system purposed by our current leaders has been done. Several times in many countries. Citizens of THOSE countries come to America to get quality care. Most leave again without paying for the care but none the less it speaks about the conditions in their own country.
There are a million reasons for the high cost of healthcare in this country. Just as there are a million reasons a new car costs 40K or a gal of milk costs 4.00. Ever wonder how we got to a point where a new home would cost you 1/2 million dollars easy? All things in this country are over-inflated. It's the nature of the beast. You can call it greed or corporate selfishness if you want but the bottom line is PEOPLE PAY THOSE PRICES! If nobody would pay 40K for a car then how many cars would cost 40K? If nobody bought 1/2 million dollar homes then would you ever see a 1/2 million dollar home? 60 years ago a new home costs you about 10K. But 50 years ago a new home on average was a 900 sqft box with windows.
Even with the high costs of healthcare it still will only equate to about 10% of the average families income. Why don't our leaders address those things that eat away at the other 90% of our money???????

Farmersfan

07-27-2009, 08:09 AM

Originally posted by Blastoderm55
If we can rebuild other countries, we can provide health care for working Americans and their families. Should we do either? Eh, that's tricky. Surely its in our best interest as a nation to provide for our own as opposed to others, though.

It is assumed that we "CAN" provide healthcare for all working Americans, but what do we do with the "NON-WORKING" Americans? The number of Americans taking advantage of the good will of other Americans has progressively gotten worse over the years. Isn't Obama and his people simply exacerbating this attutude?

JasperDog94

07-27-2009, 08:18 AM

Originally posted by Blastoderm55
If we can rebuild other countries, we can provide health care for working Americans and their families. Why not allow people to get health insurance outside their state to increase competition to lower costs and allow people to EARN their healthcare instead of it being given to them?

scrub c

07-27-2009, 08:18 AM

seems to be...

Farmersfan

07-27-2009, 08:22 AM

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Why not allow people to get health insurance outside their state to increase competition to lower costs and allow people to EARN their healthcare instead of it being given to them?

Because Obama wouldn't have been elected if he had used that quality idea to campaign with!!!!! He got the office by promising to "GIVE" everyone what they think they are entitled to........

Pick6

07-27-2009, 08:23 AM

Originally posted by Electus Unus
I think there are a lot of ignorant people out there.

Esp. the majority :D

JasperDog94

07-27-2009, 08:37 AM

Originally posted by Farmersfan
Because Obama wouldn't have been elected if he had used that quality idea to campaign with!!!!! He got the office by promising to "GIVE" everyone what they think they are entitled to........ Especially since he voted against that very measure when he was in the Senate.

rockdale80

07-27-2009, 08:46 AM

I think if you are poor and cant afford treatment you should die. Why should anyone be expected to help anyone? :rolleyes:

JasperDog94

07-27-2009, 08:49 AM

Originally posted by rockdale80
I think if you are poor and cant afford treatment you should die. Why should anyone be expected to help anyone? :rolleyes: Typical response. We currently have a system that won't "let somebody die.":rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Additup

07-27-2009, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by Farmersfan
It is assumed that we "CAN" provide healthcare for all working Americans, but what do we do with the "NON-WORKING" Americans? The number of Americans taking advantage of the good will of other Americans has progressively gotten worse over the years. Isn't Obama and his people simply exacerbating this attutude?
just like the walfare system in general:
"what was intended to serve as a safety net, has become a hammock."
from Why America Doesn't Work by Chuck Colson and Jack Eckerd

rockdale80

07-27-2009, 08:53 AM

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Typical response. We currently have a system that won't "let somebody die.":rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Typical? How so?

Essentially the mentality is those can afford insurance and treatment as a privilege should live and everyone else can die off.

JasperDog94

07-27-2009, 08:56 AM

Originally posted by rockdale80
Typical? How so?

Essentially the mentality is those can afford insurance and treatment as a privilege should live and everyone else can die off. But that's not happening now so that argument is mute. Why revamp an entire system using an argument that doesn't hold water with the current system?

JasperDog94

07-27-2009, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by rockdale80
Typical? How so?

And it's typical because when anyone says something negative about the health care proposal or wants someone to earn healthcare instead of it being given to them, the typical response is,"then I guess they can just die."

rockdale80

07-27-2009, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by JasperDog94
And it's typical because when anyone says something negative about the health care proposal or wants someone to earn healthcare instead of it being given to them, the typical response is,"then I guess they can just die."

Well that is the outcome of a privilege only based system. Is it not? So typical, perhaps, but not untrue. Medicare and Medicaid would be out of the window. Mandatory care for the uninsured in the ER would be gone. I mean when you slice it so cut and dry the outcome is typically death.

Txbroadcaster

07-27-2009, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by JasperDog94
But that's not happening now so that argument is mute. Why revamp an entire system using an argument that doesn't hold water with the current system?

that is actually not true

while ER's cannot deny people..patients do die when they cannot get into to places like John Hopkins and places for certain procedures that only a few places can do.

Now i am not big on national health care or anything, but SOMETHING has to change

jason

07-27-2009, 09:30 AM

so what is the president's response to people who currently have their own insurance that cover's them for whatever health care they need and in comes the govt health care plan and they tell the same person 'sorry, we wont approve that for you, even though when you were paying for it yourself you could get it - heres an advil'.

i find it ironic that this program will be so great and beneficial, yet the people in washington have exempted themselves from having to use it...

you would think they would lead by example and get rid of their private insurance first.....

Eagle 1

07-27-2009, 10:04 AM

Don't cut your nose off just to spite your face.

Here's a true story for you.
A very good lady friend of ours is from Germany. She married an American Soldier and moved to the US several years ago. In Germany its not uncommon to see hard working Germans to live to be well up in their 90's.
In Germany they also use a uniformed government based health care system, much like what obama is try to amend.
A couple of years ago her mother, who still lived in Germany, developed cancer. She needed some type of special treatment which could possibly put the cancer into remission and prolong her life. However, the government decided that since she was in her 60's that she was to old to receive this expensive treatment. She died a year later. Our freind is very much against this "uniformed" health care plan that obama is trying to "impose" upon us. She understands first hand the reprocussion's that this will have on everyone of us. I don't know about you, but I hope to live well past my 60's, and if I develope cancer, I dont want to depend on the government to give the ok as to what type of treatment I receive. I can only imagine what kind of "red tape" paperwork one would have to go through to get approval for treament. By the time the paperwork goes through you probably will be dead.
Anyway just some food for thought for you die hard democrats.

Farmersfan

07-27-2009, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by jason
so what is the president's response to people who currently have their own insurance that cover's them for whatever health care they need and in comes the govt health care plan and they tell the same person 'sorry, we wont approve that for you, even though when you were paying for it yourself you could get it - heres an advil'.

i find it ironic that this program will be so great and beneficial, yet the people in washington have exempted themselves from having to use it...

you would think they would lead by example and get rid of their private insurance first.....

I believe our great leader was asked that very question the other night. After much studdering he proclaimed that he was the President of the Unitied States and had a doctor following him around 24 hours a day. He said he had the best healthcare in the country! He seemed a bit put-out by the question. Everyone laughed like he had just said something we didn't already know. I think what the question was meant to elicit from him was a statement about how if it's good enough for the rest of us then why isn't it good enough for him? As usual he total played it off.

Farmersfan

07-27-2009, 10:12 AM

Originally posted by Eagle 1
Don't cut your nose off just to spite your face.

Here's a true story for you.
A very good lady friend of ours is from Germany. She married an American Soldier and moved to the US several years ago. In Germany its not uncommon to see hard working Germans to live to be well up in their 90's.
In Germany they also use a uniformed government based health care system, much like what obama is try to amend.
A couple of years ago her mother, who still lived in Germany, developed cancer. She needed some type of special treatment which could possibly put the cancer into remission and prolong her life. However, the government decided that since she was in her 60's that she was to old to receive this expensive treatment. She died a year later. Our freind is very much against this "uniformed" health care plan that obama is trying to "impose" upon us. She understands first hand the reprocussion's that this will have on everyone of us. I don't know about you, but I hope to live well past my 60's, and if I develope cancer, I dont want to depend on the government to give the ok as to what type of treatment I receive. I can only imagine what kind of "red tape" paperwork one would have to go through to get approval for treament. By the time the paperwork goes through you probably will be dead.
Anyway just some food for thought for you die hard democrats.

Did you happen to ask her how much they pay in taxes in that great country of German to get that healthcare?????

Eagle 1

07-27-2009, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by Farmersfan
Did you happen to ask her how much they pay in taxes in that great country of German to get that healthcare?????

I will, but remember most countries outside the US dont "waste" the taxpayers money outside thier own country. So one could conclude that their taxes may be relatively cheapier than ours in terms of percentages.
I still don't want the government deciding what's best when it comes to MY health care.

Electus Unus

07-27-2009, 11:33 AM

people who don't have insurance go to the ER and get treated like crap.

Ranger Mom

07-27-2009, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by Electus Unus
people who don't have insurance go to the ER and get treated like crap.

In Midland...so do people with insurance.

rockdale80

07-27-2009, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by Farmersfan
I think the question has to be asked: Do we lead the world or do we follow?
The type of healthcare system purposed by our current leaders has been done. Several times in many countries. Citizens of THOSE countries come to America to get quality care. Most leave again without paying for the care but none the less it speaks about the conditions in their own country.
There are a million reasons for the high cost of healthcare in this country. Just as there are a million reasons a new car costs 40K or a gal of milk costs 4.00. Ever wonder how we got to a point where a new home would cost you 1/2 million dollars easy? All things in this country are over-inflated. It's the nature of the beast. You can call it greed or corporate selfishness if you want but the bottom line is PEOPLE PAY THOSE PRICES! If nobody would pay 40K for a car then how many cars would cost 40K? If nobody bought 1/2 million dollar homes then would you ever see a 1/2 million dollar home? 60 years ago a new home costs you about 10K. But 50 years ago a new home on average was a 900 sqft box with windows.

Even with the high costs of healthcare it still will only equate to about 10% of the average families income. Why don't our leaders address those things that eat away at the other 90% of our money???????

The 10% number you tossed out is dependent on income and the number reaches closer to 20-25% for most families and there is a defenite need for reform. The highest typically being those between retirement and medicaid.

The proposal does not mirror anything you guys are referring to when talking about other nations and their plan and based on everything I have read the single payer plan has been rejected by multiple parties. I have no issue with the discussion, but most of what is being spewed is grossly inaccurate.

rockdale80

07-27-2009, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by Eagle 1
I will, but remember most countries outside the US dont "waste" the taxpayers money outside thier own country. So one could conclude that their taxes may be relatively cheapier than ours in terms of percentages.
I still don't want the government deciding what's best when it comes to MY health care.

If you have insurance then nothing would change. How is that deciding for you?

BEAST

07-27-2009, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by Electus Unus
people who don't have insurance go to the ER and get treated like crap.

Those people dont have health insurance by choice. If they really wanted its available. Now, they may have to do things they dont want to do but its available none the less. Its called, finding a better job that offers the insurance they want. If that job is not available in their town, MOVE. Thats the beauty of America, we have the RIGHT to PURSUE. NOT the RIGHT to HAVE.

BEAST

rockdale80

07-27-2009, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by Eagle 1
Don't cut your nose off just to spite your face.

Here's a true story for you.
A very good lady friend of ours is from Germany. She married an American Soldier and moved to the US several years ago. In Germany its not uncommon to see hard working Germans to live to be well up in their 90's.
In Germany they also use a uniformed government based health care system, much like what obama is try to amend.
A couple of years ago her mother, who still lived in Germany, developed cancer. She needed some type of special treatment which could possibly put the cancer into remission and prolong her life. However, the government decided that since she was in her 60's that she was to old to receive this expensive treatment. She died a year later. Our freind is very much against this "uniformed" health care plan that obama is trying to "impose" upon us. She understands first hand the reprocussion's that this will have on everyone of us. I don't know about you, but I hope to live well past my 60's, and if I develope cancer, I dont want to depend on the government to give the ok as to what type of treatment I receive. I can only imagine what kind of "red tape" paperwork one would have to go through to get approval for treament. By the time the paperwork goes through you probably will be dead.
Anyway just some food for thought for you die hard democrats.

That is a good story, but it doesnt have anything to do with what is being proposed. Food for thought for you....

Go read up on the issue and dont let Fox mislead you. ;)

BEAST

07-27-2009, 11:52 AM

rockdale80

07-27-2009, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by BEAST
Those people dont have health insurance by choice. If they really wanted its available. Now, they may have to do things they dont want to do but its available none the less. Its called, finding a better job that offers the insurance they want. If that job is not available in their town, MOVE. Thats the beauty of America, we have the RIGHT to PURSUE. NOT the RIGHT to HAVE.

BEAST

Statistice of who is uninsured.

79 percent are U.S. citizens
more than 80 percent are from families where at least one person holds a job

I am sure that moving when you cant afford insurance is a great option and I am also relatively certain that people dont stay at their job as a fry cook at McDonalds because they dont want to get ahead. :rolleyes:

rockdale80

07-27-2009, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by BEAST
Just as you dont let the liberal mainstream media mislead you?

BEAST

Beast, we have discussed this before and you know that to not be true. I was not making my statement up. Fact check it if you dont believe me.

slpybear the bullfan

07-27-2009, 11:58 AM

Simple truth...

Until you do SOMETHING to drive down the cost of Healthcare, then NOTHING will solve the problem.

Allowing the govt to provide healthcare to all, without reducing existing prices will add gas to the fire.

Any plan of the gov't that does nothing to address reducing healthcare pricing, (and specifically involving tort reform), would get zero response from me. ZERO.

bandera7

07-27-2009, 11:59 AM

rockdale80, I have to agree with him. CNN is just as liberal as Fox is conservative. Look at the way the stations portray issues...if it is anything conservative, its bad for everybody except FOX. Vice Versa for liberal.

BEAST

07-27-2009, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by rockdale80
Statistice of who is uninsured.

79 percent are U.S. citizens
more than 80 percent are from families where at least one person holds a job

I am sure that moving when you cant afford insurance is a great option and I am also relatively certain that people dont stay at their job as a fry cook at McDonalds because they dont want to get ahead. :rolleyes:

So therefore we should just give it to them?

Rockdale, please try to explain to me why in the hell any of us should just be given anything. Would you give your young kids(dont know if you have any) a reward for sitting on their ass? Or would you reward them when they mowed the yard or some other act that isnt part of their daily job?

