Healthcare program

[mapuc]

Why are most of you americans against this health care program??

One of my friends how have been working in USA, for Ericsson mobile. Told me this

-Those who have a job or have money or so, have some kind of insurance, but just wait until the day they are without a job or have lost all they money on the stockmarket and they gets sick, then the pipe will find an another tune.

I haven't been studying this law my self, but I'm thinking about what my friend said.

For me, who lives in a country, where I can go to wich docktor I want to, without paying anything and get the best treatment- for me it's unbelievable that A rich and powerfull country as USA, you have to pay for every treatment you get.

Or have I missed something?? Please enlight me

Markus

[TLAM Strike]

Its ridiculous.

I signed up for Medicaid at the start of the month and heard back from them once. The were mostly concerned with "am I still working" so I qualify for food stamps. January I start college so I won't be working so it doesn't really matter does it? They had no problem sending me a flyer to sign up for free phone airtime. Yea that's what I need an extra 70 minutes of phone time a month... :roll:

... got to call them Monday when everyone comes back from the holiday and ask them "WTF?" :damn:

Hilarious thing is that I need Medicaid since I need health insurance to live in the dorms at school... I'm going to school so I can get a better job and not need Medicaid...

I have a idea... lets militarize the health care system. We are good at big armies right? You volunteer to be a nurse or a doctor and swear an oath then the Government pays for your schooling, housing, food, uniforms. You spend 10-15 years providing heath care to the masses then you have your diploma and can go in to private practice or work at a for profit hospital catering to the rich.

[Platapus]

First of all, why do you think that "most of you americans against this health care program"?

This country is full of small wheels that squeak loudly. That is one of our freedoms. One can't always derive public opinion from the loudest squeak.

The same comes from "polls" you can't interpret polls until you have access to the raw data. It is very easy to manipulate using polls.

[mookiemookie]

http://www.sadanduseless.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/469.jpg
:O:

[Rilder]

Because... Communists. :O:

[mapuc]

First of all, why do you think that "most of you americans against this health care program"?

This country is full of small wheels that squeak loudly. That is one of our freedoms. One can't always derive public opinion from the loudest squeak.

The same comes from "polls" you can't interpret polls until you have access to the raw data. It is very easy to manipulate using polls.

Why I wrote "Why are most of you americans against this health care program" because from what I've have seen on dansish and swedish news and from newspaper a.s.o and it gives me a picture, showing almost every american standing infront of the White house hauling NO. We to have free speech.

But is it true, that if you get unemployed or loose every dime you have and you get sick, you are doomed?

Markus

[GoldenRivet]

Why are most of you americans against this health care program??

# 1 - Because the federal government is forcing me under duress to purchase a good or service.

# 2 - because virtually every large scale federal/social program in existence within the United States has failed and many of us don't see any reason this little social experiment will turn out any differently.

# 3 - Because our representatives are not fully aware of the contents of the bill they have passed far too expediently.

those are MY three primary concerns

[Penguin]

For me, who lives in a country, where I can go to wich docktor I want to, without paying anything and get the best treatment- for me it's unbelievable that A rich and powerfull country as USA, you have to pay for every treatment you get.


Well, while Sweden has a far more effective and efficient health system than Germany it's not all free. Correct me if I'm wrong, Markus, but don't you have to pay your dentist by yourself? Also you have to pay some fee at the doctors too (patientavgift), between 120 and 300 kronas (12 - 30 €), ok, nothing compared to the costs of an amercian doc. :-?



# 1 - Because the federal government is forcing me under duress to purchase a good or service.

# 2 - because virtually every large scale federal/social program in existence within the United States has failed and many of us don't see any reason this little social experiment will turn out any differently.

# 3 - Because our representatives are not fully aware of the contents of the bill they have passed far too expediently.



1: Yes, but it also forces you to attend a school - which you pay for with your taxes. Also it requires you to have an insurance for your car or to have a minimum age to do certain activities. Yeah, it's not all coming from the federal government, but also from the state government, but you get my point.

I cannot really argue with points 2 and 3 ;)

[Armistead]

I suffer from a nerve disease and have been with and without medical insurance. I've also worked with many that have the same illness. It's a wierd illness, you get a injury, even mild and for some reasons the nerves in your brain go haywire sending corrupt signals to the damaged area, but over time it can spread and become painful until the point of suicide. It's old name is RSD, now called CRPS...better known as the suicide disease.


I've watched many...around 23 last count that I know that took their lives because they couldn't afford or get the strong regulated pain meds just to make life bearable. Sadly, the meds are cheap, methadone, morphine, ect..but most state law requires you be on a program with certain doctors, massive drug testing, ect..Most can't get meds because they can't afford the type of drug test...$600 a pop, not your average test. Most can't run to a state hospital and get understanding of relief.

Medicare, you get some basic treatment, but no real pain management unless you're lucky to get a caring Neuro or Pain Management Doctor, trust me, they're a rare find.

The last one I walked into was a man who lived alone. First he lost his job. He applied for SS, ect...takes years in NC, no judges. He couldn't afford Cobra, so bye bye insurance, then bye bye Doctors. Our group fights to get people some help, but never enough. I hadn't heard from him so I went to his house. The door was open, I went and found him in his bathtub. Having done this before I called the police. He left a note that simply said " I am not suicidal, no one wants to live more than me, if I live I will go insane, so please forgive me." He put a 12 gauge to his heart and pulled the trigger.

They're many reasons our healthcare sucks, mainly mass corporate profits over health. Pharmicuticals have too much control and the goal of Doctors often seems to be to keep people as sick as possible, as long as possible on as many pills as possible.

Even if you have insurance, wait until you get sick. Talk about "death panels" wait until those "DENIED" letters come in one after the other.

They say the way were going 50% of us could be without insurance in 20 years or less and those that do have it premiums could take 40% of your salary, it does that to many already.

Trust me, when you suffer, watch others suffer, children, people you love live in torture and die, you'll ask WHY...Millions live like this everyday.

It's the same issue, the haves and have nots. If you have it, things are OK, if not....then you want change.

Terrorist in Gitmo get better healthcare than the average American...totally free.

[Aramike]

1: Yes, but it also forces you to attend a school - which you pay for with your taxes. Also it requires you to have an insurance for your car or to have a minimum age to do certain activities. Yeah, it's not all coming from the federal government, but also from the state government, but you get my point.Education is a community necessesity. Healthcare is a personal necessity, and treatment is already guaranteed by the Patient Bill of Rights. It's not a question of recieving treatment - the question is where the payment comes from.

Also, carrying insurance to drive requires you making choice - whether or not to drive. As far as minimum age goes, I'm not sure what you're postulating there...

[Armistead]

# 1 - Because the federal government is forcing me under duress to purchase a good or service.

# 2 - because virtually every large scale federal/social program in existence within the United States has failed and many of us don't see any reason this little social experiment will turn out any differently.

# 3 - Because our representatives are not fully aware of the contents of the bill they have passed far too expediently.

those are MY three primary concerns

Should we count the thing, goods or services the federal government makes you buy into against your will...SS be a good place to start.

Actually the government runs medicaid quite well, even efficient. The problem is they waste all money elsewhere, so programs that need it don't have it, such as SS and Medicaid. The problems are the crooks in congress, those that run these programs actually do a fairly good job at it.

I'll agree on the last point, total BS, it didn't deserve to pass, but we need something or the future for most of us will be dire.

[Platapus]

1: Yes, but it also forces you to attend a school - which you pay for with your taxes. Also it requires you to have an insurance for your car or to have a minimum age to do certain activities. Yeah, it's not all coming from the federal government, but also from the state government, but you get my point.

I cannot really argue with points 2 and 3 ;)

But that is the point many are concerned with. This is the first time the Federal Government has mandated its citizens to purchase a commercial product. It is not so much the requirement for purchase, but that it comes from the Federal Government.

This is why, although I disagree with it, the federal lawsuits are valid.

[Penguin]

Education is a community necessesity. Healthcare is a personal necessity, and treatment is already guaranteed by the Patient Bill of Rights. It's not a question of recieving treatment - the question is where the payment comes from.

Also, carrying insurance to drive requires you making choice - whether or not to drive. As far as minimum age goes, I'm not sure what you're postulating there...


Well, I think that health is also a community - and economical - necessity. Not even talking about morale. The costs, and following costs, of untreated illnesses also have to come into calculation.

Also human life is something where companies should make no big profits - as it often comes down to something how much a life is worth. While the US has a great health system when you have the ability to afford it, I do not want to say anything abouit the standard of community health centers...:shifty:
I can't see how you can have an affordable health plan when you work at minimum wage.

The minimum age example should just show that your freedom of choice gets also infringed by other laws, wheather or not they make sense.

[Tribesman]

Education is a community necessesity. Healthcare is a personal necessity
Education is a personal and community issue just as healthcare is a personal and community issue.
The reason countries made healthcare provision a community thing was because the community still gets saddled with it when its only deemed the personal thing anyway.

[Armistead]

What do you guys think about forcing lifestyle changes by law?

You know, if you're fat from overeating, you pay a fine. The next crisis to hit us is the upcoming obese generation, you know, those lazy arses that eat chips and play sub sims all day.

Diabetes, heart failure, asthma {smoking related) and...depression are responsible for about 75% of total health spending... Poll I saw said if only one percent of these were treated successfully treated we would save 77 billion. Imagine 20%..

