is the Obama Care money issue this simple?

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

2. Doctors call the shots or a pencil pusher in DC?

Well one of the problems today is that doctors don't call the shots now. Some for-profit insurance company minion who is only interested in profit calls the shots.

Whether we have the current insurance coverage, or some federal program, the result will be the same. Doctors still not calling the shots and some nameless minion who has no care or concern about health making the rules.

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

I realize every country has their success stories and their horror stories when it comes to health care. What vibes I'm getting are few but probably a concern of most.

1. Enough doctors and general practioners for all?
2. Doctors call the shots or a pencil pusher in DC?
3. If you do not pay into the system do you still get the health care benefits? (that right there is my biggest issue, free ride crap needs to stop)
4. ref #3, illegals get a piece of the action?

These are my concerns. Any others that might want to chime in?

As it applies to Estonia.
1. Yes
2. Doctors
3. No
4. Only first aid is provided for everyone.

[AVGWarhawk]

Well, that is fine Anti however, if I pay for private insurance I should be exempt from paying via taxes for this univeral health care plan. It is as simple as that.

[antikristuseke]

That is fair ennough, can't say that I disagree with that.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

That is fair ennough, can't say that I disagree with that.

Sadly, I will have to agree with it if Obama gets his way. Time will tell. I have noticed quite a few town meetings on healthcare are turning into hell night.

[FIREWALL]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

As it applies to Estonia.
1. Yes
2. Doctors
3. No
4. Only first aid is provided for everyone.

Looks like something the USA should lookat maybe.

Good Post Anti.

[Monica Lewinsky]

Originally Posted by FIREWALL

Looks like something the USA should be looked at maybe.

Yea, maybe - I'd tell ya to look at your wallet FIRST and watch out for our Marxist Brother:

http://learnabit.homeserver.com/lab/...you_wallet.wmv

Who's in YOUR wallet?

[Max2147]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Well, that is fine Anti however, if I pay for private insurance I should be exempt from paying via taxes for this univeral health care plan. It is as simple as that.

So if I think the F-22 is a bad idea, does that mean I shouldn't have to pay for it?

[FIREWALL]

Originally Posted by Monica Lewinsky

Yea, maybe - I'd tell ya to look at your wallet FIRST and watch out for our Marxist Brother:

http://learnabit.homeserver.com/lab/...you_wallet.wmv

Who's in YOUR wallet?

Why not everybody else do's . when I want to demo a sim purchase.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Max2147

So if I think the F-22 is a bad idea, does that mean I shouldn't have to pay for it?

Yes. You should have to pay for it. F-22 and other combat systems are common use items, and benefit citizens of the nation equally through common national defense. Although, some of us pay alot more into F-22 than others. hmmph.Your healthcare is not a common use item. It is your personal responsibility. It is regrettable if you don't make wise choices in your personal health, but it doesn't affect my life as an individual of this nation in any way to the outcome. Harsh but true. The social contract between government and citizen is reasonable taxation for common use items. Not government soaking citizens as ATM machines to pay for things that people should be paying for themselves.

[Max2147]

I think a population's health is just as important to its well-being as its defense.

But maybe the F-22 was a bad example. Let's use public schools. I don't have a kid. Does that mean I shouldn't have to pay the federal/state/local taxes that fund public schools? Why should I have to pay for some other kid's education?

You can't say that a program should only be paid for by those who use it when the entire reason the program exists is because the people who will use it can't afford to pay for it.

[Tchocky]

@ MAx, especially insurance. THis drives up costs for everyone.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Max2147

I think a population's health is just as important to its well-being as its defense.

But maybe the F-22 was a bad example. Let's use public schools. I don't have a kid. Does that mean I shouldn't have to pay the federal/state/local taxes that fund public schools? Why should I have to pay for some other kid's education?

You can't say that a program should only be paid for by those who use it when the entire reason the program exists is because the people who will use it can't afford to pay for it.

No offense Max, but your health care means absolutely nothing to me. I wish you the best in it, but your own personal decisions will affect your own health status, and there's absolutely nothing I can do about it. It is your own personal domain and personal responsibility. Hypothetically, I don't want to pay for it for you unless I have a say in your behaviors. Maybe taxpayers who shell out for you can have a say in your diet, mandate an exercise program, deny you the ability to smoke or drink, and anything else that would preclude my investment in your health from becoming a bad "investment". Of course, that is all a hypothetical. But I'm hoping the point is made. I don't go to work every day to pay for your personal life. If you disagree, do you think the taxpayers owe you some sort of Universal Auto insurance plan as well? What else do you feel the taxpayers owe you? If you can argue personal health care, the same illogic can be made for anything?

As far as public schools, I also think that those should also be more of a local and state concern as well. So yeah. I don't wish to steer this topic to schools, but we actually could get better results at less costs anyway if the feds weren't involved. Most private schools have proven better results when competing against others, even at less cost per student. While there are many great teachers in the public school system, I think that many of these teachers may be better off teaching in a system of local concern, and a more competitive environment. I am not a teacher, so I don't claim to be an expert here. And in fairness I haven't actually given much thought about it. But looking at it in one way, on the face of it, I don't think it's bad that parents take responsibility for the education of their children financially and otherwise.

But perhaps we can look at the education example as a lesson, prior to making the same mistake in health care. When the feds get involved it becomes bloated, does not always produce the desired results, and is costly and often filled with waste. I'm glad you brought up education. There is a lesson there to be learned.

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

No offense Max, but your health care means absolutely nothing to me. I wish you the best in it, but your own personal decisions will affect your own health status, and there's absolutely nothing I can do about it. It is your own personal domain and personal responsibility. Hypothetically, I don't want to pay for it for you unless I have a say in your behaviors. Maybe taxpayers who shell out for you can have a say in your diet, mandate an exercise program, deny you the ability to smoke or drink, and anything else that would preclude my investment in your health from becoming a bad "investment". Of course, that is all a hypothetical. But I'm hoping the point is made. I don't go to work every day to pay for your personal life. If you disagree, do you think the taxpayers owe you some sort of Universal Auto insurance plan as well? What else do you feel the taxpayers owe you? If you can argue personal health care, the same illogic can be made for anything?

100% right on the money

[AVGWarhawk]

No offense Max, but your health care means absolutely nothing to me. I wish you the best in it, but your own personal decisions will affect your own health status, and there's absolutely nothing I can do about it. It is your own personal domain and personal responsibility. Hypothetically, I don't want to pay for it for you unless I have a say in your behaviors. Maybe taxpayers who shell out for you can have a say in your diet, mandate an exercise program, deny you the ability to smoke or drink, and anything else that would preclude my investment in your health from becoming a bad "investment". Of course, that is all a hypothetical. But I'm hoping the point is made. I don't go to work every day to pay for your personal life. If you disagree, do you think the taxpayers owe you some sort of Universal Auto insurance plan as well? What else do you feel the taxpayers owe you? If you can argue personal health care, the same illogic can be made for anything?

Beautiful Sea Demon....just beautiful! I think you nailed it right on the head how I feel about universal healthcare at my expense. Why should I have to pay for Joey the ditch digger who finds it fun to fight every Friday night and get sewn up in the ER every Saturday morning? I should not have to.