Plain and simple, we have to the right to get up and go into the market place and better ourselves. The biggest percentage of people you are refering to, I would bet the farm, have only looked in their town, and concluded that there is nothing for them. We do not have the right of health insurance. Plain and simple.

BEAST

slpybear the bullfan

07-27-2009, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by BEAST
So therefore we should just give it to them?

Rockdale, please try to explain to me why in the hell any of us should just be given anything. Would you give your young kids(dont know if you have any) a reward for sitting on their ass? Or would you reward them when they mowed the yard or some other act that isnt part of their daily job?

Plain and simple, we have to the right to get up and go into the market place and better ourselves. The biggest percentage of people you are refering to, I would bet the farm, have only looked in their town, and concluded that there is nothing for them. We do not have the right of health insurance. Plain and simple.

BEAST

Everyone is provided public education, disaster relief, military protection, police services, etc. either with or without paying taxes as their income dictates. Should healthcare be a part of this?

I am undecided, (and a conservative.) But I also know that we all enjoy benefits of living in this country that we do not pay our own way for.

WildTexan972

07-27-2009, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by rockdale80
That is a good story, but it doesnt have anything to do with what is being proposed. Food for thought for you....

Go read up on the issue and dont let Fox mislead you. ;)

you sir are the fool...any moron democrat that claims that some folks will be denied treatment by some desk-sittin paper pusher is just retarded....the entire concept of gubmint run healthcare in Canada and Britain that osama models after is EXACTLY that....which is why then the richer folks in those countries then come to America to be treated after the osamas of their nation turn them down...

healthcare is not a right it is a choice....same as owning a home or a car or a stereo or an HD tv.....the only RIGHT that we have in the constitution that this osama crook has any interest in is owning a gun, and this crew wants to END that right for us....

Electus Unus

07-27-2009, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by WildTexan972
you sir are the fool...any moron democrat that claims that some folks will be denied treatment by some desk-sittin paper pusher is just retarded....the entire concept of gubmint run healthcare in Canada and Britain that osama models after is EXACTLY that....which is why then the richer folks in those countries then come to America to be treated after the osamas of their nation turn them down...

healthcare is not a right it is a choice....same as owning a home or a car or a stereo or an HD tv.....the only RIGHT that we have in the constitution that this osama crook has any interest in is owning a gun, and this crew wants to END that right for us.... So you're comparing a persons life and well being with a TV?

WOW!

rockdale80

07-27-2009, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by WildTexan972
you sir are the fool...any moron democrat that claims that some folks will be denied treatment by some desk-sittin paper pusher is just retarded....the entire concept of gubmint run healthcare in Canada and Britain that osama models after is EXACTLY that....which is why then the richer folks in those countries then come to America to be treated after the osamas of their nation turn them down...

healthcare is not a right it is a choice....same as owning a home or a car or a stereo or an HD tv.....the only RIGHT that we have in the constitution that this osama crook has any interest in is owning a gun, and this crew wants to END that right for us....

Hahaha....what you just said could not be farther from the truth. The proposal isnt even close in nature to Canada or BritainFactchecked (http://www.factcheck.org/politics/canadian_straw_man.html)

rockdale80

07-27-2009, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by BEAST
So therefore we should just give it to them?

Rockdale, please try to explain to me why in the hell any of us should just be given anything. Would you give your young kids(dont know if you have any) a reward for sitting on their ass? Or would you reward them when they mowed the yard or some other act that isnt part of their daily job?

Plain and simple, we have to the right to get up and go into the market place and better ourselves. The biggest percentage of people you are refering to, I would bet the farm, have only looked in their town, and concluded that there is nothing for them. We do not have the right of health insurance. Plain and simple.

BEAST

So those uninsured should not ever be treated and die?

Pick6

07-27-2009, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by rockdale80

Go read up on the issue and dont let Fox mislead you. ;)

There's his typical response. If he doesn't agree he blames Foxnews.

smackajak

07-27-2009, 12:28 PM

In the category of how does this apply to high school football...

I recently attended a meeting of physical therapists & and athletic trainers. While discussing a protocol for the treatment of athletes injured during a football game, the importance of a MRI within 24-48 hours of most injuries was stated. The attendees from Canada almost fell out of their chairs. 4-8 weeks minimum they stated was how long the wait is for these types of injuries. Regardless of what insurance you have.

How would that be, injured in zero week, then the evaluation completing at playoff time. Then treatment, surgery, & rehab, all happening after similar delay(S). Better hope you are a sophomore when you get hurt so you will be ready by your senior year.....

Be careful what you wish for, you may get it.

rockdale80

07-27-2009, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by bandera7
rockdale80, I have to agree with him. CNN is just as liberal as Fox is conservative. Look at the way the stations portray issues...if it is anything conservative, its bad for everybody except FOX. Vice Versa for liberal.

I dont get my news from CNN or any TV channel. Actually, I probably watch FOX more than any of the others but only because they are entertaining and not because they are FACTUAL. But yes I agree that every channel has a partisan slant. Sad, but very true.

And Pick6, you know darn good and well that the majority of the ignorance that comes out of a republicans mouth is because they watch Fox and take it as gospel.

Pick6

07-27-2009, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by rockdale80
So those uninsured should not ever be treated and die?

They should get a 2nd or 3rd job to take care of their families themselves. I done it, they can do it too.

rockdale80

07-27-2009, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by smackajak
In the category of how does this apply to high school football...

I recently attended a meeting of physical therapists & and athletic trainers. While discussing a protocol for the treatment of athletes injured during a football game, the importance of a MRI within 24-48 hours of most injuries was stated. The attendees from Canada almost fell out of their chairs. 4-8 weeks minimum they stated was how long the wait is for these types of injuries. Regardless of what insurance you have.

How would that be, injured in zero week, then the evaluation completing at playoff time. Then treatment, surgery, & rehab, all happening after similar delay(S). Better hope you are a sophomore when you get hurt so you will be ready by your senior year.....

Be careful what you wish for, you may get it.

The proposal has absolutely nothing to do with what Canada does. Read back a few quotes and click on the link I posted. Where do you get the idea that we are going to mirror Canada?

Pick6

07-27-2009, 12:30 PM

Originally posted by rockdale80

And Pick6, you know darn good and well that the majority of the ignorance that comes out of a republicans mouth is because they watch Fox and take it as gospel.

Just another one of your opinions. :rolleyes:

rockdale80

07-27-2009, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by Pick6
They should get a 2nd or 3rd job to take care of their families themselves. I done it, they can do it too.

WWJD?

"If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother." Deuteronomy 15:7

"Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked." Psalm 82:3-4

This idea of turning our backs to the poor and underprivelaged is not a very christian idea.

Pick6

07-27-2009, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by rockdale80
WWJD?

deliver them from the hand of the wicked." Psalm 82:3-4

This idea of turning our backs to the poor and underprivelaged is not a very christian idea.

We're gonna try to deliver them from the hand of the wicked in 2010 and 2012.

Democrats want to take Christianity out of America. Why use it as a quote? If this country wants to become a true Christian nation, then I'm all for it.

smackajak

07-27-2009, 12:45 PM

No one said we were going to copy Canada. President Obama has made it clear that expensive testing, CT and MRI, has got to be controlled. You can do that many ways but in the end result, if you set up a healthcare system that will cover millions more and not cost our country any more money than we currently are spending, you have to limit access-----ration.

Also, if we cut reimbursement excessively to healcare providors, the number of providors will eventually reduce. Thus we get less acess and more rationing.

Just one man's opinion.

rockdale80

07-27-2009, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by Pick6
We're gonna try to deliver them from the hand of the wicked in 2010 and 2012.

Democrats want to take Christianity out of America. Why use it as a quote? If this country wants to become a true Christian nation, then I'm all for it.

Didnt say I was for it, but republicans complain about the moral decline of this country then say that we should turn our backs to the poor and needy. Just contradicts itself, correct? You cant be religous only when it serves your purpose and I know I have heard you use the word of God in your arguments before....

I wasnt advocating it and merely using it to make a point... ;)

Pick6

07-27-2009, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by rockdale80
Didnt say I was for it, but republicans complain about the moral decline of this country then say that we should turn our backs to the poor and needy. Just contradicts itself, correct? You cant be religous only when it serves your purpose and I know I have heard you use the word of God in your arguments before....

I wasnt advocating it and merely using it to make a point... ;)

You get it all or none. If the country wants Christianity 100%, then I'm all for helping who needs help. If you just want to pick and choose when Christianity should fit, then I'm not with you.

rockdale80

07-27-2009, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by Pick6
You get it all or none. If the country wants Christianity 100%, then I'm all for helping who needs help. If you just want to pick and choose when Christianity should fit, then I'm not with you.

Fair enough. I have no problem with that personally, but there are several incidents of hypocrisy in this area and we both know it.

I wasnt picking and choosing and have said several times that we shouldnt overlap the two. I seem to remember being the outcast in my statement. I think everyone involved in this debate should probably brush up on some of the truths surrounding it and then argue those. I have said I have no issue discussing the ACTUAL issues at hand because I am not 100% for it either, but we most of what has been discussed so far is inaccurate and not true. We arent going to be Canade or Britain.

Electus Unus

07-27-2009, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by Pick6
They should get a 2nd or 3rd job to take care of their families themselves. I done it, they can do it too. These days its tough to get A job.

BEAST

07-27-2009, 01:53 PM

NBC ran a poll on one of its morning shows recently on whether or not the American people wanted the word "God" removed from our money, pledge, etc. 84% voted to keep God. 16% voted to let him go.

I say that just to make a point. The arguement made that Jesus would want us to help thy brother is true. However, he would want us to choose to do it with happiness in our heart. He would not want us to be forced to do it with bitterness in our heart. Its giving just the same. However, if you want to get religion in on this topic, Jesus would not like our state of being if it were done in the later form.

Now, to Rockdale, off course I would not want the folks without health insurance to just die. How about the do what they have to do to provide instead of waiting for a handout?

BEAST

rockdale80

07-27-2009, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by BEAST
NBC ran a poll on one of its morning shows recently on whether or not the American people wanted the word "God" removed from our money, pledge, etc. 84% voted to keep God. 16% voted to let him go.

I say that just to make a point. The arguement made that Jesus would want us to help thy brother is true. However, he would want us to choose to do it with happiness in our heart. He would not want us to be forced to do it with bitterness in our heart. Its giving just the same. However, if you want to get religion in on this topic, Jesus would not like our state of being if it were done in the later form.

Now, to Rockdale, off course I would not want the folks without health insurance to just die. How about the do what they have to do to provide instead of waiting for a handout?

BEAST

Considering 80% of them work I think they are trying to do what they have to do. Sometimes it is not as simple as finding another job.

Eagle 1

07-27-2009, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by rockdale80
If you have insurance then nothing would change. How is that deciding for you?

Hopefully you honestly dont believe "NOTHING" would change with your health care.
BTW by the poll on here indicates that most of us have some type of health care.

WWJD?
"If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother." Deuteronomy 15:7

"Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked." Psalm 82:3-4

This idea of turning our backs to the poor and underprivelaged is not a very christian idea.

If we are going to quote the Bible, what does Proverbs 21:25 teach us about laziness?

The desire of the slothful killeth him; for his hands refuse to labour.

rockdale80

07-27-2009, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by Eagle 1
Hopefully you honestly dont believe "NOTHING" would change with your health care.
BTW by the poll on here indicates that most of us have some type of health care.

If we are going to quote the Bible, what does Proverbs 21:25 teach us about laziness?

The desire of the slothful killeth him; for his hands refuse to labour.
80% of the uninsured work so it isnt a question of laziness, is it?

Pick6

07-27-2009, 02:09 PM

Originally posted by Electus Unus
These days its tough to get A job.

I didn't want to drive a shuttle bus 120 miles and get paid $15 dollars for it, but I did. Last June I got laid off. Found a job a month later but had to take an $12000 a year pay cut. Try losing $1000 a month with a family of 5. You can find a job if you really want to. That job may not pay you enough to continue the lifestyle that you are used to living, but you can still find a job.

BEAST

07-27-2009, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by rockdale80
80% of the uninsured work so it isnt a question of laziness, is it?

So, they are willing to work. Thats a plus. Now, why arent they willing to switch jobs to meet the desires they have? There isnt an entitlement that says if you work than you get............, is there? So let them be willing to find what they need, or work 2 jobs like alot of us have to afford what you need, or heaven forbid live a cheaper lifestyle. Or let them be willing to be content.

Side not Rockdale, you havent made the case I asked you to make to me. I ask again, Why in the hell should anyone expect to be given anything?

BEAST

BobcatBenny

07-27-2009, 02:30 PM

I have not read the entire thread ... so excuse me if this has already been covered.

The thing that drives me crazy is the way this legislation is being sold and the way people talk about health care in the United States.

Everyone in the U.S. already has access to health care.

I have had health insurance and I have been without health insurance.

Health insurance has nothing to do with the ability of anyone in the United States to obtain health care.

With or without health insurance, I have been pleased with the overall U. S. health care system.

I personally think that the best way to solve any problems with the U.S. health care industry is to just outlaw health insurance all together. Also easiest to administer ... but think about all the heath insurance jobs that will be lost ... soon government jobs.

As long as I am free to opt out of government health care process all together, I would not care. But, it seems to me we will no longer have a choice, which means we all ultimately lose.

Eagle 1

07-27-2009, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by rockdale80
80% of the uninsured work so it isnt a question of laziness, is it?

Actually I dont buy that figure. That seems like a rather high figure when you consider again that most of us right here on this little message board have some type of health insurance.

Ranger Mom

07-27-2009, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by Eagle 1
Actually I dont buy that figure. That seems like a rather high figure when you consider again that most of us right here on this little message board have some type of health insurance.

That's what I was thinking....but I rarely believe percentages anyway!!

They are usually done by someone with an "agenda!"

BleedOrange

07-27-2009, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by Eagle 1
Actually I dont buy that figure. That seems like a rather high figure when you consider again that most of us right here on this little message board have some type of health insurance.