In my generation in the 70's, about 5% used some type of depression med, today over 70% will use them some time in their life....I wonder how we dealt with life back then without meds. Course with Billions to be made on pills, you think we'll see reform.

A 30 minute walk per day and a few diet changes could cure about 50% of type2 diabetes, saving over a trillion. They day the cost of diabetes in 20 years could totally break our system.

You would think prevention would be the key, but not if those large Pharma Corps have any say.

But let freedom ring as long as death an profits prevail.....

[Penguin]

But that is the point many are concerned with. This is the first time the Federal Government has mandated its citizens to purchase a commercial product. It is not so much the requirement for purchase, but that it comes from the Federal Government.

This is why, although I disagree with it, the federal lawsuits are valid.

This is somehting which I honestly admire in the american soul: a healthy distrust of the federal government. People here just learn it when they experience the EU "government". Government in quotation marks because we have nearly no say in the election process - however most of the laws passed over here derive from laws made in Brussels.


What do you guys think about forcing lifestyle changes by law?


Nothing. People have the right to be obese, eat crappy food or poison their body. Same way you have the right to stay uneducated. I would have a problem with the government interfering in what I eat.
It's the same way that you pay in your car insurance for the idiots who can't drive.


In my generation in the 70's, about 5% used some type of depression med, today over 70% will use them some time in their life....I wonder how we dealt with life back then without meds. Course with Billions to be made on pills, you think we'll see reform.


:o didn't know these numbers. It certainly has to do with pill profits, but also with mentality. People like to put in no effort in fighting problems by themselves when it is just easier to pop in a pill. Not the smartest choice if you ask me, as the root of the problems doesn't vanish...


You would think prevention would be the key, but not if those large Pharma Corps have any say.


This is an excellent point. A profit oriented corporation gives a **** about the best choice for your health when it comes to margins to make.

[Betonov]

Here in Slovenia we also have private insurance companies, but the system is a bit different. You have your basic health insurance which is govermental, but not mandatory. You dont pay the insurance you only get emergency treatment. The basic insurance is actually paid by your employer or the state if you are a student. It will get you any treatment you require to get better. Then it's the aditional insurance, which is handeled by private insurance companies. You pay it yourself and it is in affordable range (€23 per month). That will get you any additional treatment, exotic drugs etc etc.... The doctors are paid (too) well, state of the art equipment, no shortage of rubber gloves...

[Bubblehead1980]

Why are most of you americans against this health care program??

One of my friends how have been working in USA, for Ericsson mobile. Told me this

-Those who have a job or have money , have some kind of insurance, but just wait until the day they are without a job or have lost all they money on the stockmarket and they gets sick, then the pipe will find an another tune.

I haven't been studying this law my self, but I'm thinking about what my friend said.

For me, who lives in a country, where I can go to wich docktor I want to, without paying anything and get the best treatment- for me it's unbelievable that A rich and powerfull country as USA, you have to pay for every treatment you get.

Or have I missed something?? Please enlight me

Markus


Most Americans are against the healthcare law( as polls showed during the process of passing the bill and it is still seen in a negative light) because people know it is crap.

One big thing with this bill is the constitutional issue.The bill contains a mandate that REQUIRES individuals to purchase health insurance or face a fine from the government.The foundation of our Republic, the US Constitution does not permit the Federal Government to force individuals to purchase anything.Liberals who authored the bill have no respect for what is the supreme law of the land and do their best to piss on it.Not being partisan here, just the truth because the Constitution is the big ro******* for many things Libs want to do in the US so they have to try and circumvent it constantly, sometimes they are able to, sometimes not.I am in Law School and had a Left leaning professor admit that in a class a few weeks ago.

The bill is crap due to violating the constitution in addition to the trillion dollar price tag.The US is in debt and we can not afford yet another entitlement that the government will mismanage, our government is not capable of running much as they have shown with other social programs such as Social Security.

Another issue is the taxes, the bill adds taxes on things such as medical equipment, so this will drive costs up which will get passed on to the consumer, esp those who have private insurance.Obama and his goons sold this bill as it will drive costs down but I knew it was total BS and most realized that, thus why such opposition.

This healthcare bill also represents a deep divide in America.Basically you have two types of people in America today.You have those who do something with their lives and are self sufficent, then you have those who never do much but pop out a few kids when they did not have the ability to really afford them when they were born and no real chances of improving their situation, but they will be somewhat okay because they know they can get on the dole.Now that is not EVERYONE but for the most part this applies to MOST.So you have people who pay for their own insurance(the majority) and those who do not, who go without it.While that is unfortunate, it is NOT the role of the government to provide this.


Some reform is needed in healthcare, but this bill as anything Obama does goes too far.

An ideal healthcare bill would take the few good things from Obama's HC bill such as not being able to deny/drop for pre-existing conditions etc and put them into more sensible, less invasive Euro style bill.

Not allow denial or dismissial or insurance due to pre-existing condition or once you are sick.

Tort/malpractice insurance reform...which was not even brought up by the Dems because trial lawyers are a huge contributor to the Dem party.

NO individual mandate

Can stay on parents insurance until 26(or longer if in college would be ideal)

FULL adherence to the US Constitution.

Lower taxes on HC in exchange for reduced premiums from companies.

No tax increases on anyone.

Allow individuals to purchase health insurance across state lines.

The remaining without insurance who could not find a policy anywhere they could afford should be allowed to buy into medicaid for a premium of say $150 a year.This would be simple and this way, minimal government involvement, minimal cost etc


The US Supreme Court will hear this case eventually and prob overturn the law, then perhaps the new congress and pass another, more sensible bill.


"For me, who lives in a country, where I can go to wich docktor I want to, without paying anything and get the best treatment- for me it's unbelievable that A rich and powerfull country as USA, you have to pay for every treatment you get."


I can go to the doctor anytime I want to and get anything I need and get the best treatment.Most Americans do .Now if they are ill, they can get treatment.They simply do not have insurance for things like regular doctor visits etc.There are programs like Medicaid etc.

I bet the thing that is different betwen your "free"(nothing is free in life, someone is paying for it) healthcare and mine is that my doctor and I have the freedom to chose what procedure I need want. Heard many horror stories about governent run hc in other countries where older people are denied hip replacement surgery etc bc they are older.That is wrong and a result of a government system. Ever hear the quote "A Government that gives you everything can take everything away"

Prime Example is of many Canadians, Residents of UK etc who can afford to coming to the US to get treatments for other things, it happens and pretty often esp for the tough illnesses such as cancer etc.Cancer is time sensitive, can't wait 6 months usually to start treatment, esp bc some government idiot has you on the wait list.


Really is not that Americans do not want health care, but they expect better than the crap that Obama and his goons shoved down our throat earlier this year.They paid for it earlier this month in the elections and will pay for it in 2012.HC will be a big issue in 2012, esp when they house repeals it(maybe even Senate) and Barry O will veto it because he does not care about the will of the people but about his ego.

[Bubblehead1980]

Well, while Sweden has a far more effective and efficient health system than Germany it's not all free. Correct me if I'm wrong, Markus, but don't you have to pay your dentist by yourself? Also you have to pay some fee at the doctors too (patientavgift), between 120 and 300 kronas (12 - 30 €), ok, nothing compared to the costs of an amercian doc. :-?






1: Yes, but it also forces you to attend a school - which you pay for with your taxes. Also it requires you to have an insurance for your car or to have a minimum age to do certain activities. Yeah, it's not all coming from the federal government, but also from the state government, but you get my point.

I cannot really argue with points 2 and 3 ;)


Not unconstitutional to require children to attend school, they don't have to attend school but they have to attend some type of school, they are children and do not have the same rights as an adult.Notice the Federal government can not make you work or attend school once you hit a certain age? .The STATES are the ones who force you purchase minimal auto insurance and that is because you are using public roads to get from point A to Point B, which is seen as engaging in commerce in a sense, so not unconstitutional to do so.Thus why speed limits etc are okay.Now if on private roads(there are some yes) no speed limits etc,


All comes down to the Constitutionality of the law.The US Constitution is the foundation of our Republic and meant to prevent the kind of shenanigans in the health control bill.Forcing someone to purchase a product or face a fine is unconstitutional and just WRONG.

[Sailor Steve]

Why are most of you americans against this health care program??For me, who lives in a country, where I can go to wich docktor I want to, without paying anything and get the best treatment- for me it's unbelievable that A rich and powerfull country as USA, you have to pay for every treatment you get.
Nothing is ever free. You may not have to pay for it, but somebody does. Part of the argument here has always been the question of whether it is right to force someone who can afford it to pay for someone who can't. Yes, it is proper that everyone should have health care, but you can only have that by taking away someone else's work and freedom.

[Armistead]

You would be surprised at the number of people that can't get medicaid, but also cannot afford insurance, borderline not qualifying, effects millions. The mistake so many make is they may have jobs, housepayment, but can't afford insurance...happens to many young, then they get sick and go bankrupt, not to mention the mass unemployed right now, many take low paying jobs with no benefits.

The biggest issue is so many businesses no longer offer insurance. Well, why should they. All you that work for the government, the public pays for your great healthcare, why they may have none....how fair is that. Let's scale government healthcare to the level most average americans deal with. Americans without insurance shouldn't be forced to pay for government employess to have it.

Large Corporations with buying power is about all that's left where you may get decent insurance.

The fact is the GOP is sold out to the Healthcare Corporations, the Dems to Lawyers.....not good for americans.

[mookiemookie]

Nothing is ever free. You may not have to pay for it, but somebody does. Part of the argument here has always been the question of whether it is right to force someone who can afford it to pay for someone who can't. Yes, it is proper that everyone should have health care, but you can only have that by taking away someone else's work and freedom.

The situation is no different either way. Current system = those with healthcare pay for the ER visits of those without. Single payer system = everyone pays for everyone. You're paying for someone else either way. Might as well do it in a way that makes the most sense.

[Armistead]

The government will grow to 2.5 million employees this year where tax dollars give them great healthcare, so should the tax dollars of those not insured provide medical care for them...

Maybe if we dropped medical care for government employees at the expense of taxpayers and made them have to buy the lousy crap most of us get at high premiums....I wonder the uproar...

[Aramike]

Well, I think that health is also a community - and economical - necessity. Not even talking about morale. The costs, and following costs, of untreated illnesses also have to come into calculation.No doubt, but we're not talking about a nation where the sick are overwhelming the streets. The burden of cost should be paid for by those imposing said cost through their own decisions.

You know how much basic health insurance costs for a man in his mid-twenties? Less than $70 monthly. And yet, many eschew this coverage in favor of one more night out drinking with their buddies. For some reason or another, we've decided that those people should have a safety net.

The difference between schooling and healthcare is that healthcare is that basic schooling is a necessity for all and the good of all while healthcare is not (note I said healthcare, not access to healthcare).

I would agree that the system was broken - too many people who are in real hardship were being left behind due to prohibitive expense. But, at some point "prohibitive expenses" were equated to "unwanted expense" and we've decided to not simply help those in need, but rather, attempt to help those in WANT.

[Aramike]

The situation is no different either way. Current system = those with healthcare pay for the ER visits of those without. Single payer system = everyone pays for everyone. You're paying for someone else either way. Might as well do it in a way that makes the most sense.What about the effects on single-payer on the system as a whole? What about backlogging? Should physicians be required to abandon private practice? If not, how would you prevent the better doctors from taking up exclusive private practice, creating a backlog for those involved in single-payer?

Single-payer healthcare, with no cost to the individual (and, as such, no incentive to NOT see the doctor), would be an unmitigated disaster in a nation of this size. And for what? To save healthy young adults a few bucks a month?

There are far better ways to address the needs of those with actual needs than to blow up an entire system which provides quality care with practically no backlog.

[Aramike]

You would be surprised at the number of people that can't get medicaid, but also cannot afford insurance, borderline not qualifying, effects millions. The mistake so many make is they may have jobs, housepayment, but can't afford insurance...happens to many young, then they get sick and go bankrupt, not to mention the mass unemployed right now, many take low paying jobs with no benefits.

The biggest issue is so many businesses no longer offer insurance. Well, why should they. All you that work for the government, the public pays for your great healthcare, why they may have none....how fair is that. Let's scale government healthcare to the level most average americans deal with. Americans without insurance shouldn't be forced to pay for government employess to have it.

Large Corporations with buying power is about all that's left where you may get decent insurance.

The fact is the GOP is sold out to the Healthcare Corporations, the Dems to Lawyers.....not good for americans.It's the usual sob-story - young man gets sick, has no insurance, now is bankrupt and cries about how he couldn't afford insurance. All the while he's driving a late model car with spinning rims and monster sound system, eating out 5 times a week, and hitting the bars on the weekends.

I believe government assistance should kick in to anyone who can PROVE an inability to buy insurance - but not at the expense of the rest of us paying for those who just make poor decisions that are not costing them dearly.

Quite frankly, I suspect most people fall into the latter category.

[Armistead]

It's the usual sob-story - young man gets sick, has no insurance, now is bankrupt and cries about how he couldn't afford insurance. All the while he's driving a late model car with spinning rims and monster sound system, eating out 5 times a week, and hitting the bars on the weekends.

I believe government assistance should kick in to anyone who can PROVE an inability to buy insurance - but not at the expense of the rest of us paying for those who just make poor decisions that are not costing them dearly.

Quite frankly, I suspect most people fall into the latter category.


Hang with me and let me introduce you to some of those I've helped in the past in my group, watch them eat from dumpsters, live homeless, kill themselves over pain. Most were once better off than you think before they got sick and over years lose it all....ex businessmen, Pastor, a football coach, a ballet dancer....just a few I know that died in poverty and pain.
It's usually a process that happens over a few year, lost job, can't afford cobra, can't work, Denied for years LTD they paid for, waiting years to get on SS. See, most have to get broke to go on medicaid. Most just watch all they worked for go and go, home, family, usually left alone and give up.

Sorry, you're rather ignorant.:down: About 40 million Americans don't have insurance. The real numbers are probably about half that as many choose not to buy it even if they can afford it, mostly young middle class white americans. Not to mention about 3 million are children.

[Sailor Steve]

Hang with me and let me introduce you to some of those I've helped in the past in my group, watch them eat from dumpsters, live homeless, kill themselves over pain. Most were once better off than you think before they got sick and over years lose it all....ex businessmen, Pastor, a football coach, a ballet dancer....just a few I know that died in poverty and pain.
I've lived homeless. I've never eaten out of a dumpster, since there are several free food services around the city, provided by (*gasp*) private donations, as is the homeless shelter.

Right around the corner is a free clinic, partly paid for by the State.

I'm all for state-assisted services. I just don't think they should be the province of the Federal government.

Sorry, you're rather ignorant.:down:
And that comment comes across as rather arrogant.

[AVGWarhawk]

It's the usual sob-story - young man gets sick, has no insurance, now is bankrupt and cries about how he couldn't afford insurance. All the while he's driving a late model car with spinning rims and monster sound system, eating out 5 times a week, and hitting the bars on the weekends.

I believe government assistance should kick in to anyone who can PROVE an inability to buy insurance - but not at the expense of the rest of us paying for those who just make poor decisions that are not costing them dearly.

Quite frankly, I suspect most people fall into the latter category.

I don't find this ignorant at all. In fact, it probably has a lot of truth to it. Furthermore jobs that I have taken always offered health insurance. Some jobs don't but if you take that job that does not offer insurance that is your choice. Some companies offer to pay the employee less but offer insurance. Some offer to pay the employee more but the employee is to get insurance on your own. Does not mean this person will get the insurance. This person can use this money for what he likes. But you know what....the government did the usual. Put the damn wagon before the horse. We have gone over this until we were all blue in the face. Healthcare costs are out of control. Why? Did the government ask why? Well hell no. It was universally accepted as this is how it is so just throw money at the system. Extremely ass backwards and as mentioned already...the entire package was 'rammed' up our wahzoo with little concern of what the people thought. The peoples thoughts on the bill came to late in the mid-terms. Now I do not see the bill being repealed however I see it being starved of money. American simply can not afford it. Enough is already spent with wild abandon in the welfare system. Amongst other government sponsored programs that failed since inception. No need to add yet another program that utlimately fail like the others.

[Blood_splat]

Not to mention military and government spending corruption.

[Armistead]

Most skilled trades no longer offer insurance, construction, ect. or make employees pay for 90% of it or more. Most here in NC offer 60/40 with high premiums. With over 40 million noninsured, just not easy for all to have insurance or afford it and live. If everyone had the education for high paying jobs with benefits, the more people for a job, the pay and benefits start to go, someone will do it cheaper. Everyday businesses are dropping insurance to compete and sorry, not that easy to find a job these days with great benefits

Sure, there will always be a group that abuses services. Unless you've seen how these free services work, you would see they don't for a great percentage of those that are ill. Believe me, I've hauled many a disabled person to them. You may get lucky and get a bed at a shelter, if you stand in line for hours. To get the free food, you have to get there, many ill don't have cars, auto insurance. Most free services serve the inner city... There was a man on the news not long ago that was crippled that died at home from starvation, no one checked on him and he lived far from the city. Don't confuse inner city programs for the poor with those for the sick.

The problem is the ill often get thrown in with the scum as you guys refer to. They can't deal with long lines, long drives, red tape, long waits, ect.

A bigger issue is the borderline ill. They may have a get by job, own a home. For most of these if they have anything of value it must go before they qualify for free programs, medicaid, ect...Simply, they must go into poverty first, once there they find it's worse, they may get some medicaid, but then they have no home, ect.

The bigger issue is for severe diseases that require specialist. You're simply not gonna get this care even on medicaid to any degree. Many have severe disease, can't deal with it and the system and just give up and die and obviously it doesn't bother most.

And with big cuts coming to medicaid, gonna get worse.

[Armistead]

From Consumer Affairs

Illness and medical bills caused half of the 1,458,000 personal bankruptcies in 2001, according to a study published by the journal Health Affairs.

The study estimates that medical bankruptcies affect about 2 million Americans annually -- counting debtors and their dependents, including about 700,000 children.

Surprisingly, most of those bankrupted by illness had health insurance. More than three-quarters were insured at the start of the bankrupting illness. However, 38 percent had lost coverage at least temporarily by the time they filed for bankruptcy.

Most of the medical bankruptcy filers were middle class; 56 percent owned a home and the same number had attended college. In many cases, illness forced breadwinners to take time off from work -- losing income and job-based health insurance precisely when families needed it most.
Families in bankruptcy suffered many privations -- 30 percent had a utility cut off and 61 percent went without needed medical care.