What they forget to tell you when the reference the 47 million or so uninsured is that the number includes approximately 17 million who make more than $50K/year (I categorize these people as unisured by choice), 10 million illegal aliens, and a large number for those who are only uninsured for short periods of time (less than 4 months). The problem with the system is not lack of care it is the costs. I would suggest that the most efficient way to bring the cost down is through tort reform and less regulation. The costs due to burdonsome regulations needs to be addressed. We need a system that focuses on patient choice and the free market. Government involvement is not a feasible solution as it has proved time and time again that it is not economical or efficient. Also, with regard to the current system I personally have never met an individual who has ever been denied treatment.

JasperDog94

07-27-2009, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by rockdale80
WWJD?

"If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother." Deuteronomy 15:7

"Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked." Psalm 82:3-4

This idea of turning our backs to the poor and underprivelaged is not a very christian idea. If you really want to go down this road we can. These scriptures were speaking to individuals to take care of their fellow man, not the government. If my neighbor is sick and needs help, then it is my responsibility to help him however I can.

I'm actually going to stop here to keep this from turning into a religious thread.

BEAST

07-27-2009, 03:14 PM

JasperDog94

07-27-2009, 03:16 PM

Question: Should we help subsidize people that went out and wasted their money on big screen tvs, expensive cars, or vacations instead of buying health insurance? I ask this because the last time my wife delivered food at thanksgiving to the "needy", every single one of them had a big screen tv in their home. My wife and I both work and I don't even have one. Sometimes it's a choice. Should I have to pay for someone else's poor choices?

How do you even decide who made bad choices and who didn't? The answer is you can't.

Bottom line is that everyone...yes EVERYONE has access to health care. It may not be the best in the world, but nobody is being put on the streets to die...except in countries with government controlled health care when they determine you are too old for certain procedures.

Ranger Mom

07-27-2009, 03:18 PM

I am not sure about being denied treatment initially, but I do know for a fact that if someone who has cancer and needs chemo/radiation therapy and doesn't have insurance or cash to pay for....a lot don't get it.

Macarthur

07-27-2009, 03:34 PM

I see 2 options to solve the problem.

We either need to stop the employer mandated plans and let employers put more money into employees pockets due to not having to incur those costs. Then allow empoyees to purchase their own on the free market. Make it a complete free market. It's anything but a free market now.

OR

Just go with a government run health care.

The problem right now is our hybrid system. For those that want government out, it's too late. They are already neck deep in our healthcare system. The illusion is that we don't have a "government" system.

There's only 2 ways to completely control costs (which is the only way to make it affordable) and that's go to a complete gov controlled system or a 100% complete free market system.

For the record, I much prefer the first option, but I know for a fact that our current course is unsustainable.

rockdale80

07-27-2009, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by BleedOrange
What they forget to tell you when the reference the 47 million or so uninsured is that the number includes approximately 17 million who make more than $50K/year (I categorize these people as unisured by choice), 10 million illegal aliens, and a large number for those who are only uninsured for short periods of time (less than 4 months). The problem with the system is not lack of care it is the costs. I would suggest that the most efficient way to bring the cost down is through tort reform and less regulation. The costs due to burdonsome regulations needs to be addressed. We need a system that focuses on patient choice and the free market. Government involvement is not a feasible solution as it has proved time and time again that it is not economical or efficient. Also, with regard to the current system I personally have never met an individual who has ever been denied treatment.

Less regulation? That worked out tremendously well for the banks. We should waste an incredible amount of money for a few years, realize it doesnt work, let the republicans bail them out, then blame it on a democrat. :)

Several of you guys are discussing opinions about things that arent factual and dont actually pertain to the bill proposed or any proposal. Counter with discrediting my statement that you guys are listening to too many right wing pinheads instead of researching the proposal yourself, but it is true. DO SOME RESEARCH AND TALK ABOUT THE ACTUAL PROPOSAL....not what either party media outlet tells you about it.

JasperDog94

07-27-2009, 03:51 PM

Originally posted by rockdale80
Less regulation? That worked out tremendously well for the banks. We should waste an incredible amount of money for a few years, realize it doesnt work, let the republicans bail them out, then blame it on a democrat.
Not arguing the bailouts were bad but I guess it's nice to be a liberal and tell the people that tried to warn you that nothing is wrong and to leave fannie and freddy alone...then when they collapse you aren't called on it.

BleedOrange

07-27-2009, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by rockdale80
Less regulation? That worked out tremendously well for the banks. We should waste an incredible amount of money for a few years, realize it doesnt work, let the republicans bail them out, then blame it on a democrat.

Several of you guys are discussing opinions about things that arent factual and dont actually pertain to the bill proposed or any proposal. Counter with discrediting my statement that you guys are listening to too many right wing pinheads instead of researching the proposal yourself, but it is true. DO SOME RESEARCH AND TALK ABOUT THE ACTUAL PROPOSAL....not what either party media outlet tells you about it.

You should be a comedian. Noone discredits your statements but you. Why are they only facts when you state them? I would suggest you do the research and connect the dots. Read the proposed legislation and use some common sense about the ramifications of it being implemented. We can discuss the financial system later, if you wish, as its problems have no relationship to the healthcare system which is what is being discussed.

IrishTex

07-27-2009, 03:56 PM

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d149/LewP/obama-1.jpg

Phantom Stang

07-27-2009, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by JasperDog94

but nobody is being put on the streets to die...except in countries with government controlled health care when they determine you are too old for certain procedures.
Please post a link to an article naming ONE PERSON in a socialized medicine country, who was denied life saving treatment simply because they were too old.

JasperDog94

07-27-2009, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by rockdale80
DO SOME RESEARCH AND TALK ABOUT THE ACTUAL PROPOSAL....not what either party media outlet tells you about it. That's the problem RD. Nobody can truly understand the proposal because it's so complicated and so long. Much like the non-stimulus plan, this health care bill has been rammed down our throats and we've been told we need to act immediately. The problem is there is still too much unknown about this bill.

This we do know:

- Government controlled health care has not worked well in any other country. (quality or wait time)

- Government controlled health care will ration the care we currently receive. (I would much rather be able to switch my insurance provider than to be stuck with what the government gives.)

- Government run health care in other countries has denied treatment to the elderly. (Not saying that would happen here, but it has elsewhere.)

- Name me one private industry that the government has taken over that has been run better (quality and cost) than the private sector.

BEAST

07-27-2009, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by rockdale80
Less regulation? That worked out tremendously well for the banks. We should waste an incredible amount of money for a few years, realize it doesnt work, let the republicans bail them out, then blame it on a democrat. :)

Several of you guys are discussing opinions about things that arent factual and dont actually pertain to the bill proposed or any proposal. Counter with discrediting my statement that you guys are listening to too many right wing pinheads instead of researching the proposal yourself, but it is true. DO SOME RESEARCH AND TALK ABOUT THE ACTUAL PROPOSAL....not what either party media outlet tells you about it.

Rockdale, I have given you the opportunity to put some of your "research" into action. Please try to answer the question I posed to you. I have stated over and over what my thoughts on the matter are. Again, Rockdale, why should anyone be given anything? Let me make one adder to the question, I am not talking about someone who is not insured and just got hit by a freight truck. They deserve whatever it takes. I am talking about perfectly healthy able bodied Americans. I will await your response.

BEAST

pirate4state

07-27-2009, 04:03 PM

BEAST

07-27-2009, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by pirate4state
hehe like an answer to your question?

why, oh why do I keep opening this thread :doh:

I would love an answer. I know why he doesnt answer it, its because if he answers it truthfully, it cancels his entire aruement.

BEAST

JasperDog94

07-27-2009, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by Phantom Stang
Please post a link to an article naming ONE PERSON in a socialized medicine country, who was denied life saving treatment simply because they were too old. Ask and ye shall receive...

link (http://smartgirlnation.com/2009/07/26/what-will-happen-to-the-elderly-under-new-health-care-system-proposed-by-president-obama/)

Here are some of the highlights: (Great Britain)

- One in twenty people over the age of 65 said that they had been refused treatment.

- Although more than 1/3 of all cancers occur in people over 75, most cancer screening programs in the NHS do not include people over the age of 65.

- The NHS (National Health Service) cut the number of geriatric hospital beds by over 50% between 1985 and 2004.

- Deaths from pneumonia among people over the age of 75 are three to four times higher in the UK than the US.

- Only one in fifty lung cancer patients in Great Britain receives surgery.

Does this sound like the kind of health care you want?

pirate4state

07-27-2009, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by BEAST
I would love an answer. I know why he doesnt answer it, its because if he answers it truthfully, it cancels his entire aruement.

BEAST

You think so? I think he does it cause he knows you want it so badly and he doesn't HAVE to answer. Why should you expect to be given anything? ;)

Okay, now I'm really not gonna open this again! I get to go home & play in the sun!

rockdale80

07-27-2009, 04:25 PM

rockdale80

07-27-2009, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Ask and ye shall receive...

link (http://smartgirlnation.com/2009/07/26/what-will-happen-to-the-elderly-under-new-health-care-system-proposed-by-president-obama/)

Here are some of the highlights: (Great Britain)

- One in twenty people over the age of 65 said that they had been refused treatment.

- Although more than 1/3 of all cancers occur in people over 75, most cancer screening programs in the NHS do not include people over the age of 65.

- The NHS (National Health Service) cut the number of geriatric hospital beds by over 50% between 1985 and 2004.

- Deaths from pneumonia among people over the age of 75 are three to four times higher in the UK than the US.

- Only one in fifty lung cancer patients in Great Britain receives surgery.

Does this sound like the kind of health care you want?

Strange enough, the proposal is not like Britains. Weird...

JasperDog94

07-27-2009, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by rockdale80
Strange enough, the proposal is not like Britains. Weird...
The government will decide who gets what treatment. That alone is similar enough. So how is it different?

rockdale80

07-27-2009, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by JasperDog94
The government will decide who gets what treatment. That alone is similar enough. So how is it different?

hmm (http://www.factcheck.org/politics/government-run_health_care.html)

BEAST

07-27-2009, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by rockdale80
I think countries are judged by the way they treat their weak, vulnerable, and poor. I work my butt off for everything I have and I have no problem helping out those that are less fortunate. You say that it is entitlement, and I am okay with whatever you call it, but when did caring for out less fortunate become more about the money and less about the life? Again, I am not pretending to know everything about this bill, but I do know that there are some misconceptions that have been brought up today. I have even said that I am not 100% for the bill and have said that from the beginning, but we arent discussing the bill. Most of the topics brought up are myths. Can we talk about Unicorns and Cyclops?

I am more than happy to talk about the bill. I too think that the fortunate should help those less fortunate, if possible. When did it start being about money, when the gov't started making bills that would force us to do it. That is wrong. You take a stance that paints uninsured Americans as folks who do not have the means to do better. Fact is, the overwhelming majority of those uninsured are completely able bodied people. We have disability for those who are truly disabled, and I have no problem with them getting it. If a person is truly unable to help themselves, I will be the first one to chip in.

Now that question was about those who are able to work. Even the ones who already have jobs. Why should they just get something handed to them? The answer please.

Second, why should the gov't be able to force business owners to give it to them or force individuals to accept it. Business' and individuals face "penalties" ie. taxes if they refuse the health insurance. Why is that good? Answer please.

BEAST

BEAST

07-27-2009, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by rockdale80
hmm (http://www.factcheck.org/politics/government-run_health_care.html)

That site is like any other news outlet. It can paint a story from whichever side it wants to benefit. I dont want an opinion from factcheck or any other outlet RD, Ive been trying for days to get yours. Just yours.

BEAST

Phantom Stang

07-27-2009, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Ask and ye shall receive...

link (http://smartgirlnation.com/2009/07/26/what-will-happen-to-the-elderly-under-new-health-care-system-proposed-by-president-obama/)

Here are some of the highlights: (Great Britain)

- One in twenty people over the age of 65 said that they had been refused treatment.

- Although more than 1/3 of all cancers occur in people over 75, most cancer screening programs in the NHS do not include people over the age of 65.

- The NHS (National Health Service) cut the number of geriatric hospital beds by over 50% between 1985 and 2004.

- Deaths from pneumonia among people over the age of 75 are three to four times higher in the UK than the US.

- Only one in fifty lung cancer patients in Great Britain receives surgery.

No, that's a bunch of numbers and generalities, compiled by an orginization with an "agenda", as Ranger Mom put it. I want the name of a real live(or dead) human being that was denied treatment because of age.

Now, to address your question asking what kind of plan I want; all I can say is I'm undecided.

JasperDog94

07-27-2009, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by rockdale80
hmm (http://www.factcheck.org/politics/government-run_health_care.html) So who will determine who is covered and who is not?

Also, I believe Obama when he says that "we don't want a government controlled health care system" as much as I believe him when he says "we don't want to run GM."

link (http://online.wsj.com/video/who-really-running-gm/D012366A-46ED-4AEE-BD0C-A792AA6185CB.html)

Keith7

07-27-2009, 04:46 PM

You are saying socialized health care is bad because people will get refused treatment??? HAHA that is funny, because I think it is the other way around. My best friend's mom died of cancer last spring because her health insurance refused to pay for more treatment with the understanding that her chances of survival were slim.. They didn't put it so harshly but thats what the health insurance agents implied. So tell me the current system is working.. that is a joke. I have another friend who refuses to play in any sporting events because an injury would cost him could cost him an arm and a leg, maybe literally, because he doesn't have health insurance.

Seriously, in other countries with universal health care, waiting times are no different than ours, doctors get paid the same (if not better), prescriptions are reasonably priced, and the quality of health care is the same (if not better). So how and why would you be against it?

BEAST

07-27-2009, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by Keith7
Seriously, in other countries with universal health care, waiting times are no different than ours, doctors get paid the same (if not better), prescriptions are reasonably priced, and the quality of health care is the same (if not better). So how and why would you be against it?

You honestly believe these statements? Why do Canadians come here to have surgeries done?

BEAST

JasperDog94

07-27-2009, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by Phantom Stang
No, that's a bunch of numbers and generalities, compiled by an orginization with an "agenda", as Ranger Mom put it. I want the name of a real live(or dead) human being that was denied treatment because of age.

Now, to address your question asking what kind of plan I want; all I can say is I'm undecided.

Would you like me to get all the names of these people for you?

Link 1 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/2512639/Kidney-patients-denied-too-expensive-life-extending-drugs.html)

Link 2 (http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/child-diabetics-denied-lifesaving-therapy-484124.html)

Link 3 (http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=304197&version=1&template_id=38&parent_id=20)

His name was Gary Reinbach.