Read more: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html#ixzz16YnTx2IB

[Aramike]

Hang with me and let me introduce you to some of those I've helped in the past in my group, watch them eat from dumpsters, live homeless, kill themselves over pain. Most were once better off than you think before they got sick and over years lose it all....ex businessmen, Pastor, a football coach, a ballet dancer....just a few I know that died in poverty and pain.
It's usually a process that happens over a few year, lost job, can't afford cobra, can't work, Denied for years LTD they paid for, waiting years to get on SS. See, most have to get broke to go on medicaid. Most just watch all they worked for go and go, home, family, usually left alone and give up.

Sorry, you're rather ignorant.:down: About 40 million Americans don't have insurance. The real numbers are probably about half that as many choose not to buy it even if they can afford it, mostly young middle class white americans. Not to mention about 3 million are children.In addition to AVG and Steve's response, I feel I should add that I think its possible that you're taking your own personal experiences and using that to generalize the situation. Indeed, while I may be doing the same thing, I'm curious as to why you think that I am wrong in insisting that help is indeed given ... but only to those who are truly in need?'

After you answer that question, it would be interesting to hear your theory as to why taxpayers should both subsidize corruption in the system along with alleviating the results of individual poor decision making in order to support those who have a real need.

Here's how I see it: if someone eschews health coverage in favor of having more spending money, and taxpayers are then tasked to pay for that health coverage, why is it that we are said to be paying for health coverage at all, rather than paying for Joe Blow's party nights? $100 for health coverage or $100 for a night out ... it's still 100 bucks.

[Tribesman]

but only to those who are truly in need?'


There lies the problem.
As atempting that means more beaurocracy, more expense in the name of cutting expense ...and importantly considering its healthcare.....more delays which lead to worse results which lead to even more expense.

[mookiemookie]

In addition to AVG and Steve's response, I feel I should add that I think its possible that you're taking your own personal experiences and using that to generalize the situation. Indeed, while I may be doing the same thing, I'm curious as to why you think that I am wrong in insisting that help is indeed given ... but only to those who are truly in need?'

After you answer that question, it would be interesting to hear your theory as to why taxpayers should both subsidize corruption in the system along with alleviating the results of individual poor decision making in order to support those who have a real need.

Here's how I see it: if someone eschews health coverage in favor of having more spending money, and taxpayers are then tasked to pay for that health coverage, why is it that we are said to be paying for health coverage at all, rather than paying for Joe Blow's party nights? $100 for health coverage or $100 for a night out ... it's still 100 bucks.

It's the "just world" phenomenon at work. Some people believe that the world is indeed just and fair, and bad things only happen to bad people or people who make poor choices. It's a coping mechanism in their mind in order to deal with the fact that in reality, bad things happen to good people and the system is not fair.

Therefore, in their mind, people who are out of work are lazy. People without health insurance can't afford it because they're living a life of material luxury. They have no concept of the fact that not every one of the 46 million Americans without health insurance are walking around with Gucci purses and driving BMW's with 20" rims. In their mind, it all fits in a neat little box and their narrative is complete. It's much easier than facing the reality that the system is broke.

[Armistead]

In addition to AVG and Steve's response, I feel I should add that I think its possible that you're taking your own personal experiences and using that to generalize the situation. Indeed, while I may be doing the same thing, I'm curious as to why you think that I am wrong in insisting that help is indeed given ... but only to those who are truly in need?'

After you answer that question, it would be interesting to hear your theory as to why taxpayers should both subsidize corruption in the system along with alleviating the results of individual poor decision making in order to support those who have a real need.

Here's how I see it: if someone eschews health coverage in favor of having more spending money, and taxpayers are then tasked to pay for that health coverage, why is it that we are said to be paying for health coverage at all, rather than paying for Joe Blow's party nights? $100 for health coverage or $100 for a night out ... it's still 100 bucks.

The corruption in the system isn't the fault of the ill, it's the fault of congressmen that sell out to special interest.

You point out one major flaw, how do we determine who is sick and not or so ill they can no longer work. Many do try to beat the system. So who determines who is ill, Doctors. If you can't get access to the right Doctor's, you can't prove your case. Moreso with chronic illness. The red tape is beyond what you could imagine. Today, few can fake it or go through the red tape to prove it if they're not ill. Many ill die before they get processed. We certainly need strict punishment for those that try to play the system.

You seem to imply poor decision making is the result of disease. True to a point, but millions that live great lifestyles get hit with disease or accident. As I said, maybe we should fine Obese people, smokers, ect...or would that be intruding on their freedom. If they get sick, should they be denied any medical service? Everyone want to shout poor life decisions, then at the same time say don't step on my rights to eat junk everyday, smoke, ect.

Many illnesses take multiple test and visit, many are even missed. Running to a state hospital may get you emergency care, but for those with chronic disease that need ongoing care, you'll get little. They'll make sure you won't die and out you go. Disease gets worse until eventually it becomes serious and cost go sky high. If they would've gotten better care, it would be cheaper in the long run.

Yep, millions, mainly young people will waste a lot of money on the joys of life, a home, car, ect..and not buy insurance. Then they get sick or in an accident and get in trouble. It cost billions a year to the taxpayer. That's why many think all should be forced to buy it? Whoops, stepping on rights again....but the cost are still there if they get ill. The only choice is to deny any care and let em suffer and die for wanting something other than insurance.

Try going on SS or mediciad today and you'll see you have to prove it, you must sometimes wait for years, prove all your assets, finances, ect. I assume the law is nationwide, but you must have $6000 of medical debt to qualify, have little income and basically use any assets first to pay, such as equity in your home. Many have to go into utter poverty first to get help. They may get medicaid, but then can't pay other bills, power, food, home.

Taxpayers pay for over 2 million government employees to have great insurance....maybe we should get rid of that and put them in the system? Should somone who can't afford insurance tax dollars pay for someone elses...it doe's for the government on every level.

[Takeda Shingen]

This healthcare bill also represents a deep divide in America.Basically you have two types of people in America today.You have those who do something with their lives and are self sufficent, then you have those who never do much but pop out a few kids when they did not have the ability to really afford them when they were born and no real chances of improving their situation, but they will be somewhat okay because they know they can get on the dole.Now that is not EVERYONE but for the most part this applies to MOST.So you have people who pay for their own insurance(the majority) and those who do not, who go without it.While that is unfortunate, it is NOT the role of the government to provide this.

And so nearly every person who is unable to afford insurance is a shiftless, unwed mother with no ambition other than to watch daytime television and adhere to the government teat. So many of you decry the class warfare tactics of the left and then go on to engage in your own version of class warfare, and with the rationale that it is true only when your team does it.

My vision of America is one where the people do the thinking for themselves, rather than outsource that task to the pundits. Sadly, it is not a realistic vision. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to read Hannity and Olbermann's blogs so that I know what lines to use in the Korea discussion.

[Armistead]

It's the "just world" phenomenon at work. Some people believe that the world is indeed just and fair, and bad things only happen to bad people or people who make poor choices. It's a coping mechanism in their mind in order to deal with the fact that in reality, bad things happen to good people and the system is not fair.

Therefore, in their mind, people who are out of work are lazy. People without health insurance can't afford it because they're living a life of material luxury. They have no concept of the fact that not every one of the 46 million Americans without health insurance are walking around with Gucci purses and driving BMW's with 20" rims. In their mind, it all fits in a neat little box and their narrative is complete. It's much easier than facing the reality that the system is broke.

:yeah::yeah:

[Armistead]

And so nearly every person who is unable to afford insurance is a shiftless, unwed mother with no ambition other than to watch daytime television and adhere to the government teat. So many of you decry the class warfare tactics of the left and then go on to engage in your own version of class warfare, and with the rationale that it is true only when your team does it.

My vision of America is one where the people do the thinking for themselves, rather than outsource that task to the pundits. Sadly, it is not a realistic vision. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to read Hannity and Olbermann's blogs so that I know what lines to use in the Korea discussion.

Hannity and Olbermann's blogs for lines..:yeah:, LMAO...

Sadly, to an extent I understand the thinking of I worked for mine, you work for yours. It's hard to give up even the nice things you work for and your money goe's somewhere else. Buying things is what keeps the economy going. No doubt the rich give more to those without, even if it's a tax shelter. I would hate to have to give up my kids college fund to pay for care for someone else.

The answer to me is letting people buy into programs together in mass.

The major issue I see is the money spent on end of life. $1 out of every 4 spent in medicine is end of life care or prolonging life by another year with expensive care.

The real solve is prevention, a well person doesn't cost a dime. Sadly, we are one if the sickest nations ever, diet, lack of exercise, ect.. Our food has little nutritional value, full of chemicals, even the stuff you think is good. The fact is they're are so many markets making huge profits keeping people sick.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

http://www.users.on.net/%7Eprime/puni/USA/USA-rage1.jpg
http://www.users.on.net/%7Eprime/puni/USA/USA-rage2.jpg

[Torvald Von Mansee]

pt 2

http://www.users.on.net/%7Eprime/puni/USA/USA-rage3.jpg

[Bubblehead1980]

And so nearly every person who is unable to afford insurance is a shiftless, unwed mother with no ambition other than to watch daytime television and adhere to the government teat. So many of you decry the class warfare tactics of the left and then go on to engage in your own version of class warfare, and with the rationale that it is true only when your team does it.

My vision of America is one where the people do the thinking for themselves, rather than outsource that task to the pundits. Sadly, it is not a realistic vision. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to read Hannity and Olbermann's blogs so that I know what lines to use in the Korea discussion.


Notice I said most people, not all.The ones I referred to are in the situation because they did things such as having a child when they could not afford it and had no real chances of being able to in the future but they were not that worried because they know they can get on the dole. I grew up in the south(not that is exclusive to the south but its alarmingly common) seen this countless times and as embarassing as it is, I even have it in my extended family(sadly we share the same last name since they are on my father's side, sight, disgusting people) and since I have been around long enough now, see the cycle repeat itself a bit.

One example is a cousin of mine, his dad was always a low life, least favorite uncle for sure.Drunk, drug addict, dumb as a rock, too lazy to work so between his sporadic employment, he was always on the dole.I remember an aunt of mine(by marriage) who worked for the state getting them some program thing at christmas time so his FIVE children would have presents.Also, they were usually on the dole but always had a nice guy and plenty of electronics etc at home, although their home was usually crappy. My cousin is 6 months older than me, now growing up in the crap and being told by family etc to make his life better, what does he do, he knocks up some white trash girl at 16 then decided to be oh so original and keep the kid plus get married.So now he has sporadic employment, drug and alcohol problem, so sad and cliche it is almost funny.This guys wife is not much better, she is rather overweight, no education, does not work, they are on welfare etc.I saw him around town one day before I left for law school, kid had an Obama sticker on the new car he manages to afford.Gee I wonder why?

Another example is a female cousin of mine who was always a heavy girl until last two years of high school, turned out real pretty but apparently could not handle the attention, knocked up at 17 by a white boy who thinks he is black, she barely finished high school and he did not.Now she had a good family, no issues like the cousin I mentioned about.I was close enough to her to talk to her about it, I was 15 and she was 17 but she would not listen and got quite angry when I told her the truth.I must be psychic because at 15 I predicted the future, things are for her pretty much how I said they would be.Oh yea, so even though they have a rocky relationship, can not afford the one child they had, they CHOSE(according to her dad, who was angry about it) to have another child, ended up with twins.Again, sad and cliche to the point it is almost funny.These are the majority of people without health insurance and other things that Dems/Libs etc want us to pay for.

Now if this were an isolated case I would say ok but it is not, not just in the south but it occurs everywhere.Some people do get down on their luck and need help and I am in no way against that but it becomes a lifestyle for many and that is why programs are broken.Taking away from people like you or me to provide for people like this is just wrong.Changing what is a good system overall that the majority of Americans benefit from to serve 30-40 million people(not all bad people like I mentioned but still the minority) is just wrong.


I am not playing class warfare, I simply put the truth out there.Class warfare is inciting and exploiting the less affluent and/or less educated who are usually there via their own decisions into anger against those who have made it.Class warfare is taking from those who have to give to those who do not.

I think for myself, thanks and it has taken me rather far in life thus far.FYI, I do not read Hannity or Olberman's blog, thanks.

[Aramike]

It's the "just world" phenomenon at work. Some people believe that the world is indeed just and fair, and bad things only happen to bad people or people who make poor choices. It's a coping mechanism in their mind in order to deal with the fact that in reality, bad things happen to good people and the system is not fair.

Therefore, in their mind, people who are out of work are lazy. People without health insurance can't afford it because they're living a life of material luxury. They have no concept of the fact that not every one of the 46 million Americans without health insurance are walking around with Gucci purses and driving BMW's with 20" rims. In their mind, it all fits in a neat little box and their narrative is complete. It's much easier than facing the reality that the system is broke.Except I'm not saying that at all. Ever been to a ghetto grocery store, Mookie? You'll find 20 people outside selling their food cards for cash. You'll find more name brand stuff in a cart than store brand. Do it just once, and watch where your tax dollars go.

It isn't about all or nothing, as people keep suggesting. My suggestion is to help all of those in ACTUAL need, and to NOT help those who aren't in need. Why do liberals insist upon creating crutches for all, and then are surprised that said crutches become complete lifestyles, and then they ALWAYS insist that it's not the case?

[Aramike]

TVM - what makes you think Obamacare does anything to make healthcare affordable? Or do you like to just post Daily Kos graphics which display a complete lack of comprehension of the situation?

In fact, that to me is the singular, most hilarious thing about Obamacare - very few people will benefit, but because its passed by a liberal, liberals feel the need to rally around it. :shucks:

[Aramike]

You point out one major flaw, how do we determine who is sick and not or so ill they can no longer work. Many do try to beat the system. So who determines who is ill, Doctors. If you can't get access to the right Doctor's, you can't prove your case. Moreso with chronic illness. The red tape is beyond what you could imagine. Today, few can fake it or go through the red tape to prove it if they're not ill. Many ill die before they get processed. We certainly need strict punishment for those that try to play the system.I'm not interested in the who's ill and who's not discussion. That's for doctors. I'm interested in why Joe Taxpayer should have to pay to fix a leg broken on a 25 year old's ski trip that he took rather than paying for insurance.

[mookiemookie]

TVM - what makes you think Obamacare does anything to make healthcare affordable? Or do you like to just post Daily Kos graphics which display a complete lack of comprehension of the situation?

In fact, that to me is the singular, most hilarious thing about Obamacare - very few people will benefit, but because its passed by a liberal, liberals feel the need to rally around it. :shucks:

Romneycare is nothing more than a giveaway to the health insurance companies. The single most hilarious thing about it to me is that people try and hold this up like it's the liberal ideal of health insurance reform. It's a very simplistic idea - "Obama passed this bill, therefore all liberals must love it." It doesn't work that way.

[nikimcbee]

I like my quality thank-you. The funny thing is, If Europe/Kanada's health system is so great, why is it when I go in to see my eye doctor, the office is always full of kanadians and europeans that are tired of being on a waiting list.:hmmm:

My waiting time to see an eye doctor...2 hours, Eye surgery wait time: one week.:woot:
There are lots of issues, and this bill doesn't fix them.:shifty:

I'll go with GR's reasons.

[mookiemookie]

I'm interested in why Joe Taxpayer should have to pay to fix a leg broken on a 25 year old's ski trip that he took rather than paying for insurance.

Because Joe Taxpayer is already doing it.

If you're that against paying for others medical problems that don't meet some mythical purity test of acceptable medical expenses, then cancel your current insurance, because that's what insurance is all about. Creating a national insurance program only makes sense when everyone's already paying for the uninsured anyways. Might as well bring everyone under the same umbrella and reduce the costs for all.

And I'm done. Same round and round and round on this subject.

Here's a kitten:

http://www.cuteheaven.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/kitten.jpg

[nikimcbee]

Because Joe Taxpayer is already doing it.

If you're that against paying for others medical problems that don't meet some mythical purity test of acceptable medical expenses, then cancel your current insurance, because that's what insurance is all about. Creating a national insurance program only makes sense when everyone's already paying for the uninsured anyways. Might as well bring everyone under the same umbrella and reduce the costs for all.

And I'm done. Same round and round and round on this subject.

Here's a kitten:

http://www.cuteheaven.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/kitten.jpg

Mookie, have you been watching "Red-eye" again?:haha:

[Takeda Shingen]

I am not playing class warfare, I simply put the truth out there.Class warfare is inciting and exploiting the less affluent and/or less educated who are usually there via their own decisions into anger against those who have made it.Class warfare is taking from those who have to give to those who do not.

I think for myself, thanks and it has taken me rather far in life thus far.FYI, I do not read Hannity or Olberman's blog, thanks.

Class warfare is simply the pitting of social and economic classes against each other, typically for political gain. This happens with both the rich and poor. Affluence does not gaurd one against manipulation by the political class.

Oh yes you are engaging in class warfare. Look at the entirety of your last post. You can cite examples of this type of behavior, therefore the behavior is the norm for the poor. If that isn't the type of disparagement found in class warfare, than I do not know what is. It is no different than those that demonize the wealthy as hoarding, careless elitists. The only difference is that you condone sterotyping the poor while expressing outrage at the stereotyping of the rich.

Oh, and for someone who does not pay attention to Hannity, your echoing of his points and catch phrases are stunningly verbatim. And you are welcome.

[Armistead]

I'm not interested in the who's ill and who's not discussion. That's for doctors. I'm interested in why Joe Taxpayer should have to pay to fix a leg broken on a 25 year old's ski trip that he took rather than paying for insurance.

What makes you think they do? If this person doesn't qualify for medicaid, he may not pay it, but they send him the big bill. If he can afford a ski trip, he probably has a decent job. If he doesn't attempt to pay it, it goe's on his credit score and sits there hurting his power to buy anything.

Not to mention it will be sold to a collection agency that will call him night and day or sue.



You said illness must be proven...who the heck ya think is gonna do that....?

[Armistead]

Notice I said most people, not all.The ones I referred to are in the situation because they did things such as having a child when they could not afford it and had no real chances of being able to in the future but they were not that worried because they know they can get on the dole. I grew up in the south(not that is exclusive to the south but its alarmingly common) seen this countless times and as embarassing as it is, I even have it in my extended family(sadly we share the same last name since they are on my father's side, sight, disgusting people) and since I have been around long enough now, see the cycle repeat itself a bit.