Link 4 (http://jeffmiller.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=137607)

Bruce Hardy, a patient living outside London, suffers from kidney and lung cancer, for which his physician prescribed the new drug Sutent. But as a profile in the New York Times pointed out, “If the Hardys lived in the United States or just about any European country other than Britain, Mr. Hardy would most likely get the drug.” However, in Britain, Sutent’s $54,000 price means “Mr. Hardy’s life is not worth prolonging.” As his wife stated, “It’s hard to know that there is something out there that could help but they’re saying you can’t have it because of cost. What price is life?”

Ian Dobbin, a patient in Yorkshire, faced a difficult dilemma—because the NHS wouldn’t pay for his life-saving cancer treatment, he needed to pay £25,000 to obtain the treatment and survive. He said the NHS’ decision “is a death sentence for me. I feel absolutely gutted because there is no way I can find that sort of money. My life is dependent on getting this drug and without it I will die. I am totally devastated. I've been paying my national insurance all my life and when it comes to the point that I need it to keep me alive, they are not prepared to help. I don't really know what to do. My consultant is appealing the decision and I'm just praying that they change their minds."

Is that enough names or do you need more?

JasperDog94

07-27-2009, 04:56 PM

Originally posted by Keith7
Seriously, in other countries with universal health care, waiting times are no different than ours, doctors get paid the same (if not better), prescriptions are reasonably priced, and the quality of health care is the same (if not better). So how and why would you be against it? If you truly believe that wait times are no different and that the quality of care is the same then no amount of statistical data will change your mind.

Wow...:dispntd:

Eagle 1

07-27-2009, 04:58 PM

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Would you like me to get all the names of these people for you?

Link 1 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/2512639/Kidney-patients-denied-too-expensive-life-extending-drugs.html)

Link 2 (http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/child-diabetics-denied-lifesaving-therapy-484124.html)

Link 3 (http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=304197&version=1&template_id=38&parent_id=20)

His name was Gary Reinbach.

Link 4 (http://jeffmiller.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=137607)

Bruce Hardy, a patient living outside London, suffers from kidney and lung cancer, for which his physician prescribed the new drug Sutent. But as a profile in the New York Times pointed out, “If the Hardys lived in the United States or just about any European country other than Britain, Mr. Hardy would most likely get the drug.” However, in Britain, Sutent’s $54,000 price means “Mr. Hardy’s life is not worth prolonging.” As his wife stated, “It’s hard to know that there is something out there that could help but they’re saying you can’t have it because of cost. What price is life?”

Ian Dobbin, a patient in Yorkshire, faced a difficult dilemma—because the NHS wouldn’t pay for his life-saving cancer treatment, he needed to pay £25,000 to obtain the treatment and survive. He said the NHS’ decision “is a death sentence for me. I feel absolutely gutted because there is no way I can find that sort of money. My life is dependent on getting this drug and without it I will die. I am totally devastated. I've been paying my national insurance all my life and when it comes to the point that I need it to keep me alive, they are not prepared to help. I don't really know what to do. My consultant is appealing the decision and I'm just praying that they change their minds."

Is that enough names or do you need more?

And those are just names off the internet.
I posted that I personally know somebody who this happened to their mother back on page 2.

Pick6

07-27-2009, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by BEAST
You honestly believe these statements?

BEAST

C'mom Beast, you've read his posts before. He's not to bright.

BobcatBenny

07-27-2009, 05:09 PM

Any chance that politicians will buy votes with healthcare?

Red States - the copper plan
Blue Dog States - the silver plan
Blue States - the gold plan
New York and California - the platinum plan
Congress - the Congressional plan

No ... they would never do that! :eek:

rancher

07-27-2009, 05:57 PM

Americans are also packing their bags and going abroad for treatment. Why? High cost of course which is what our President wants to fix. Why do so many go to Mexico and buy drugs for buy the from other countries over the internet. The system is broke and must be fixed. Our President has a plan that is fair and just for all.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/18/health/webmd/main2104425.shtml

JasperDog94

07-27-2009, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by rancher
Americans are also packing their bags and going abroad for treatment. Why? High cost of course which is what our President wants to fix. Why do so many go to Mexico and buy drugs for buy the from other countries over the internet. The system is broke and must be fixed. Our President has a plan that is fair and just for all.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/18/health/webmd/main2104425.shtml Then why are he and congress exempt? That's not very fair now is it?

slpybear the bullfan

07-27-2009, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by slpybear the bullfan
Simple truth...

Until you do SOMETHING to drive down the cost of Healthcare, then NOTHING will solve the problem.

Allowing the govt to provide healthcare to all, without reducing existing prices will add gas to the fire.

Any plan of the gov't that does nothing to address reducing healthcare pricing, (and specifically involving tort reform), would get zero response from me. ZERO.

Again, no solution will ever work without driving prices down for healthcare. Ever.

BleedOrange

07-27-2009, 06:26 PM

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Then why are he and congress exempt? That's not very fair now is it?

Congress is exempt and quite frankly they don't care. Here is the latest qoute from John Conyers at the National Press Club luncheon:

"What good is reading the bill if it's a thousand pages and you don't have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?"

How does a buffoon like that get elected? How can anyone justify this guys irresponsible behavior? Unfortunately, I think a lot of the bill supporters on the left have not read the bill and are voting as the anointed one desires. The ones who have actually paid attention are causing some grief for the democrats. Hopefully, more congressional members on both sides of the aisle will start paying attention to this proposed disaster.

Phantom Stang

07-27-2009, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Would you like me to get all the names of these people for you?

Link 1 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/2512639/Kidney-patients-denied-too-expensive-life-extending-drugs.html)

Link 2 (http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/child-diabetics-denied-lifesaving-therapy-484124.html)

Link 3 (http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=304197&version=1&template_id=38&parent_id=20)

His name was Gary Reinbach.

Link 4 (http://jeffmiller.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=137607)

Bruce Hardy, a patient living outside London, suffers from kidney and lung cancer, for which his physician prescribed the new drug Sutent. But as a profile in the New York Times pointed out, “If the Hardys lived in the United States or just about any European country other than Britain, Mr. Hardy would most likely get the drug.” However, in Britain, Sutent’s $54,000 price means “Mr. Hardy’s life is not worth prolonging.” As his wife stated, “It’s hard to know that there is something out there that could help but they’re saying you can’t have it because of cost. What price is life?”

Ian Dobbin, a patient in Yorkshire, faced a difficult dilemma—because the NHS wouldn’t pay for his life-saving cancer treatment, he needed to pay £25,000 to obtain the treatment and survive. He said the NHS’ decision “is a death sentence for me. I feel absolutely gutted because there is no way I can find that sort of money. My life is dependent on getting this drug and without it I will die. I am totally devastated. I've been paying my national insurance all my life and when it comes to the point that I need it to keep me alive, they are not prepared to help. I don't really know what to do. My consultant is appealing the decision and I'm just praying that they change their minds."

Is that enough names or do you need more?
None of those people were denied coverage because they were too old.

Sutent, the drug mentioned in Links 1 and 4 of your post has since been approved by the Brits. Here's the link:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/4449605/Kidney-cancer-patients-should-get-Sutent-on-the-NHS-says-NICE.html

Bull Butter

07-27-2009, 06:37 PM

Originally posted by rancher
Americans are also packing their bags and going abroad for treatment. ]

Going to Sweden for a sex change doesn't count:D

JasperDog94

07-27-2009, 06:54 PM

Originally posted by Phantom Stang
None of those people were denied coverage because they were too old.

Sutent, the drug mentioned in Links 1 and 4 of your post has since been approved by the Brits. Here's the link:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/4449605/Kidney-cancer-patients-should-get-Sutent-on-the-NHS-says-NICE.html It shouldn't matter if they are too old or not. They were denied health care by the government. That alone should scare you.

How about an eye witness from someone on the downlow? Does that count?

Originally posted by Eagle 1
Here's a true story for you.
A very good lady friend of ours is from Germany. She married an American Soldier and moved to the US several years ago. In Germany its not uncommon to see hard working Germans to live to be well up in their 90's.
In Germany they also use a uniformed government based health care system, much like what obama is try to amend.
A couple of years ago her mother, who still lived in Germany, developed cancer. She needed some type of special treatment which could possibly put the cancer into remission and prolong her life. However, the government decided that since she was in her 60's that she was to old to receive this expensive treatment. She died a year later. Our freind is very much against this "uniformed" health care plan that obama is trying to "impose" upon us. She understands first hand the reprocussion's that this will have on everyone of us. I don't know about you, but I hope to live well past my 60's, and if I develope cancer, I dont want to depend on the government to give the ok as to what type of treatment I receive. I can only imagine what kind of "red tape" paperwork one would have to go through to get approval for treament. By the time the paperwork goes through you probably will be dead.
Anyway just some food for thought for you die hard democrats.

Or if that doesn't suit you then how about this (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1320085/Frail-elderly-being-denied-proper-care.html). The governments lack of funding means not enough resources for the elderly. You may say it's not the government's fault that there weren't enough beds, but tell me again who runs that system?

Yet another case of rationed care (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1576784/Many-elderly-denied-care-in-their-own-homes.html). "Seven in 10 councils in England have been forced to "ration" services since Labour came to power. "

Would you like me to continue to look or will you just make another excuse as to why this isn't happening?

Farmersfan

07-27-2009, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by rancher
Americans are also packing their bags and going abroad for treatment. Why? High cost of course which is what our President wants to fix. Why do so many go to Mexico and buy drugs for buy the from other countries over the internet. The system is broke and must be fixed. Our President has a plan that is fair and just for all.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/18/health/webmd/main2104425.shtml

Please notice that these Americans are going to a country where they get what they pay for. They DO NOT choose to go to a country with Nationalized Healthcare. So the argument is mute.

Txbroadcaster

07-27-2009, 06:57 PM

While again I go on record saying I am NOT a fan of Government health plans I do chuckle about the argument that you dont want the government deciding your course of treatment.

Well in our health system our insurance companies are the same thing. They decide what can and cannot be done

My mother in law has a tear in her rotator cuff. Doctor says surgery is the only option to correct it. Well her insurance has said WAIT not so fast. First you have to take a cortizone shot wait a month and then we might approve the procedure.

So those not wanting the redtape of how Government works...ur getting it now just in the name of insurance

JasperDog94

07-27-2009, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
While again I go on record saying I am NOT a fan of Government health plans I do chuckle about the argument that you dont want the government deciding your course of treatment.

Well in our health system our insurance companies are the same thing. They decide what can and cannot be done

My mother in law has a tear in her rotator cuff. Doctor says surgery is the only option to correct it. Well her insurance has said WAIT not so fast. First you have to take a cortizone shot wait a month and then we might approve the procedure.

So those not wanting the redtape of how Government works...ur getting it now just in the name of insurance But you have a choice on what insurance company you use. If the government takes over, that choice is already made.

Trust me, I'm not saying it's perfect. One simple solution is to create competition between the states. Right now there is no competition between polices from state to state.

Farmersfan

07-27-2009, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
While again I go on record saying I am NOT a fan of Government health plans I do chuckle about the argument that you dont want the government deciding your course of treatment.

Well in our health system our insurance companies are the same thing. They decide what can and cannot be done

My mother in law has a tear in her rotator cuff. Doctor says surgery is the only option to correct it. Well her insurance has said WAIT not so fast. First you have to take a cortizone shot wait a month and then we might approve the procedure.

So those not wanting the redtape of how Government works...ur getting it now just in the name of insurance

Your Mother in Law has the option of getting a difference insurance carrier. Perhaps the next one will be better. With Obama's plan, there won't be a "next one"!

Txbroadcaster

07-27-2009, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by JasperDog94
But you have a choice on what insurance company you use. If the government takes over, that choice is already made.

Trust me, I'm not saying it's perfect. One simple solution is to create competition between the states. Right now there is no competition between polices from state to state.

no you really dont "have a choice" yes I know in theory you do, but most of us have to take what the emplyer offers as an insurance. Anything outside of that is so either expensive, or crappy insurance and I know from experience when we had our own insurance plan when we were 1099 workers

You want to make our system work? Take out the insurance company being able to say yea or nay on procedures. Make it TRULY be a Doctor-Patient system and the insurance jobs be to PAY for the service we all basically pay out with our monthly payment to them. They want to take our money then find any excuse they can to avoid paying for the service when in need

The really sad thing..all this about health insurance and no one outside of Texas knows how bad homeowners in this state are getting raked over the coals when it comes to HOUSE insurance

Txbroadcaster

07-27-2009, 07:08 PM

Originally posted by Farmersfan
Your Mother in Law has the option of getting a difference insurance carrier. Perhaps the next one will be better. With Obama's plan, there won't be a "next one"!

I guess once again it was missed when I said I AM NOT IN FAVOR of the health plan, so not sure why Obama's plan is being brought up

Footballhudini

07-27-2009, 07:14 PM

Originally posted by Footballhudini
<--- in before thread is closed

+1

BleedOrange

07-27-2009, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
no you really dont "have a choice" yes I know in theory you do, but most of us have to take what the emplyer offers as an insurance. Anything outside of that is so either expensive, or crappy insurance and I know from experience when we had our own insurance plan when we were 1099 workers

You want to make our system work? Take out the insurance company being able to say yea or nay on procedures. Make it TRULY be a Doctor-Patient system and the insurance jobs be to PAY for the service we all basically pay out with our monthly payment to them. They want to take our money then find any excuse they can to avoid paying for the service when in need

The really sad thing..all this about health insurance and no one outside of Texas knows how bad homeowners in this state are getting raked over the coals when it comes to HOUSE insurance

Insurance companies are not in the business to say no to coverage however, they do have the right to question the necessity of a procedure. This questioning generally is a result of abuses by physicians/hospitals requesting expensive treatments that may not be necessary. Generally, if you disagree with their decision they have an appeal process or you can get a second opinion. Denial by an insurance carrier for a needed procedure is the exception and not the rule. These problems are more evident in Medicare/Medicaid. I would also suggest that if you have a problem and you believe coverage decisions are not being made fairly you can file a complaint with the Dept. of Insurance.

Txbroadcaster

07-27-2009, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by BleedOrange
Insurance companies are not in the business to say no to coverage however, they do have the right to question the necessity of a procedure. This questioning generally is a result of abuses by physicians/hospitals requesting expensive treatments that may not be necessary. Generally, if you disagree with their decision they have an appeal process or you can get a second opinion. Denial by an insurance carrier for a needed procedure is the exception and not the rule. These problems are more evident in Medicare/Medicaid. I would also suggest that if you have a problem and you believe coverage decisions are not being made fairly you can file a complaint with the Dept. of Insurance.