One example is a cousin of mine, his dad was always a low life, least favorite uncle for sure.Drunk, drug addict, dumb as a rock, too lazy to work so between his sporadic employment, he was always on the dole.I remember an aunt of mine(by marriage) who worked for the state getting them some program thing at christmas time so his FIVE children would have presents.Also, they were usually on the dole but always had a nice guy and plenty of electronics etc at home, although their home was usually crappy. My cousin is 6 months older than me, now growing up in the crap and being told by family etc to make his life better, what does he do, he knocks up some white trash girl at 16 then decided to be oh so original and keep the kid plus get married.So now he has sporadic employment, drug and alcohol problem, so sad and cliche it is almost funny.This guys wife is not much better, she is rather overweight, no education, does not work, they are on welfare etc.I saw him around town one day before I left for law school, kid had an Obama sticker on the new car he manages to afford.Gee I wonder why?

.


You should really check your numbers. Certainly the class you talk about is there, we all deplore them, but they're a small percentage. In the last 20 years welfare laws have become much stricter via Clinton and Bush.

Middle class whites, children and the elderly use the majority of medicaid and SS. You do have to pay into it to get it ya know. By Middle class, meaning they were until they got ill, lost job, couldn't pay Cobra, go into poverty and end up on SS and Medicaid. Don't forget, most of these were hard working people most their lives paying into these systems for many years.

I don't qualify for medicaid, so all my medical bills I have to pay out of pocket. Takes about 50% of my income and I do without many needed meds and services. Can't get insurance with preexisting. Course who could live off SS, I couldn't.

He must've got the new car after he got on welfare as they search all your finances...you should report him. They also check income yearly...goe's over the limit, he should lose it.

It ain't the 70's where you got by with anything...

[Armistead]

Don't know if anyone answered, but if you work for the government would you be willing to give up your medical insurance that taxpayers provide and step into the system of high premiums and low quality insurance?

If not, why should taxpaxers that can't afford insurance....pay for yours? Almost sounds like socialism..

[Aramike]

Because Joe Taxpayer is already doing it.

If you're that against paying for others medical problems that don't meet some mythical purity test of acceptable medical expenses, then cancel your current insurance, because that's what insurance is all about. Creating a national insurance program only makes sense when everyone's already paying for the uninsured anyways. Might as well bring everyone under the same umbrella and reduce the costs for all.

And I'm done. Same round and round and round on this subject.

Here's a kitten:

http://www.cuteheaven.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/kitten.jpgHence my point. In case you don't recall (I could post links if you want) I'm in favor of a SORT of universal healthcare. You're right - Joe Taxpayer is, after a fashion, paying for it already. But why are we talking about allowing this rather than finding ways to stop it?

[Aramike]

Don't know if anyone answered, but if you work for the government would you be willing to give up your medical insurance that taxpayers provide and step into the system of high premiums and low quality insurance?

If not, why should taxpaxers that can't afford insurance....pay for yours? Almost sounds like socialism..Actually I agree with you here - government benefits are absurd.

[Aramike]

What makes you think they do? If this person doesn't qualify for medicaid, he may not pay it, but they send him the big bill. If he can afford a ski trip, he probably has a decent job. If he doesn't attempt to pay it, it goe's on his credit score and sits there hurting his power to buy anything.

Not to mention it will be sold to a collection agency that will call him night and day or sue.Right - what's wrong with that?



You said illness must be proven...who the heck ya think is gonna do that....?Why would I argue a point I agree with?

By the way, ever hear of the Patient Bill of Rights?

[Bubblehead1980]

Mookie, have you been watching "Red-eye" again?:haha:

If you disagree with me, then you sir are worse than Hitler:arrgh!:

[Bubblehead1980]

You should really check your numbers. Certainly the class you talk about is there, we all deplore them, but they're a small percentage. In the last 20 years welfare laws have become much stricter via Clinton and Bush.

Middle class whites, children and the elderly use the majority of medicaid and SS. You do have to pay into it to get it ya know. By Middle class, meaning they were until they got ill, lost job, couldn't pay Cobra, go into poverty and end up on SS and Medicaid. Don't forget, most of these were hard working people most their lives paying into these systems for many years.

I don't qualify for medicaid, so all my medical bills I have to pay out of pocket. Takes about 50% of my income and I do without many needed meds and services. Can't get insurance with preexisting. Course who could live off SS, I couldn't.

He must've got the new car after he got on welfare as they search all your finances...you should report him. They also check income yearly...goe's over the limit, he should lose it.

It ain't the 70's where you got by with anything...


I contend they are larger percentage than you think.True there was welfare reform but plenty of people still game the system who should not able to do so.Well I think more people who are in real need should qualify for medicaid and one of the only things I like about the current healthcare bill, which will be kept in a new bill once this repealed(if they dont itd be political suicide) is they cant deny you for preexisting conditions once that kicks in. I am not without empathy for people and do believe in some government assitance but Obamacare is crap that will drive costs up and ruin what is basically a great healthcare system in the US, high quality with ready access for MOST.To close the gap we should make medicaid an option for more people for a low yearly premium, something like that.Of course that does not grab enough power for Obama and those who shoved the bill down our throats.

[Bubblehead1980]

Class warfare is simply the pitting of social and economic classes against each other, typically for political gain. This happens with both the rich and poor. Affluence does not gaurd one against manipulation by the political class.

Oh yes you are engaging in class warfare. Look at the entirety of your last post. You can cite examples of this type of behavior, therefore the behavior is the norm for the poor. If that isn't the type of disparagement found in class warfare, than I do not know what is. It is no different than those that demonize the wealthy as hoarding, careless elitists. The only difference is that you condone sterotyping the poor while expressing outrage at the stereotyping of the rich.

Oh, and for someone who does not pay attention to Hannity, your echoing of his points and catch phrases are stunningly verbatim. And you are welcome.

No, I was simply stating the obvious. I do not believe in class warfare, I believe you are born into what you are born into you are able to move up, stay where you are, or go further down, usually via your own doing.Some do get left behind and thats why should have limited social programs BUT was saying most who try to act as if they were left behind, are behind because of stupid decisions they made and it is not the government's role to provide for these people their entire lives.

I am for repeal of the 16th amendment, the income tax has incited class warfare for many years, as it was designed to do but sold in a different manner of course so it would be make it through the ratification process.Wilson was a "progressive" after all.

Well I am a Conservative who believes in the Constitution, last time I checked Hannity is also.Same thing would occur with some Liberal, prob shares views with Olberman etc.

[Takeda Shingen]

No, I was simply stating the obvious. I do not believe in class warfare, I believe you are born into what you are born into you are able to move up, stay where you are, or go further down, usually via your own doing.Some do get left behind and thats why should have limited social programs BUT was saying most who try to act as if they were left behind, are behind because of stupid decisions they made and it is not the government's role to provide for these people their entire lives.

See, you were doing great until the end there, where you say that most poor people are too stupid to be rich. Clearly you hold anyone who is poor or left in disdain, and doubly so for those who are both. It is top-down class warfare, rather than bottom-up. I am not trying to pick on you or say that you are a bad guy, as I don't believe that you are, but your own words demonstrate your bias. You're not the only one in this thread that seems to feel that way too, so I shouldn't single you out.

[gimpy117]

.Liberals who authored the bill have no respect for what is the supreme law of the land and do their best to piss on it.Not being partisan here, just the truth because the Constitution is the big ro******* for many things Libs want to do in the US so they have to try and circumvent it constantly, sometimes they are able to, sometimes not.I am in Law School and had a Left leaning professor admit that in a class a few weeks ago.



At first we wanted a universal health care system...but guess who mucked that up...the conservatives. The only thing the Conservatives would agree with was the mandated system.
Think about it. Mandating health care (which means big profits for insurance companies) and then offering tax credits yes, tax credits, a classic republican move. It just simply reeks of the republican party.

-did bush read the Constitution when he wire tapped, or signed in the patriot act? no.


Honestly bubblehead...before you point fingers, remember who bullied and complained in congress to water down the bill to its current joke of a state.

[AVGWarhawk]

It's the "just world" phenomenon at work. Some people believe that the world is indeed just and fair, and bad things only happen to bad people or people who make poor choices. It's a coping mechanism in their mind in order to deal with the fact that in reality, bad things happen to good people and the system is not fair.

Therefore, in their mind, people who are out of work are lazy. People without health insurance can't afford it because they're living a life of material luxury. They have no concept of the fact that not every one of the 46 million Americans without health insurance are walking around with Gucci purses and driving BMW's with 20" rims. In their mind, it all fits in a neat little box and their narrative is complete. It's much easier than facing the reality that the system is broke.

Really Mookie? I can site some in laws who do nothing but live on state. These are two healthy people who can work. Their daughter broke her collar bone riding a bike. The injury was handled free of charge at the hospital. The state paid their $1200.00 electric bill. Each room has a large screen tv. Everyone in the house had either a laptop or a desktop computer. I do not stretch the truth here. These two have a profession and it is called 'working the system.' Now, let's take a look at one incident the other day were my wife waited in line as a your woman with an "independence card" purchased a pack of gun and then demanded $50.00 on the card. This is pure BS. The state loads her "independence card" once a month. Independence Card is another way of saying "food stamp." No matter, she went to the liquor store in the same shopping complex. Nothing like state sponsored drinking.

I'm really not sure what 'neat little box' you speak of. I can site two other family members that work the system and yes...play golf every Monday and drive a nice car. The reality is the system is broke but what do you do? This type of living has become job in itself. The system will never be fixed and we are required to turn a blind eye to it.

[mookiemookie]

Really Mookie? I can site some in laws who do nothing but live on state. These are two healthy people who can work. Their daughter broke her collar bone riding a bike. The injury was handled free of charge at the hospital. The state paid their $1200.00 electric bill. Each room has a large screen tv. Everyone in the house had either a laptop or a desktop computer. I do not stretch the truth here. These two have a profession and it is called 'working the system.' Now, let's take a look at one incident the other day were my wife waited in line as a your woman with an "independence card" purchased a pack of gun and then demanded $50.00 on the card. This is pure BS. The state loads her "independence card" once a month. Independence Card is another way of saying "food stamp." No matter, she went to the liquor store in the same shopping complex. Nothing like state sponsored drinking.

I'm really not sure what 'neat little box' you speak of. I can site two other family members that work the system and yes...play golf every Monday and drive a nice car. The reality is the system is broke but what do you do? This type of living has become job in itself. The system will never be fixed and we are required to turn a blind eye to it.

I'm sorry, but anecdotal evidence is not evidence.

[mookiemookie]

Mandating health care (which means big profits for insurance companies) and then offering tax credits yes, tax credits, a classic republican move. It just simply reeks of the republican party.

Will his head explode if he ever finds out that the "individual mandate" was originally a GOP counter-proposal to Hillarycare in the 1990s? Nah...it doesn't fit into his "good guys vs bad guys, cowboys and indians" view of politics.

[Takeda Shingen]

-did bush read the Constitution when he wire tapped, or signed in the patriot act? no.

The Patriot Act could never be un-Constitutional or intrusive. It has the word 'patriot' in it. That's un-possible!

[Sailor Steve]

...
I see you're here with your usual erudite, well thought out contribution to the discussion.

[Bubblehead1980]

See, you were doing great until the end there, where you say that most poor people are too stupid to be rich. Clearly you hold anyone who is poor or left in disdain, and doubly so for those who are both. It is top-down class warfare, rather than bottom-up. I am not trying to pick on you or say that you are a bad guy, as I don't believe that you are, but your own words demonstrate your bias. You're not the only one in this thread that seems to feel that way too, so I shouldn't single you out.

I do not hold poor people in disdain, I hold the people who exploit the system OR do nothing to improve their situation and expect those who have worked for the life they want to providefor them via taxes that pay for them.

I have disdain for the Left because they seek to serve everyone but me and others like me.The Left sees me, the white, somewhat comfortable male(although being on my own in law school and living on savings since can't work currently is tough) as the enemy.I am "bad" because my parents made a good life for us, I am a bad guy because I will most likely be comfortable considering I'm in law school, law careers are usually fairly lucrative.I am the bad guy and I should sacrifice in order to give to others according to the Left, no concern about my free will or liberty.According to the Left, only women and non white people can be discriminated against.According to the Left, non white males will more often than NOT reach better decisions than a "wise latina" , just ask Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

According to the left, child molesters and rapists are never just outright crappy people, they have an excuse because their childhood was rough etc etc According to the Left, war is pretty much never justified, unless it's a war on those damn rich white men:arrgh!:

My biggest issue is the Left just does not care about the Constitution really, they see it as outdated and irrelevant.I wrote in another post I actually had a Left wing Professor in one of my classes a few weeks ago admit that they dislike the Constitution because it does often stand in the way of what they seek to do.This Prof even conceded the HC law will prob be ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS, I was highly surprised by this admission, he is usually a lying scumbag, maybe he was high or drunk, who knows.

Let us not forget things like giving civillian style trials to the very terrorists who despise our system and would rather us have sharia law.I could go on all night but I won't, I have things to do but yes I have some disdain for the left.However, I can set this disdain aside and be objective.I would vote for a Democrat if he or she was not a far left type but sadly there just are not any of them Left or not enough in the party for them to ever do enough.

Well thanks, I am a good person or try to be.I I may have disdain for the Left ideology but believe most are good people, just somewhere along the way fell into the trap or it's just their beliefs.Some like Obama, Pelosi, Reid even etc are just bad people as their actions have shown but Right wing has some bad ones also.

[Bubblehead1980]

Will his head explode if he ever finds out that the "individual mandate" was originally a GOP counter-proposal to Hillarycare in the 1990s? Nah...it doesn't fit into his "good guys vs bad guys, cowboys and indians" view of politics.


Mookie, I am well aware of this , believe it was the Heritage Foundation who proposed it. Bad idea then and bad idea now, so it is irrelevant who proposed it years ago.Barry, Nancy and Harry are the ones who included that in the hc bill.

[Bubblehead1980]

At first we wanted a universal health care system...but guess who mucked that up...the conservatives. The only thing the Conservatives would agree with was the mandated system.
Think about it. Mandating health care (which means big profits for insurance companies) and then offering tax credits yes, tax credits, a classic republican move. It just simply reeks of the republican party.

-did bush read the Constitution when he wire tapped, or signed in the patriot act? no.


Honestly bubblehead...before you point fingers, remember who bullied and complained in congress to water down the bill to its current joke of a state.



No, the Dems had control of the Presidency and Congress during the health care thing, all GOP could really do was raise hell and they did, thankfully.The bitching did not stop the "public option" or the bill as we know.The "Blue Dog" Democrats who were holding back their votes are the ones who caused the bill to be(thankfully) "watered down" A public option would have been yet another government run disaster, an exspensive one at that.I believe anyone who voted for that bill with the mandate in it just did not care and is not fit to serve in the US Congress.

The Conservatives did not agree to a mandated system, because they all voted against obamacare, so you are not correct on that one.


By the way, I was and am no fan of the Patriot Act.While GWB was a social conservative, definitely not a Constitutional one or one when it comes to economic affairs.

[Armistead]

Well, with the mediciad cuts hitting in mass, it's gonna be a lot harder. Right now the truth is the elderly are spending the future of the young.

[CaptainHaplo]

But is it true, that if you get unemployed or loose every dime you have and you get sick, you are doomed?


No this is not true - at least regarding health care among other things.

If you make below a certain amount, you can apply for aid - things like Medicaid (government paid health care at no cost), Food Stamps (free food vouchers), HUD Housing (reduced rent though often the housing is not good), etc.

The problems with these programs is not about what they are intended for - help those who need it - but how they are abuse - to make it possible for many to do nothing and have the rest of society pay their way.

[Armistead]

No this is not true - at least regarding health care among other things.

If you make below a certain amount, you can apply for aid - things like Medicaid (government paid health care at no cost), Food Stamps (free food vouchers), HUD Housing (reduced rent though often the housing is not good), etc.

The problems with these programs is not about what they are intended for - help those who need it - but how they are abuse - to make it possible for many to do nothing and have the rest of society pay their way.

You joined in a lil late.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

I see you're here with your usual erudite, well thought out contribution to the discussion.

And I should bother...why?

[gimpy117]

The Conservatives did not agree to a mandated system, because they all voted against obamacare, so you are not correct on that one.


yes they did!!! they suggested it before it was written into law as another bill. I'm sure they loved it. Even if they did vote no just so they can try to snub the party.

[Aramike]

And I should bother...why?You bothered enough to dig up and post images. Why not just use that time to make your point?

[Sailor Steve]

And I should bother...why?
I don't know. Why do you bother to post at all, when you offer nothing to the discussion but ridicule, derision and mockery?

[AVGWarhawk]

I'm sorry, but anecdotal evidence is not evidence.


And naturally you would consider my post as anecdotal evidence. Yes, everyone on welfare system is there for legitimate reasons and forces beyond their control. :doh:

Let's take a look at welfare fraud:

http://www.spamlaws.com/welfare-fraud.html

Examples of Welfare Fraud


1.) In 1977, the executive director of the Illinois Legislative Advisory Committee for Public Aid took action against Linda Taylor, a Chicago resident. It was claimed that Taylor used 14 alias names to receive an estimated $150,000 in medical coverage, cash assistance and food stamps (http://www.spamlaws.com/welfare-fraud.html#). It was said that the woman migrated from district to district using these aliases to fraudulently obtain benefits.
2.) In 1981, Dorothy Woods was jailed on 12 counts of welfare fraud. She claimed 38 non-existent children and manipulated the system for more than $300,000. The most disturbing part about this story is that Woods was rumored to be a wealthy woman before committing the crime.
3.) Arlens Otis of Cook County, Illinois was indicted on 613 counts of fraudulently receiving $150,839 in welfare benefits from July of 1972 to February of 1978.
4.) The biggest case of welfare fraud came when Barbara Williams was found guilty of manipulating Los Angeles County for $239,000 in benefits. The crime provoked a conviction that sentenced her to eight years in prison.

[tater]

One, the 46 million figure is entirely bogus. The real number of American citizens without health insurance who did not choose that path (meaning they have incomes high enough to support buying insurance) is far, far lower. Well under 10 million.

Two, healthcare is a not a "right" to be granted by the state. It's not, or this debate would be much nicer to read in the (better) language of Jefferson, Adams, et al.

Three, universal care means worse care. Period. The USA's statistics on real metrics of quality of care (NOT, lifespan, and other bad stats confounded by lifestyle) are the best in the world. Cancer stats for example. Fatal illness without treatment. The US has consistently high rates of cancer, and consistently good mortality stats. Note that epidemiological stats are express per 100,000 of the population at large both for incidence, and mortality. So the US cancer stats are on par with countries with socialized care for mortality, but our incidence is often far higher. Many more cases, same or better mortality. This metric measures nothing but quality of care since without care you die. Since the stats are for the population at large, this includes all people and patients, regardless of their insurance status.