My mom worked along time in insurance she would disagrees with you about 100% She loves to tell tales of insurance companies finding any and everything they can to deny claims and back in the day she had to be the one who told the patient they were denied

but it is what it is. Insurance companies say they are the most regulated buisness in the country and people who have insurance report all the time about claims denied for any reason possible..the biggest and easiest one is the pre-existing condition.

Ranger Mom

07-27-2009, 08:02 PM

Originally posted by BleedOrange
Insurance companies are not in the business to say no to coverage however, they do have the right to question the necessity of a procedure. This questioning generally is a result of abuses by physicians/hospitals requesting expensive treatments that may not be necessary. Generally, if you disagree with their decision they have an appeal process or you can get a second opinion. Denial by an insurance carrier for a needed procedure is the exception and not the rule. These problems are more evident in Medicare/Medicaid. I would also suggest that if you have a problem and you believe coverage decisions are not being made fairly you can file a complaint with the Dept. of Insurance.

Thank goodness it was straightened out before my surgery....but my insurance company approved my Dr. to do my hysterectomy but didn't approve me to have the surgery. How stupid is that??

BleedOrange

07-27-2009, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
My mom worked along time in insurance she would disagrees with you about 100% She loves to tell tales of insurance companies finding any and everything they can to deny claims and back in the day she had to be the one who told the patient they were denied

but it is what it is. Insurance companies say they are the most regulated buisness in the country and people who have insurance report all the time about claims denied for any reason possible..the biggest and easiest one is the pre-existing condition. .

I will respectfully disagree with your mother based upon my own knowledge of the insurance industry. With regard to pre-existing conditions, that is a legitimate reason for denial under some policies. Under most policies pre existing conditions are excludes from coverage for specific time period (generally a year). Do insurance companies deny coverage at times incorrectly? Yes. Do they purposely look for way not to pay claims? The answer would be no. Is the current system perfect? No but there is none better.

BleedOrange

07-27-2009, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by Ranger Mom
Thank goodness it was straightened out before my surgery....but my insurance company approved my Dr. to do my hysterectomy but didn't approve me to have the surgery. How stupid is that??

Stupid is an understatement.

Ranger Mom

07-27-2009, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by BleedOrange
Stupid is an understatement.

I ended it like that to make a statement. But what the problem was is that the Insurance company didn't have all the info they needed from my Dr.

It worked out good for me though. Because this was all going on the night before my 7:00 AM surgery.....my surgery was pushed back to 11:00 AM. So instead of having to be at the hospital at 6:00 AM, 30 miles away in Odessa, I didn't have to be there until 9:00 AM! :D

Txbroadcaster

07-27-2009, 09:03 PM

Originally posted by BleedOrange
.

I will respectfully disagree with your mother based upon my own knowledge of the insurance industry. With regard to pre-existing conditions, that is a legitimate reason for denial under some policies. Under most policies pre existing conditions are excludes from coverage for specific time period (generally a year). Do insurance companies deny coverage at times incorrectly? Yes. Do they purposely look for way not to pay claims? The answer would be no. Is the current system perfect? No but there is none better.

Kinda my point..u have ur exp with insurance and it seems for u it has been good..others have not had good exp either being inside the insurance field like my mom or patients who get the stupidest things denied

you say this

Yes. Do they purposely look for way not to pay claims? The Answer would be no

Well that is not true
Unum got busted for just doing that..they even awarded people who denied the most claims

Blue Cross, Kaiser, Premera are just a few who have been fined for fradulant claim denial.

IT HAPPENS, happens more than we know as well

BobcatBenny

07-27-2009, 10:12 PM

As long as the blubberment will pay for my rehabilitation from my 3ADL addiction, then I guess I feel I am getting my trillion dollars worth of care. :)

rockdale80

07-27-2009, 10:27 PM

Originally posted by BEAST
Rockdale, I have given you the opportunity to put some of your "research" into action. Please try to answer the question I posed to you. I have stated over and over what my thoughts on the matter are. Again, Rockdale, why should anyone be given anything? Let me make one adder to the question, I am not talking about someone who is not insured and just got hit by a freight truck. They deserve whatever it takes. I am talking about perfectly healthy able bodied Americans. I will await your response.

BEAST

Ok, but my answer is more of an opinion answer...just to be clear on where I stand.:)

I do think that there are people that are lazy and take advantage of the system and for those people I have no sympathy for, but I feel like the ones that genuinely try, care, and attempt to have a better life are being lumped together with those that dont unfairly. I feel like we as a society are judged on the way we treat and aid the people that are less fortunate than the masses and if we have to take care of the lazy so that we can take care of those that try then so be it. Welfare, healthcare, and almost all social programs available to people need to be reformed. I think instead of being a crutch to help people we have built a permanent fixture for people to lean on in lieu of getting off their butts and working. However, I do not think any amount of reform will ever change that and there will always be those that find a way to cheat the system. Also, I believe that as a country we have the technology available for people to have "affordable" healthcare and I think that is the first piece in correcting our current healthcare issue. There is a reason insurance companies have increased lobbying efforts an average of one million dollars to keep the status quo and it is not because the are spending the money to protect the insured but to protect their bottom line.

I have also said several times that this is a critical issue to most Americans and I dont think the answer is to nationalize healthcare (least not in the way currently proposed), but I also do not agree that privatizing and deregulating this is the answer either. I think the answer lies in the middle somewhere. There is ground to give on both sides of the line. We first must all agree that reform is necessary and that something must be done rather than discount what is proposed without offering any ideas. I also think that most of what has been discussed on this thread is false information and have fact checked most of it, although it has made little impact and has even been discredited. I think this is a very legitimate topic and we should discuss the actualities of the proposal instead of discrediting it with inaccuracies.

I know that isnt the answer your are looking for, but to be honest I dont have the right answer. To be clear I have not advocated the proposal either, and have merely refuted the inaccuracies stated prior. ;) :p

rockdale80

07-27-2009, 10:45 PM

rancher

07-28-2009, 06:54 AM

Republicans and Dem. now will work it out. Wow!!!
HOW ABOUT THEM REPUBLICANS, BEST MEN MONEY CAN BUY ALONG WITH THE DEM.

See story on how Grassley and Baccus are going to making it happen. Bend over you right wingers here it comes, keep electing those republicans.

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/us_health_care_overhaul/2009/07/27/240619.html

Farmersfan

07-28-2009, 07:50 AM

Originally posted by rancher
Republicans and Dem. now will work it out. Wow!!!
HOW ABOUT THEM REPUBLICANS, BEST MEN MONEY CAN BUY ALONG WITH THE DEM.

See story on how Grassley and Baccus are going to making it happen. Bend over you right wingers here it comes, keep electing those republicans.

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/us_health_care_overhaul/2009/07/27/240619.html

I guess you march to your own drummer. I don't get it! What are you trying to say?

Farmersfan

07-28-2009, 08:09 AM

Originally posted by rockdale80
Ok, but my answer is more of an opinion answer...just to be clear on where I stand.:)

I do think that there are people that are lazy and take advantage of the system and for those people I have no sympathy for, but I feel like the ones that genuinely try, care, and attempt to have a better life are being lumped together with those that dont unfairly. I feel like we as a society are judged on the way we treat and aid the people that are less fortunate than the masses and if we have to take care of the lazy so that we can take care of those that try then so be it. Welfare, healthcare, and almost all social programs available to people need to be reformed. I think instead of being a crutch to help people we have built a permanent fixture for people to lean on in lieu of getting off their butts and working. However, I do not think any amount of reform will ever change that and there will always be those that find a way to cheat the system. Also, I believe that as a country we have the technology available for people to have "affordable" healthcare and I think that is the first piece in correcting our current healthcare issue. There is a reason insurance companies have increased lobbying efforts an average of one million dollars to keep the status quo and it is not because the are spending the money to protect the insured but to protect their bottom line.

I have also said several times that this is a critical issue to most Americans and I dont think the answer is to nationalize healthcare (least not in the way currently proposed), but I also do not agree that privatizing and deregulating this is the answer either. I think the answer lies in the middle somewhere. There is ground to give on both sides of the line. We first must all agree that reform is necessary and that something must be done rather than discount what is proposed without offering any ideas. I also think that most of what has been discussed on this thread is false information and have fact checked most of it, although it has made little impact and has even been discredited. I think this is a very legitimate topic and we should discuss the actualities of the proposal instead of discrediting it with inaccuracies.

I know that isnt the answer your are looking for, but to be honest I dont have the right answer. To be clear I have not advocated the proposal either, and have merely refuted the inaccuracies stated prior. ;) :p

I agree with most of what you say here concerning people who are in need of assistance. Where we differ is in the opinion that taking care of the lazy, non-producing trash of our society along with these deserving individuals is a viable answer. Laws could be established to farret out and eliminate these bottom dwellers from the masses if we could get beyond our liberal, everyone is important, frame of mind in this country we could simply put the onous back on the individual rather than catering to the "ENTITLEMENT" attitude that permeates our society so vehemently. Let's take care of our needy but at the same time lets force the lazy to get off their butts and start taking care of their own or let's help them get out! And I know the numbers of needy are miniscule compared to the number of people taking advantage of the system. (I see it everyday)
And please stop with the Factcheck crap. Your information isn't any more reliable than anyone elses. If you goggle "Is Factcheck.org biased you will find tons of qualified people who believe factcheck.org has taken a big left turn over the last couple of years. Of course you can choose to disregard THAT information like you do so much other info.

Txbroadcaster

07-28-2009, 08:20 AM

Originally posted by Farmersfan
I agree with most of what you say here concerning people who are in need of assistance. Where we differ is in the opinion that taking care of the lazy, non-producing trash of our society along with these deserving individuals is a viable answer. Laws could be established to farret out and eliminate these bottom dwellers from the masses if we could get beyond our liberal, everyone is important, frame of mind in this country we could simply put the onous back on the individual rather than catering to the "ENTITLEMENT" attitude that permeates our society so vehemently. Let's take care of our needy but at the same time lets force the lazy to get off their butts and start taking care of their own or let's help them get out! And I know the numbers of needy are miniscule compared to the number of people taking advantage of the system. (I see it everyday)
And please stop with the Factcheck crap. Your information isn't any more reliable than anyone elses. If you goggle "Is Factcheck.org biased you will find tons of qualified people who believe factcheck.org has taken a big left turn over the last couple of years. Of course you can choose to disregard THAT information like you do so much other info.

Sorry Farmer, all the supposed people claiming Factcheck is biased are from message boards and the free republic. Them saying Fact check is liberal does not really hold water

does fact check make mistakes? probably do. But a mistake does not mean bias

JasperDog94

07-28-2009, 08:43 AM

Until the politicians opt into the plan, I don't want anything to do with it. Not this plan...not any plan. If it's good enough for congress, then we'll talk.

Eagle 1

07-28-2009, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
Sorry Farmer, all the supposed people claiming Factcheck is biased are from message boards and the free republic. Them saying Fact check is liberal does not really hold water

does fact check make mistakes? probably do. But a mistake does not mean bias
Actually not all of them.
Just google "Fact Check Reliable" and you will find several websites that oppose it.

LINK (http://www.plumbbobblog.com/?p=1417)

"The point is that sadly, we cannot take FactCheck.org as an unbiased and reliable source of information, as they seem to be starting to flack a little for the Obama campaign. Naturally, I never took their word as gospel anyway, but until fairly recently I’d been impressed with the level of objectivity I’d seen. No longer. Let the browser beware."

I agree with Farmer. Fact Check is just another media based website that tries to persuade the reader in their direction.
Don't let the media make up your mind about what "is really going on". Use some common sense and form your own opinion.

JasperDog94

07-28-2009, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by Eagle 1
Actually not all of them.
Just google "Fact Check Reliable" and you will find several websites that oppose it.

LINK (http://www.plumbbobblog.com/?p=1417)

"The point is that sadly, we cannot take FactCheck.org as an unbiased and reliable source of information, as they seem to be starting to flack a little for the Obama campaign. Naturally, I never took their word as gospel anyway, but until fairly recently I’d been impressed with the level of objectivity I’d seen. No longer. Let the browser beware."

I agree with Farmer. Fact Check is just another media based website that tries to persuade the reader in their direction.
Don't let the media make up your mind about what "is really going on". Use some common sense and form your own opinion. Another way to see if a source is biased is to see if both sides think they are biased. Take O'Reilly for example. Many people say he is conservative while many say he is liberal. That probably means he is somewhere in the middle.

With Factcheck.org it seems that most people think it slants liberal lately with little or no response to the contrary. Makes you wonder.

BEAST

07-28-2009, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by rockdale80
Ok, but my answer is more of an opinion answer...just to be clear on where I stand.:)

I do think that there are people that are lazy and take advantage of the system and for those people I have no sympathy for, but I feel like the ones that genuinely try, care, and attempt to have a better life are being lumped together with those that dont unfairly. I feel like we as a society are judged on the way we treat and aid the people that are less fortunate than the masses and if we have to take care of the lazy so that we can take care of those that try then so be it. Welfare, healthcare, and almost all social programs available to people need to be reformed. I think instead of being a crutch to help people we have built a permanent fixture for people to lean on in lieu of getting off their butts and working. However, I do not think any amount of reform will ever change that and there will always be those that find a way to cheat the system. Also, I believe that as a country we have the technology available for people to have "affordable" healthcare and I think that is the first piece in correcting our current healthcare issue. There is a reason insurance companies have increased lobbying efforts an average of one million dollars to keep the status quo and it is not because the are spending the money to protect the insured but to protect their bottom line.

I have also said several times that this is a critical issue to most Americans and I dont think the answer is to nationalize healthcare (least not in the way currently proposed), but I also do not agree that privatizing and deregulating this is the answer either. I think the answer lies in the middle somewhere. There is ground to give on both sides of the line. We first must all agree that reform is necessary and that something must be done rather than discount what is proposed without offering any ideas. I also think that most of what has been discussed on this thread is false information and have fact checked most of it, although it has made little impact and has even been discredited. I think this is a very legitimate topic and we should discuss the actualities of the proposal instead of discrediting it with inaccuracies.