Anyone arguing that socialized care is better needs to demonstrate that for common cancers—say breast cancer for women, and prostate for men (virtually all men get the latter if they live long enough)—that the socialized countries have better outcomes. That means mortality/incidence. Any other stats are meaningless.

PS—regarding fraud, it happens a great deal. Do a quick look for your state and tell me how to report medicaid fraud, please. Fraud committed by the PATIENT, not doctors. I can report docs in NM, there is no way to report patients that I know of. They don't even keep statistics because they don't care. Screw the docs who already get paid below cost (and cannot even write-off such charity). I'll admit there is overbilling without question to medicaid and medicare, but that is because it pays so little. You lose X bucks on a "difficult" coded office visit, but you lose 2X bucks on the short visit code it actually was. The short-visot you'd bill real insurance would actually pay you more that a loaded up medicaid billing. They've created a powerful incentive to bend the rules—pay below cost, and force the docs to see the patients. Easier to try and see none.

[Cohaagen]

Prime Example is of many Canadians, Residents of UK etc who can afford to coming to the US to get treatments for other things, it happens and pretty often esp for the tough illnesses such as cancer etc.Cancer is time sensitive, can't wait 6 months usually to start treatment, esp bc some government idiot has you on the wait list.

Where are these "prime examples" from the UK? Show me. Give me plenty of them. Not the well-publicised cases of children going to the US to receive experimental treatments, or undergo radical procedures for rare conditions because they aren't available anywhere else, I mean proof of the implied multitudes of wretched Limeys queuing up for cancer treatment because some hooded Pakistani doctor on the NHS death panel has decided that their harvested organs are worth more than the cost of treating them (and other crazy right-wing American fantasies). Let's have at it with these "examples", and from sources that don't include Fox News, talk radio, or the received opinion of loudmouths on fringe internet message boards.

My mother had a mastectomy less than two weeks after her breast cancer diagnosis. Her subsequent radiotherapy and chemotherapy afterwards went ahead without delay. Neither did she have to wait for the months of hospice care received while recuperating. She still undergoes regular check-ups. My father didn't have to wait for treatment for his heart condition either. My eldest sister didn't wait six months before she had a malignant melanoma removed, nor when she underwent spinal surgery. I didn't go on a waiting list, or pay up front, when I needed life-saving treatment two years ago.

I like my quality thank-you. The funny thing is, If Europe/Kanada's health system is so great, why is it when I go in to see my eye doctor, the office is always full of kanadians and europeans that are tired of being on a waiting list.:hmmm:

Who are these "Europeans"? What European countries do they come from? How could you tell they were from Europe? Do you know what kind of healthcare system each one had in their home country? How many patients constitutes a "full" office? Give us specific examples from a few of these cases you claim to have met, pin this thing down.

[mookiemookie]

Where are these "prime examples" from the UK? Show me. Give me plenty of them. Not the well-publicised cases of children going to the US to receive experimental treatments, or undergo radical procedures for rare conditions because they aren't available anywhere else, I mean proof of the implied multitudes of wretched Limeys queuing up for cancer treatment because some hooded Pakistani doctor on the NHS death panel has decided that their harvested organs are worth more than the cost of treating them (and other crazy right-wing American fantasies).

Hint: They can't. But Sean Hannity tells them so, so by God, it must be true.

[The Third Man]

The thread title is incorrect. This isn't a program, its a progrom.

[mookiemookie]

The thread title is incorrect. This isn't a program, its a progrom.

Yes, wanting to make healthcare available to as many as possible is just the same as something like the Kristallnacht (assuming you meant pogrom, and not progrom, because what the hell is a progrom). You've framed the argument brilliantly. :roll:

[The Third Man]

You've framed the argument brilliantly. :roll:

You are a snotty fellow aren't you? Which is why your standing at SubSim is limited by your lack of intelect. When your argument is based on misspelling and dropped or added consonents you are indeed dragging the bottom. Trying to dismiss in your own mind the truth which confronts that limited ability.

[Stealth Hunter]

You are a snotty fellow aren't you? Which is why your standing at SubSim is limited by your lack of intellect. When your argument is based on misspelling and dropped or added consonants you are indeed dragging the bottom. Trying to dismiss in your own mind the truth which confronts that limited ability.

Oh dear, Mookie. You made the boy cranky.

Fixed some of the spelling problems in your post, BTW. What was that about intellect again?:up:

[The Third Man]

Oh dear, Mookie. You made the boy cranky.

Fixed some of the spelling problems in your post, BTW. What was that about intellect again?:up:

You may have seen it differently if mookie had not edited his post. But I guess that is to be expected of those with an immature arguement.

The 'snotty' comment went toward the edited out mookie post.

[mookiemookie]

You may have seen it differently if mookie had not edited his post. But I guess that is to be expected of those with an immature arguement.

The 'snotty' comment went toward the edited out mookie post.

So tell me again how prohibiting insurance companies from denying preexisting conditions is like rounding up Jews for slaughter?

[The Third Man]

So tell me again how prohibiting insurance companies from denying preexisting conditions is like rounding up Jews for slaughter?

Sounds like you know something.

[Aramike]

So tell me again how prohibiting insurance companies from denying preexisting conditions is like rounding up Jews for slaughter?Why should private insurance companies cover preexisting conditions? Why should they be on the hook for a customer they didn't have? Why should a person be allowed to suddenly pay $100 a month to recieve several thousand back?

That's absurd.

On the other hand, I do believe that people in such scenarios should receive help if truly necessary - but not from private entities.

[mookiemookie]

Why should private insurance companies cover preexisting conditions? Why should they be on the hook for a customer they didn't have? Why should a person be allowed to suddenly pay $100 a month to recieve several thousand back?


Exactly why we need single payer health insurance. No such thing as pre-existing anything. You get sick, you get healthcare, it's paid for.

[Aramike]

Exactly why we need single payer health insurance. No such thing as pre-existing anything. You get sick, you get healthcare, it's paid for.No, that's not why we need single-payer. That's why we need universal healthcare, but definitely NOT single-payer.

Single-payer removes any and all benefit to the consumer to limit themselves to taking only what they really need out of the system, depriving others of efficient access to the LIMITED resources we have. Sure, single-payer would be great - if we had unlimited doctors, hospitals, etc. But we don't. Hence the backlogs typical in a single-payer system.

What we need is to require the consumer to pay for their most basic needs, but have a fall-back in case of bankrupting emergencies. Costs exceeding a certain amount annually should be subsidized federally. That would alleviate the pressures on private insurance companies, lower costs due to unpaid bills by providers, and ultimately reduce the consumer end-price. Furthermore, that would help to prevent the emergency rooms from being clogged up more than they already are for cases of the sniffles.

As far as pre-existing conditions goes, the government should create a type of federal worker's insurance - if you are ever covered fully, the government will guarantee that coverage and pay the offset to the insurer down the road. On the other hand, if you're a capable individual who opts-out of having coverage, should you need that coverage in the future, you should be liable for an extended percentage of it.

[Tribesman]

Where are these "prime examples" from the UK? Show me. Give me plenty of them.
Why bother Cohagen ?
You might as well point out that US citizens swarm to third world countries to avail of their heathcare instead of using the American hospitals...it won't change his views

[Armistead]

You are a snotty fellow aren't you? Which is why your standing at SubSim is limited by your lack of intelect. When your argument is based on misspelling and dropped or added consonents you are indeed dragging the bottom. Trying to dismiss in your own mind the truth which confronts that limited ability.


Hehe, you always know the debate is going to hell when someone starts complaining about spelling and typo's..:haha:

[Sailor Steve]

That's "typos" - no apostrophe. :O:

And the real indicator is when one of the arguers ceases to argue and starts calling people names.

[Armistead]

That's "typos" - no apostrophe. :O:

And the real indicator is when one of the arguers ceases to argue and starts calling people names.


arsehole....:har:

[Sailor Steve]

arsehole....:har:
And your point is...? :D

[Armistead]

I'm not gonna argue with you, I always lose...:D

[antikristuseke]

Is this the place where I should point out that one should never argue with an idiot because they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience? :D

[Takeda Shingen]

I would reply, but my limited intelect had rendered my standing so low that no one would listen.

[mookiemookie]

I would reply, but my limited intelect had rendered my standing so low that no one would listen.

I see what you did there. :|\\

[Tchocky]

I would reply, but my limited intelect had rendered my standing so low that no one would listen.

*looks up from his whittling*

*glares*

*back to whittling*

[Sailor Steve]

I'm not gonna argue with you, I always lose...:D
No you don't! :stare:

[Cohaagen]

I hope all those supposed "Brits" and "Europeans" have some National Geographics to keep them going in the waiting room as we wait for proof of their existence to turn up. A poor showing from the US political wafflers this time...their conjuring powers desert them. They could have made a half dozen life-size paper mache Limey health refugees in the same time it's taken them to post nothing at all to back up their claims.

[AVGWarhawk]

No you don't! :stare:

See, he just lost again. :DL

[Sailor Steve]

See, he just lost again. :DL
No he didn't! He just hasn't replied yet. :D