I know that isnt the answer your are looking for, but to be honest I dont have the right answer. To be clear I have not advocated the proposal either, and have merely refuted the inaccuracies stated prior. ;) :p

That is a post I can appreciate. I agree with you on a lot of the points you made. Others, we will just have to agree to disagree. The key is this, IF whatever plan comes out of the gov't is just another handout and once again, allows Americans to get all they want without doint anything it will be a huge mistake and a giant leap towards full socialism. The idea of socialism sounds great until you see what it produces. The sad thing is, once any country starts down that path, it is literally impossible to reverse. It is only reversed by full collapse.

BEAST

BleedOrange

07-28-2009, 09:15 AM

Originally posted by rockdale80
info (http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/16/former_insurance_exec_wendell_porter)

Not sure of your point.

Farmersfan

07-28-2009, 09:21 AM

DDBooger

07-28-2009, 10:07 AM

Originally posted by BEAST
That is a post I can appreciate. I agree with you on a lot of the points you made. Others, we will just have to agree to disagree. The key is this, IF whatever plan comes out of the gov't is just another handout and once again, allows Americans to get all they want without doint anything it will be a huge mistake and a giant leap towards full socialism. The idea of socialism sounds great until you see what it produces. The sad thing is, once any country starts down that path, it is literally impossible to reverse. It is only reversed by full collapse.

BEAST The idea of full capitalism is great as well until put into play and we see huge divides and stratification that magnify the inequities and drive for profit that supersede everything else. Europe, Canada, Australia all other industrialized and post-industrial countries have measures of socialism that protect it's people yet none of them have headed down the path of communism the likes of Stalin, Castro, Mao etc. because those were dictatorial regimes headed by a fascist monolithic figure that under the guises of what is best for everyone was actually what was best for the PARTY and what was best for the regime in power. Much as we see here in the United States, it seems as this country divides itself up, political party is more important than being American, further flamed by the nationalistic xenophobes who drive fear of all those NON-Americans or UN-Americans as they deem to their subjective measures. You guys bring up the congress having to adopt anything it legislates, I say great, maybe those Republicans with healthcare provided by the govt will give it up as well while they decry socialized medicine! I don't care how it's done, silly people use nomenclature and arguments of non-sequitor then complain when they are checked

Originally posted by Farmersfan

And please stop with the Factcheck crap. Your information isn't any more reliable than anyone elses.
when their analysis provides sources and equitable review to what is said by Obama, Dems and Republicans. It seems when something is not in line with what you say, it is simply easier to use the "liberal bias" card as a debunker w/o even debating the issue. I've used that site to calm down people on the right who seem to think democrats are the good guys on issues, when in all reality they are like pigs at the special interest trough as we see with the blue dogs.

Originally posted by BleedOrange
Not sure of your point.
if you watch the link you'll see the former PR head of CIGNA describe how claims are mismanaged, denied and sick are turned away, dropped or red taped until their ultimate demise. You can pretend the insurance agencies don't have an agenda, but your sorely mistaken if you think the evidence isn't there to support TXB's mother's story and many others and the endless lawsuits that insurance companies are more than willing to fight as their payrolled lawyers will simply stall all procedures. Now I've worked on these 1st hand.

rockdale80

07-28-2009, 10:10 AM

DDBooger

07-28-2009, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Another way to see if a source is biased is to see if both sides think they are biased. Take O'Reilly for example. Many people say he is conservative while many say he is liberal. That probably means he is somewhere in the middle.

With Factcheck.org it seems that most people think it slants liberal lately with little or no response to the contrary. Makes you wonder. naturally, when Bush was in office you had much MUCH more left wing diatribe and vitriol being spit out that had to be checked. These things are inversely related as many content analyses will provide you. Depending on administration in power, the media outlets and pundits will ratchet up either in defense or offense. Obama is one of the most divisive Presidents we had, even prior to his inaugaration based on several variables, not the least of which is race. While I think that is not the core issue, pundits on either side know how to garner support, founded or unfounded, and it is no big mystery why during one parties administration, the other gains steam based on populist rantings and heating up of issues that QUICKLY AND DECISIVELY divide the nation.

Farmersfan

07-28-2009, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by rockdale80
So it is false because of an opinion? Weird....

So it is TRUE because of an opinion? Weird.....

Eagle 1

07-28-2009, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by Farmersfan
So it is TRUE because of an opinion? Weird.....
touche' :clap:

No offense DDBooger, but your ramblings sound kind of plagiaristic. Maybe not.:thinking:

DDBooger

07-28-2009, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by Eagle 1
touche' :clap:

No offense DDBooger, but your ramblings sound kind of plagiaristic. Maybe not.:thinking:
Farmersfan didn't make a point, he made a statement. Again, it's likelihood of looking at more right wing spew is because of the simple fact that roles are reversed from the last admin. From defense to attack means attack in retrospect to defend (ie Iraq War, no bid contracts, executive privilege) etc
LOL, then perhaps you haven't read much of my stuff before, but don't let your subjective stance dictate your analysis of what's said! Seems to me your belief is ingrained irregardless of what is said in the contrary!

Plagiarized haha best way to check that on the internet is to highlight what I said and post it in a google or yahoo search partner!

besides, if I'm plagiarizing I must be the fastest on the planet, because my answers are put forth in a rather timely manner.

Eagle 1

07-28-2009, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by DDBooger

LOL, then perhaps you haven't read much of my stuff before, but don't let your subjective stance dictate your analysis of what's said! Seems to me your belief is ingrained irregardless of what is said in the contrary!

Plagiarized haha best way to check that on the internet is to highlight what I said and post it in a google or yahoo search partner!

besides, if I'm plagiarizing I must be the fastest on the planet, because my answers are put forth in a rather timely manner. [/B]

Let me reiterate the word "ramblings ".
But none the less I salute you.:clap:

DDBooger

07-28-2009, 11:02 AM

Originally posted by Eagle 1
Let me reiterate the word "ramblings ".
But none the less I salute you.:clap: haha, but then what is a forum but a collection of "ramblings" ;)

salute right back at ya!

:cheerl: ;)

pirate4state

07-28-2009, 11:03 AM

For crying out loud! :D

JasperDog94

07-28-2009, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by pirate4state
For crying out loud! :D You have to admit that (for the most part) the discussion as been civil and (dare I say) enlightening.:)

Pick6

07-28-2009, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by pirate4state
For crying out loud! :D

I thought you wasn't going to open this thread again. :D

TheDOCTORdre

07-28-2009, 11:09 AM

I'm suprised to see this thread made it to ten pages

SintonFan

07-28-2009, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by poisoned10
Are you saying that if someone is about to die and can be prevented with proper treatment and they don't have medical coverage, they should be denied the treatment and left to die?

Surely that's not what your saying.
.
I'm not saying anyone should die.
The question was:
When did health care Insurance become anything other than a privilege?
.
Thanks for all your response. Hopefully I'll get a chance to post my opinions later today. Too dang busy lately.:(

rockdale80

07-28-2009, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
I'm not saying anyone should die.
The question was:
When did health care Insurance become anything other than a privilege?
.
Thanks for all your response. Hopefully I'll get a chance to post my opinions later today. Too dang busy lately.:(

Is living a privelage?

SintonFan

07-28-2009, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by rockdale80
Is living a privelage?
.
The correct response should have been...
"Is life Insurance a privilege?
.
You seem to not be reading the word Insurance...:nerd: :p

BEAST

07-28-2009, 01:22 PM

Its funny how it just becomes health care and not insurance.

BEAST

Txbroadcaster

07-28-2009, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by BEAST
Its funny how it just becomes health care and not insurance.

BEAST

well in all honesty those two things are so intertwined now that there is very little seperation

UPanIN

07-28-2009, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by SintonFan
When did Health Care Insurance become a right or entitlement? When? Why?
.
Thanks for any response.:)

:clap: Thank You!:clap:

rockdale80

07-28-2009, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
The correct response should have been...
"Is life Insurance a privilege?
.
You seem to not be reading the word Insurance...:nerd: :p

Considering the two correlate I would like an answer. It is not a privelage and I have answered the question. Your turn....

Farmersfan

07-28-2009, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by rockdale80
Considering the two correlate I would like an answer. It is not a privelage and I have answered the question. Your turn....

I don't have any problems with appearing to be not PC. I don't set up the rules of my life according to a collection of zealots who want to control me through religious dogma or according to what might currently be popular with the masses. In my world you get what you can get. You have a right to life as long as you can take care of yourself. Once you become dependant on others then your RIGHT becomes a priviledge. All the Americans or non-Americans that are capable but choose to be dependant have neither the right nor the priviledge. In my mind the only sticking point is how to tell who is who!

WildTexan972

07-28-2009, 03:21 PM

why some folks can't just read up on this crooked deal and realize it will kill most families is beyond me....

these haelthcare "plans" (it is indeed insurance and not the actual CARE itself - the CARE will be decided by desk jockies and not by doctors - that is not health care - that is a gubmint PROGRAM) will be divided by states and EVERYONE will have to join a plan whether they want to pay for it or not - READ THIS - they will extract the price from your check just like they do with Social Security withholdings now....if your company currently has ERISA approved plans then you are not subject to the gubmint plans until ANY detail in your plan changes - you know, like those plans do every single year? - and then you are dropped from the grandfathered plan and put on gubmint healthcare INSURANCE....there is no price or value shopping - you get what THEY tell you you get at THEIR price....

this is not the treatments you are buying...it is the INSURANCE....and the insurance will be run like a low quality HMO - you will go to a clinic and wait in line for your primary doctor and then he OWNS your care life....even if you can afford to get whatever care you want, it won't matter....you will get what the doctor says you get and NO MORE....welcome to Canada south....

2000 pages telling Americans in legal jargon how they screwed up and elected a crook to ruin their lives....that is the healthcare reform bill of death legislation....

rockdale80

07-28-2009, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by WildTexan972
why some folks can't just read up on this crooked deal and realize it will kill most families is beyond me....

these haelthcare "plans" (it is indeed insurance and not the actual CARE itself - the CARE will be decided by desk jockies and not by doctors - that is not health care - that is a gubmint PROGRAM) will be divided by states and EVERYONE will have to join a plan whether they want to pay for it or not - READ THIS - they will extract the price from your check just like they do with Social Security withholdings now....if your company currently has ERISA approved plans then you are not subject to the gubmint plans until ANY detail in your plan changes - you know, like those plans do every single year? - and then you are dropped from the grandfathered plan and put on gubmint healthcare INSURANCE....there is no price or value shopping - you get what THEY tell you you get at THEIR price....

this is not the treatments you are buying...it is the INSURANCE....and the insurance will be run like a low quality HMO - you will go to a clinic and wait in line for your primary doctor and then he OWNS your care life....even if you can afford to get whatever care you want, it won't matter....you will get what the doctor says you get and NO MORE....welcome to Canada south....

2000 pages telling Americans in legal jargon how they screwed up and elected a crook to ruin their lives....that is the healthcare reform bill of death legislation....

Very intelligent thought and well put. You sure swayed me....:rolleyes:

WildTexan972

07-28-2009, 03:28 PM

to be honest I don't care who is swayed....none of us can control this vote now without a miracle or 2....you yellow dogs voted him in so he can GIVE you stuff, now he is going to cost you out the eyeballs just like the rest of us....

and the only fun part of ANY of his Presidency will be watching those fools that voted for him being driven in the ground by his policies yet having to try to justify why votin for a guy just because of his skin color was a good idea....

rockdale80

07-28-2009, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by WildTexan972
to be honest I don't care who is swayed....none of us can control this vote now without a miracle or 2....you yellow dogs voted him in so he can GIVE you stuff, now he is going to cost you out the eyeballs just like the rest of us....

and the only fun part of ANY of his Presidency will be watching those fools that voted for him being driven in the ground by his policies yet having to try to justify why votin for a guy just because of his skin color was a good idea....

Sort of like the other DB's did the 8 years before that when he started giving away money and expanding the government. Nothing new....

Funny thing is I have told all of you guys my position and why I stand where I do and substantiated it with fact. Coming on here and spouting off misinformation and halftruths doesnt really make want to consider your opinion. Calm down Hannity and take a breath.

;)

rockdale80

07-28-2009, 03:38 PM

...

JasperDog94

07-28-2009, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by rockdale80
Coming on here and spouting off misinformation and halftruths doesnt really make want to consider your opinion. Actually the way the bill is written seems to say that you can keep what you have...until you make a change. That change must meet the governments new standards (nobody really know what those are) and if it doesn't, then you are lumped in with everyone else in the government's insurance company. They will be the judge, jury and (pardon the pun) executioner when it comes to what care you will or will not receive. As much as I don't like the current system, this will be far worse.

Farmersfan

07-28-2009, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by WildTexan972
to be honest I don't care who is swayed....none of us can control this vote now without a miracle or 2....you yellow dogs voted him in so he can GIVE you stuff, now he is going to cost you out the eyeballs just like the rest of us....

and the only fun part of ANY of his Presidency will be watching those fools that voted for him being driven in the ground by his policies yet having to try to justify why votin for a guy just because of his skin color was a good idea....

It's no use WildTexan972! Rockdale80 has the "Fact" card he can whip out on us everytime he wants to make a point. There's no competing with that!!!!!!;)

Eagle 1

07-28-2009, 03:52 PM

and the only fun part of ANY of his Presidency will be watching those fools that voted for him being driven in the ground by his policies yet having to try to justify why votin for a guy just because of his skin color was a good idea....

:clap:

DDBooger

07-28-2009, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by rockdale80
Sort of like the other DB's did the 8 years before that when he started giving away money and expanding the government. Nothing new....
;) :clap:

Eagle 1

07-28-2009, 03:55 PM

Echo in here?:nerd:

DDBooger

07-28-2009, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by Eagle 1
Echo in here?:nerd: between your ears maybe? hahaha ;) j/k wit ya! :p

Eagle 1

07-28-2009, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by DDBooger
between your ears maybe? hahaha ;) j/k wit ya! :p
No argument here.....:D

DDBooger

07-28-2009, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by Eagle 1
No argument here.....:D ;)

JasperDog94

07-28-2009, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by Eagle 1
Echo in here?:nerd: no....no....no....no....

DDBooger

07-28-2009, 03:58 PM

This reminds me of that joke that one soldier tells Billy the Indian in Predator about his g/f's ______ and the echo....lol :thinking:

JasperDog94

07-28-2009, 03:58 PM

The thing is you won't find many people on here defending Bush at all. He turned out to be a fiscal moderate at best leaning toward liberal.

BleedOrange

07-28-2009, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by Farmersfan
It's no use WildTexan972! Rockdale80 has the "Fact" card he can whip out on us everytime he wants to make a point. There's no competing with that!!!!!!;)

I am convinced R80 is definitely confused by the definitions of fact and fiction. If he actually pays attention he may learn something someday. There is hope.

Eagle 1

07-28-2009, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by DDBooger
This reminds me of that joke that one soldier tells Billy the Indian in Predator about his g/f's ______ and the echo....lol :thinking:

Sorry....:hijacktd:

DDBooger

07-28-2009, 04:04 PM

Originally posted by BleedOrange
I am convinced R80 is definitely confused by the definitions of fact and fiction. If he actually pays attention he may learn something someday. There is hope. I take it your subjective observations supercede his, but on what basis? TXB certainly explained the flip side of the coin. R80 simply used analysis to challenge the talking points presented here, where is he wrong?

DDBooger

07-28-2009, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by JasperDog94
The thing is you won't find many people on here defending Bush at all. He turned out to be a fiscal moderate at best leaning toward liberal. not any more, but there was a lot of it during his presidency, I certainly didn't read any threads calling him what Obama is called despite the similar leanings. In essence, hypocrisy.

JasperDog94

07-28-2009, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by DDBooger
not any more, but there was a lot of it during his presidency, I certainly didn't read any threads calling him what Obama is called despite the similar leanings. In essence, hypocrisy. I can only speak for myself in saying I have been highly critical of Bush and his spending policies. I still support his decision to go to war based on the info he had at the time, but many of his fiscal policies were garbage. That's not even mentioning the amnesty he wanted to give illegal aliens. I'd better stop before I get too wound up.;)

WildTexan972

07-28-2009, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Actually the way the bill is written seems to say that you can keep what you have...until you make a change. That change must meet the governments new standards (nobody really know what those are) and if it doesn't, then you are lumped in with everyone else in the government's insurance company. They will be the judge, jury and (pardon the pun) executioner when it comes to what care you will or will not receive. As much as I don't like the current system, this will be far worse.

This is certainly correct....under the current version of the bill being voted on, it is ILLEGAL for any insurance company to sell any uninsured person a healthcare policy outside of the gubmint plan from the date after the law is voted in, for all time....which means if this passes every new baby will HAVE to use the gubmint plan....and again - here is your whole truth as printed in the document - they will TAKE your payment for the plan just like they do your income tax withholdings now - before you see your paycheck that money is already gone - you will have NO choice...if you are a 26 yr old boy that NEVER gets sick and would rather buy hookers or beer or a corvette with that money, too bad....you now get full health insurance charges taken from you....and mark my words now and hold me to this - if the skin color President gets re-elected somehow, his next step will be to make healthcare like Soc Sec and force employers to pay part of the bill so that he can claim he got us all covered AND got us a discount by forcing the boss to pay for 1/2 of it....which means, MANY more folks than now will lose their jobs as companies decide to NOT pay 1/2 of the SS and HealthCare for all those folks...

THAT is my opinion, and not in this bill, but anyone who has seen this liberal at work can see that it is coming....

BEAST

07-28-2009, 04:38 PM

Let me go about beating this dead horse from a different direction. RD80, Booger and the rest who support this effort to some extent, I pose this question to you. What is the level of gov't you want in your life. At what point will you say enough. Is it just short of telling you when to take a dump? :D Seriously, though, when is the gov't to big and to much in charge of what you do istead of you being able to decide on your own?

BEAST

BleedOrange

07-28-2009, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by DDBooger
I take it your subjective observations supercede his, but on what basis? TXB certainly explained the flip side of the coin. R80 simply used analysis to challenge the talking points presented here, where is he wrong?

You like to call them talking points when you disagree which I find amusing. Lets just call it philosophical differences and leave it at that. I was only making fun of his continued utilization of "fact" which apparently only applies to his information. With regard to "where is he wrong"? I would say, from my philosophical perspective, in the range of 80 to 90% of what he comes up with on here.

SintonFan

07-28-2009, 04:48 PM

Originally posted by rockdale80
Considering the two correlate I would like an answer. It is not a privelage and I have answered the question. Your turn....
.
Sorry rd80, I haven't had a chance to read the whole thread so I didn't know if you had answered whether health insurance was a privilege or right(you asked a question on where I had quoted someone else anyway). I'll look it up.
.
Ok, are you saying there is a correlation between "is living a privilege?" and "are we entitled to health care insurance?" :confused:
Please clarify?
.
I'll finally get a chance to address this in a few hours. :)

DDBooger

07-28-2009, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by BleedOrange
You like to call them talking points when you disagree which I find amusing. Lets just call it philosophical differences and leave it at that. I was only making fun of his continued utilization of "fact" which apparently only applies to his information. With regard to "where is he wrong"? I would say, from my philosophical perspective, in the range of 80 to 90% of what he comes up with on here. I find this a much better explanation ;)

And talking points are a place to begin discussion not to close them. He isn't trying to disprove anything as much as he is giving the other side of the coin as TXB did etc. There are always two sides of the story and the their are distinct lines apparently. I disagree with about 90 what you say, but that 10% that I agree on is an excellent basis to expand on solution rather than "obama this" or "obama that" as WildTexan does. A lot of what is proposed on here is speculation based on non-congruent examples. Perhaps R80 does present himself in a absolutist manner, yet I find very little in contradiction to that coming from the other angle. Seems like a lot of banging of the heads rather than ideas.

DDBooger

07-28-2009, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
Sorry rd80, I haven't had a chance to read the whole thread so I didn't know if you had answered whether health insurance was a privilege or right(you asked a question on where I had quoted someone else anyway). I'll look it up.
.
Ok, are you saying there is a correlation between "is living a privilege?" and "are we entitled to health care insurance?" :confused:
Please clarify?
.
I'll finally get a chance to address this in a few hours. :) I wish I could find what you said earlier, but it actually made sense to me SF, but it was a manner in cutting out the middle man and enjoying a more direct interaction with health physicians to alleviate costs.

SintonFan

07-28-2009, 04:51 PM

DDBooger

07-28-2009, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
I proposed some solutions on another thread. Did ya read them? I'll re-post them later.:nerd: see above

SintonFan

07-28-2009, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by DDBooger
see above
.
see above above...:p :D

WildTexan972

07-28-2009, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by DDBooger
I find this a much better explanation ;)

And talking points are a place to begin discussion not to close them. He isn't trying to disprove anything as much as he is giving the other side of the coin as TXB did etc. There are always two sides of the story and the their are distinct lines apparently. I disagree with about 90 what you say, but that 10% that I agree on is an excellent basis to expand on solution rather than "obama this" or "obama that" as WildTexan does. A lot of what is proposed on here is speculation based on non-congruent examples. Perhaps R80 does present himself in a absolutist manner, yet I find very little in contradiction to that coming from the other angle. Seems like a lot of banging of the heads rather than ideas.

this may sound strange, but I would LOVE to be able to banter ideas to solve this issue, but WE as citizens have no say in this...our gubmint was designed to be of the people for the people, but it is not anymore like that....try going to a public meeting held by your Congressman sometime - I have - and they answer questions the way they perceive the asker wants to hear it....I take notes....then I go check how he votes to verify his replies and they rarely match up.....the problem of course is add-on amendments to bills so that no matter HOW you vote on any bill you can find an amendment that makes your vote look like a positive vote for your constituents....so now they don't care what we want or how we want it, they do what THEY want and we are stuck with it....in this health insurance issue we will be fried, pure and simple...

do I Osama this or that? Yes I do I admit....because NO ONE in Congress was going to do this to us unless they got a President in place to take the blame for it....Congress guys can stay in office for life, so they need to have a fall guy to keep getting elected....a President is limited to 8 years so they can let him take the blame and go live in rich retirement....15 years from now when our country is a disaster the guys in Washington will blame it on the Chicago guy, and him and the wife will be doing expensive speeches and book deals and won't mind it at all....

this is why our ideas are of no consequence now to those guys in the beltway....we pay them re-election money and that is all they need any of us for these days....

DDBooger

07-28-2009, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by WildTexan972
this may sound strange, but I would LOVE to be able to banter ideas to solve this issue, but WE as citizens have no say in this...our gubmint was designed to be of the people for the people, but it is not anymore like that....try going to a public meeting held by your Congressman sometime - I have - and they answer questions the way they perceive the asker wants to hear it....I take notes....then I go check how he votes to verify his replies and they rarely match up.....the problem of course is add-on amendments to bills so that no matter HOW you vote on any bill you can find an amendment that makes your vote look like a positive vote for your constituents....so now they don't care what we want or how we want it, they do what THEY want and we are stuck with it....in this health insurance issue we will be fried, pure and simple...

do I Osama this or that? Yes I do I admit....because NO ONE in Congress was going to do this to us unless they got a President in place to take the blame for it....Congress guys can stay in office for life, so they need to have a fall guy to keep getting elected....a President is limited to 8 years so they can let him take the blame and go live in rich retirement....15 years from now when our country is a disaster the guys in Washington will blame it on the Chicago guy, and him and the wife will be doing expensive speeches and book deals and won't mind it at all....

this is why our ideas are of no consequence now to those guys in the beltway....we pay them re-election money and that is all they need any of us for these days.... I'm scared with how much of what you say I agree with LMAO and I'm a liberal secular progressive by this nations standards. But 15 years from now, authors will be trying to connect the dots back to the predecessor of a opposing party. I too think term limitations should extend to the congress and senate. Not worrying about re-election would surely free up the sherkers.

PPHSfan

07-28-2009, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by SintonFan
When did Health Care Insurance become a right or entitlement? When? Why?
.
Thanks for any response.:)

Wow! Pages of response and nobody answered your question.

You asked when did Health Care INSURANCE become a right or entitlement. Not Heath Care.

My answer is short and simple.

It's not.

BEAST

07-28-2009, 05:54 PM

It never has been a right. Currently it still isn't. However, people are begining to feel entitled to it due to Hussein Obama promising it. If the bill passes, at that exact second is when it became a right and not a privledge.

BEAST

rancher

07-28-2009, 06:00 PM

Health Care is a right now, If you need care, you cannot be denied treatment at any hospital. What do you suggest we do with the elderly who cannot afford to pay, let the die. Those who cannot pay and need treatment, deny them. Admit it, the republicans had their chance and blew it. It is our turn now.

PPHSfan

07-28-2009, 06:03 PM

Originally posted by rancher
Health Care is a right now, If you need care, you cannot be denied treatment at any hospital. What do you suggest we do with the elderly who cannot afford to pay, let the die. Those who cannot pay and need treatment, deny them. Admit it, the republicans had their chance and blew it. It is our turn now.

Huh?

You act as though affordable health care is a problem that's only eight years old.

Oh, wait, I'm sorry, maybe you were only ten eight years ago.

BEAST

07-28-2009, 06:48 PM

Originally posted by rancher
Health Care is a right now, If you need care, you cannot be denied treatment at any hospital. What do you suggest we do with the elderly who cannot afford to pay, let the die. Those who cannot pay and need treatment, deny them. Admit it, the republicans had their chance and blew it. It is our turn now.

Health care maybe, not INSURANCE! The elderly being left to die is what your Presidents plan will basically do. If the elderly have serious illnesses that require expensive treatment, they will be provided with counseling.

BEAST

BEAST

07-28-2009, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by rancher
Health Care is a right now, If you need care, you cannot be denied treatment at any hospital. What do you suggest we do with the elderly who cannot afford to pay, let the die. Those who cannot pay and need treatment, deny them. Admit it, the republicans had their chance and blew it. It is our turn now.

And for the record, I don't care of it was a Republican or Democrat, anyone who would put forth this type of legislation, I would oppose at the highest level.

BEAST

Farmersfan

07-28-2009, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by rancher
Health Care is a right now, If you need care, you cannot be denied treatment at any hospital. What do you suggest we do with the elderly who cannot afford to pay, let the die. Those who cannot pay and need treatment, deny them. Admit it, the republicans had their chance and blew it. It is our turn now.

Our turn????? I didn't realize that YOU came with the Obama package. I might have voted for that!!!!!!!

BEAST

07-28-2009, 06:54 PM

Originally posted by rancher
Health Care is a right now, If you need care, you cannot be denied treatment at any hospital. What do you suggest we do with the elderly who cannot afford to pay, let the die. Those who cannot pay and need treatment, deny them. Admit it, the republicans had their chance and blew it. It is our turn now.

Read the question carefully. It says, "When did health care INSURANCE become anything other than a privledge?"

BEAST

rancher

07-28-2009, 06:59 PM

The recent best 8 years in Untied States history was under Bill Clinton, the economy was booming, two chickens in every pot. Our turn now is the Democratic way, we NOW control both houses and the Presidency. The republicans had their way and blew it. President Obama will now take this country from the mess that Bush and Chaney made to greatness. Look at the economy it is now coming back. Health care will pass and then made right in the conference committee. Humane treatment and kindness for all.

BleedOrange

07-28-2009, 07:01 PM

Originally posted by PPHSfan
Huh?

You act as though affordable health care is a problem that's only eight years old.

Oh, wait, I'm sorry, maybe you were only ten eight years ago.

I will second that huh. The reality is healthcare will always be more expensive in this country. Can it be more affordable? Probably with less regulation and tort reform. The reason its more expensive in this country is attributable to many factors including research and development along with Americans relatively unfettered access to expensive technologies such as MRI's. Government control of the system will deteriorate the quality of healthcare over time. You will have the brightest individuals that make decisions to become doctors turn to other fields as their ability to earn high incomes will be reduced by government control over fees. We have a system that is second to none in quality of care. Lets not throw it out over an overinflated uninsured number that when properly analyzed is in the range of 8 to 15 million (see census). The current administration acknowledges that even if the proposed plan passes there will still be millions without insurance.

PPHSfan

07-28-2009, 07:07 PM

Farmersfan

07-28-2009, 07:08 PM

Eagle 1

07-28-2009, 07:18 PM

BEAST

07-28-2009, 07:19 PM

Originally posted by rancher
The recent best 8 years in Untied States history was under Bill Clinton, the economy was booming, two chickens in every pot. Our turn now is the Democratic way, we NOW control both houses and the Presidency. The republicans had their way and blew it. President Obama will now take this country from the mess that Bush and Chaney made to greatness. Look at the economy it is now coming back. Health care will pass and then made right in the conference committee. Humane treatment and kindness for all.

Lol. That's the funniest post I've read in a while. Let's all sing kumbaya. Lol. You have no idea what Mr. Hussein Obama is doing. This legislation is a major step to gov't take over of the private sector.

And for the record, Clintons good economy was due to Reagans massive tax cuts. If you don't believe me look at what the economy was doing at the end of his reign. If Hussein Obama inherited Bush' bad economy, then Bush had to deal with Clintons.

One last thing, that kiss me hug me feeling we had with Clinton did one thing for certain, it left Obama, I mean Osama for all of us to deal with. I geuss slick willy was to busy not having sexual relations with that woman.

BEAST

rancher

07-28-2009, 07:19 PM

We will all be dancing in the street soon. Texas will soon return solid to the Democratic Party. When this happens, the republicans will never be able to win the Presidency. Look at Dallas County now, last election, Harris County went strongly to the dem. party. The house is getting close. Soon it will be back to the yellow dog ways.

DDBooger

07-28-2009, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by BEAST
Lol. That's the funniest post I've read in a while. Let's all sing kumbaya. Lol. You have no idea what Mr. Hussein Obama is doing. This legislation is a major step to gov't take over of the private sector.

And for the record, Clintons good economy was due to Reagans massive tax cuts. If you don't believe me look at what the economy was doing at the end of his reign. If Hussein Obama inherited Bush' bad economy, then Bush had to deal with Clintons.

One last thing, that kiss me hug me feeling we had with Clinton did one thing for certain, it left Obama, I mean Osama for all of us to deal with. I geuss slick willy was to busy not having sexual relations with that woman.

BEAST LOL your posts are so childish, you lack any substance and you are the perfect example of taking things back to a predecessor of the opposite party for blame and to your party for credit. Your posts thus far have humored me the most, do you have anything aside from your usual punditry to add?

cameron91

07-28-2009, 07:25 PM

You just get what you vote for.

Whether you are an Obama fan, or not, EVERYONE IN THE U. S. Needs to know....

Something happened... H.R. 1388 was passed yesterday, behind our backs You may want to read about it. It wasn't mentioned on the news... Just went by on the ticker tape at the bottom of the CNN screen.

Obama funds $20M in tax payer dollars to immigrate Hamas Refugees to the USA. This is the news that didn't make the headlines...

By executive order, President Barack Obama has ordered the expenditure of $20.3 million in "migration assistance" to the Palestinian refugees and "conflict victims" in Gaza.

The "presidential determination", which allows hundreds of thousands of Palestinians with ties to Hamas to resettle in the United States, was signed on January 27 and appeared in the Federal Register on February 4.

Few on Capitol Hill, or in the media, took note that the order provides a free ticket replete with housing and food allowances to individuals who have displayed their overwhelming support to the Islamic Resistance Movement

(Hamas) in the parliamentary election of January 2006.

Let's review....itemized list of some of Barack Obama's most recent actions since his inauguration:

His first call to any head of state, as president, was to Mahmoud Abbas, leader of Fatah party in the Palestinian territory.

His first one-on-one television interview with any news organization was with Al Arabia television.

His first executive order was to fund/facilitate abortion(s) not just here within the U. S., but within the world, using U. S. Tax payer funds.

He ordered Guantanamo Bay closed and all military trials of detainees halted.

He ordered overseas CIA interrogation centers closed.

He withdrew all charges against the masterminds behind the USS Cole and the "terror attack" on 9/11.

Now we learn that he is allowing hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refuges to move to, and live in, the US at American taxpayer expense.

These important, and insightful, issues are being "lost" in the blinding bail-outs and "stimulation" packages.

Doubtful? To verify this for yourself: www..thefederalregister.com/d.p/2009-02-04-E9-2488

PLEASE PASS THIS ON... AMERICA NEEDS TO KNOW

WE are losing this country at a rapid pace.

DDBooger

07-28-2009, 07:27 PM

Originally posted by cameron91
You just get what you vote for.

Whether you are an Obama fan, or not, EVERYONE IN THE U. S. Needs to know....

Something happened... H.R. 1388 was passed yesterday, behind our backs You may want to read about it. It wasn't mentioned on the news... Just went by on the ticker tape at the bottom of the CNN screen.

Obama funds $20M in tax payer dollars to immigrate Hamas Refugees to the USA. This is the news that didn't make the headlines...

By executive order, President Barack Obama has ordered the expenditure of $20.3 million in "migration assistance" to the Palestinian refugees and "conflict victims" in Gaza.

The "presidential determination", which allows hundreds of thousands of Palestinians with ties to Hamas to resettle in the United States, was signed on January 27 and appeared in the Federal Register on February 4.

Few on Capitol Hill, or in the media, took note that the order provides a free ticket replete with housing and food allowances to individuals who have displayed their overwhelming support to the Islamic Resistance Movement

(Hamas) in the parliamentary election of January 2006.

Let's review....itemized list of some of Barack Obama's most recent actions since his inauguration:

His first call to any head of state, as president, was to Mahmoud Abbas, leader of Fatah party in the Palestinian territory.

His first one-on-one television interview with any news organization was with Al Arabia television.

His first executive order was to fund/facilitate abortion(s) not just here within the U. S., but within the world, using U. S. Tax payer funds.

He ordered Guantanamo Bay closed and all military trials of detainees halted.

He ordered overseas CIA interrogation centers closed.

He withdrew all charges against the masterminds behind the USS Cole and the "terror attack" on 9/11.

Now we learn that he is allowing hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refuges to move to, and live in, the US at American taxpayer expense.

These important, and insightful, issues are being "lost" in the blinding bail-outs and "stimulation" packages.

Doubtful? To verify this for yourself: www..thefederalregister.com/d.p/2009-02-04-E9-2488

PLEASE PASS THIS ON... AMERICA NEEDS TO KNOW

WE are losing this country at a rapid pace.
fwd emails are the bain of this nation :rolleyes:
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_hr_1388_passed_behind_our_backs.html

Eagle 1

07-28-2009, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by rancher
We will all be dancing in the street soon. Texas will soon return solid to the Democratic Party. When this happens, the republicans will never be able to win the Presidency. Look at Dallas County now, last election, Harris County went strongly to the dem. party. The house is getting close. Soon it will be back to the yellow dog ways.

http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/4828/moneyj.gif

rancher

07-28-2009, 07:31 PM

Do you understand the difference in Hamas and Hezoballa in that region. If you did, you will understand why Hamas is being supported by the U.S.

JasperDog94

07-28-2009, 07:31 PM

Again I ask: If it's so good for the country, why is congress exempt?

JasperDog94

07-28-2009, 07:32 PM

Originally posted by rancher
Do you understand the difference in Hamas and Hezoballa in that region. If you did, you will understand why Hamas is being supported by the U.S. Hamas should never be supported by the U.S....period.

DDBooger

07-28-2009, 07:36 PM

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Hamas should never be supported by the U.S....period. why not? we've supported FAR worse regimes and movements? Under Reagan we supplied the contras, hell we still train at the School for the Americas agents of dictator regimes to suppress left wing movements in South and Central America

DDBooger

07-28-2009, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by rancher
Do you understand the difference in Hamas and Hezoballa in that region. If you did, you will understand why Hamas is being supported by the U.S. I'd hardly call it supported in comparison to having hellfire missiles fired from Israeli heli's at slums full of people with no hope. Hamas has two wings, just like the IRA

rancher

07-28-2009, 07:39 PM

George Bush supported them. Better go and study up on both groups and you will then understand why we support them.

BEAST

07-28-2009, 07:39 PM

Originally posted by DDBooger
LOL your posts are so childish, you lack any substance and you are the perfect example of taking things back to a predecessor of the opposite party for blame and to your party for credit. Your posts thus far have humored me the most, do you have anything aside from your usual punditry to add?

I wasn't the one who went back to the pre ious president to begin with. I simply replied. And as for my party, it no longer exists. I'm a conservative. Not a republican nor democrat. What more do you want Einstien?

BEAST

Diocletian

07-28-2009, 07:41 PM

Originally posted by SintonFan
When did Health Care Insurance become a right or entitlement? When? Why?
.
Thanks for any response.:)

I honestly think it's because too many people started caring about people that aren't worth caring about....

I'm no Hitler, but I don't think I should be contributing to fund an 5th or 6th child of the same mom under welfare....

DDBooger

07-28-2009, 07:45 PM

Originally posted by BEAST
I wasn't the one who went back to the pre ious president to begin with. I simply replied. And as for my party, it no longer exists. I'm a conservative. Not a republican nor democrat. What more do you want Einstien?

BEAST appreciate the honesty huckleberry ;) but your assessment of tax breaks in relation to just another economic bubble added by Clinton's propensity for free market ideals (nafta) made his presidency successful. He had a balanced budget. But it was sort of like a cold war in American politics then. Both parties agreed to not agree and neither fought for what it wanted. Mutual destruction in essence. These last two administrations we've seen a republican dominated exec and legislative part of the govt and now a democrat. I tend to believe we may work better in conjunction rather than absolute. I miss the Fiscally conservative republicans who cautioned on the side of responsibility and democrats who actually represented what they said.

DDBooger

07-28-2009, 07:47 PM

Originally posted by Diocletian
I honestly think it's because too many people started caring about people that aren't worth caring about....

I'm no Hitler, but I don't think I should be contributing to fund an 5th or 6th child of the same mom under welfare.... and I don't think we should be bailing out billionaires again and again after every time they step on their d**k

rancher

07-28-2009, 07:49 PM

Required reading for this thread should be Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. We all need to become like John Gault.

PPHSfan

07-28-2009, 07:49 PM

Originally posted by DDBooger
and I don't think we should be bailing out billionaires again and again after every time they step on their d**k

You know that you have to be pretty well hung to do that.:D

Farmersfan

07-28-2009, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by DDBooger
and I don't think we should be bailing out billionaires again and again after every time they step on their d**k

So let's stop doing both!!!!!!

PPHSfan

07-28-2009, 07:51 PM

Originally posted by rancher
Required reading for this thread should be Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. We all need to become like John Gault.

or maybe we should all just become like you.

DDBooger

07-28-2009, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by Farmersfan
So let's stop doing both!!!!!! children no, the adults, lets talk

DDBooger

07-28-2009, 07:53 PM

Originally posted by PPHSfan
You know that you have to be pretty well hung to do that.:D lmao

Ranger Mom

07-28-2009, 07:54 PM

After reading all 6 pages of this, I have no idea where I stand. I don't know who is telling the truth and who isn't. I have learned there is no place on the internet where I can go find the "truth!" Depending on who is posting, I am hearing two, three or ten different stories/scenarios.

I do know one thing...if the small company I work for has to pay any of the employer's insurance, we will go under. How can unemployment drop if small companies are having to shut down?

Farmersfan

07-28-2009, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by DDBooger
children no, the adults, lets talk

So ole wise and informed one, how would you stop women (and men) from having babies they can't afford? We can't consider NOT helping the children once they are here so our only avenue is stop it before it happens.
Forced sterilization? :eek: :eek: :eek:

PPHSfan

07-28-2009, 07:56 PM

Why not just make it against the law to get sick without health insurance?

I mean, it's against the law to drive without vehicle insurance.:D

DDBooger

07-28-2009, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by Farmersfan
So ole wise and informed one, how would you stop women (and men) from having babies they can't afford? We can't consider NOT helping the children once they are here so our only avenue is stop it before it happens.
Forced sterilization? :eek: :eek: :eek: it's tricky, but I want fault an infant for the problems of the parent. But if they can't support the child or at least they aren't working, stop the payments and send those to foster parents and families looking to adopt. Even then, I'm not sure about that answer because I'm firing from the hip

SintonFan

07-28-2009, 08:00 PM

Ok, so if health care INSURANCE is NOT a right or entitlement, why are many many people now talking like it is? Especially on left wing punditry "news shows"? (lol @ boog haha)
.
RM, I have been researching this a bit. I'll pm you some info I found that you might enjoys reading.:)

BEAST

07-28-2009, 08:00 PM

Originally posted by DDBooger
appreciate the honesty huckleberry ;) but your assessment of tax breaks in relation to just another economic bubble added by Clinton's propensity for free market ideals (nafta) made his presidency successful. He had a balanced budget. But it was sort of like a cold war in American politics then. Both parties agreed to not agree and neither fought for what it wanted. Mutual destruction in essence. These last two administrations we've seen a republican dominated exec and legislative part of the govt and now a democrat. I tend to believe we may work better in conjunction rather than absolute. I miss the Fiscally conservative republicans who cautioned on the side of responsibility and democrats who actually represented what they said.

Agreed. Ultimately, I think the only way this country will be saved is the complete demoltion of the parties. Individuals run for office based on merit, not party. I have no illussion that any of the things needed to save us will ever happen. My fear is, short of an overthrow of some sorts, the America WE ALL LOVE is done as we know it. And that, saddens and angers me to no end.

BEAST

DDBooger

07-28-2009, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by SintonFan
Ok, so if health care INSURANCE is NOT a right or entitlement, why are many many people now talking like it is? Especially on left wing punditry "news shows"? (lol @ boog haha) :confused: lol ok

.

Originally posted by SintonFan
RM, I have been researching this a bit. I'll pm you some info I found that you might enjoys reading.:) ;)
I'm sure it'll cover the spectrum of concerns

PPHSfan

07-28-2009, 08:07 PM

Originally posted by DDBooger
it's tricky, but I want fault an infant for the problems of the parent. ...

I'm sure it's a typo and you meant to say won't.

So can I assume that I would have your support in granting Amnesty to every single Mexican here illegally if they were brought here while under the age of attrition by their outlaw parents?:D

SintonFan

07-28-2009, 08:08 PM

I had posted this on another thread:
.

On to reforming health care(my opinion):
I think if legislation was passed that supported interstate competition of insurance companies we could save quite a bit of money.
I also believe that medical savings accounts should be encouraged and maybe expanded to the point that consumers could shop around for their own level of coverage. Not everyone wants or needs comprehensive coverage. For instance:
If I was a 20 something, I would be more inclined for a high deductible catastrophic type of coverage that would save someone like that many thousands of dollars over a more comprehensive plan. Younger folks tend to not need prescription coverage and low deductibles because they don't go to the doctor near as often as older folks do.
.
This is a very condensed version of my thoughts. I will add more as I research this more. I have basically taken ideas from several places that have a more market-driven solution in mind.