toldailytopic: US House of Representatives pass Obama-care.

[Zeke]

Huckleberries, ripe for the picking. Maybe I can become a IRS bounty hunter and pick me some as well.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Not much risk, actually. They have the math like the casino has the odds figured. And they've gotten greedy with those margins...

I have a deal for you.

How about you insure me and my extended family?

We will give you a set amount of money every month (some for each of the 4 families). You set that money aside and pay our medical bills when they arise.

Oh, and one more thing....

One of us has a very expensive pre-existing condition that needs treatment on a ongoing basis. This one condition alone will cost you tens of thousands of dollars every year. (probably in the neighborhood of $100,000 per year)

Would you be willing to insure us?

 

[yokefellow]

These poorest and homeless you act so concerned about already have access to health care, and you know it. The poorest get Medicaid, and I can tell you from experience that that is the best-paying health insurance you can get - and for FREE! Others who can't qualify for Medicaid have other free and low-cost services available to them - I know bc my nephew is able to get his teeth fixed for $17 bucks, and I once went to a low-cost clinic where I was turned away bc I was not uninsured. These are ways that the poorest already get their health care costs paid for them. In addition to that, you know perfectly well that anyone - I mean anyone, including illegals and people shot in the commission of a crime, etc - can go to the emergency room to be treated and cannot be turned away regardless of ability to pay.

So you tell me, if the poorest (including the homeless) already get free, or next-to-free, health care services and still die in the streets from curable diseases, what makes you think that socialized medicine will change that? Is there a provision in the bill for rounding up all the homeless and forcing them to have a check-up?

Do you want to know the main reason that these people die from curable diseases? It isn't lack of free health services. It isn't the Republicans standing in the way. It isn't lack of free housing, or free food. It's lack of care - self-care. If they cannot be made to care for themselves, then no services, private or government-forced, will prevent their self destruction. If their family members and friends cannot be made to care enough to lift them up and see them through the tough times, then their is little help of their coming up off the street to take care of themselves. If it weren't for Christian organizations like CAM (Coordinate Assistance Ministries), the Salvation Army, pregnancy resource centers, and (our own) Kokomo Rescue Mission, in addition to the thousands of churches across the nation to help these people, there would be no hope for them at all. The government doesn't go to these people on the street and give them a sandwich and a blanket, or listen to their complaints, or help them get to the shelters or to doctor appointments - it's these organizations that do.

No amount of throwing cash and free services at the poor will change any part of their lives without someone there to care enough to bring them along when they are willing, and bring care to them when they are not willing to go to where help can be had.

Honestly, you ought to spend some time volunteering for one of these ministries. Might teach you a thing or two about reality.

:thumb:

 

[bigbang123]

Some of them were complicit (trying to calm the beast of dissent back to sleep), and others just underestimated the level of corruption in Chicago-style politics. :Clete:

i love it - when LBJ got his legislative agenda passed it was called

MASTERFUL

when BHO gets his legislative agenda passed it is called

CHICAGO-STYLE CORRUPTION

 

[Ktoyou]

It's essentially the same sort that forces you to have coverage on your automobile to keep me from having to carry you if you're in an accident.

I can choose not to drive, but can I choose not to live? So they some to arrest me because I do not want to be forced to give my money away to a bunch of low-down pigs who want to make money betting the odds on my health.

Provide health care and lower costs associated with millions forced to seek uninsured care at emergency rooms across the country, diminish disease and suffering and death...that sort of thing.

I hope they go wayward, on the road, lose the insurance and the hospital would still have to treat them. It is their right not to be forced by law to pay money mongers in order not to be a criminal. The only just system is a negative tax all pay and a public plan does all, No whore shopping.

Unsupported by anything other than your ire and suspicion. It just isn't reasonable or in any bill before Congress. You could make the same argument for insurance companies who, unlike the government, have a vested interest in the lowest expenditure possible. They're here to make money, right?

The insurance companies are pigs, why doesn't the government offer its own plan? Their idea is to force people to lay down with the pigs and they call that helping to less fortunate? How, selling him out to the more powerful? While the government sits back and feeds us to the money hogs, it may smirk, "another trump for big business. we got them bu the short ones this time, bully!"

I don't need to. You just did...and it's true, but only to the extent we can change American attitudes about certain, limited uses for abortion.

Why wouldn't it?

I don't know. I'd bet they have an established criteria though.

It would depend on the woman and her character, don't you think?

Actually, if it works as advertised you shouldn't see anything but a help in that regard.

What in the plan suddenly makes you unable to continue to be home with your kids or removes any of the medical possibilities you have in front of you now? Literally, other than your fear this will be the case. Show me how the legislation passed robs you of anything on your list? You think your premiums are going up? Why?

What if she is young and free and this clips her wings and makes her running foul with the law? The government should protect her, not make her hide out in the outback! Goodness, she would have more fun living in a mad max picture, at least she would know who the enemy is.

Among other things, sure. Growing multi billion dollar war chests, raking in thousands of dollars from patients while paying out hundreds per.

Sure. With human lives, in the case of health care.

No one is saying they can't do that.

Are you taking medically legal marijuana? They are among the most profitable and richest corporations in the world. Again, having fought them now and then in court, they have billions of dollars set aside for litigation alone.

Not much risk, actually. They have the math like the casino has the odds figured. And they've gotten greedy with those margins...

Re: your article.

First, the AAPS is a recognized group of conservative physicians (formerly grouped under the less people/PR friendly Medical Sentinel title) who have a political track record for anyone interested in it. Among their claims? That secular humanists have conspired to usurp the "creation religion of Jehovah" with evolution (Conspiracy--Part III, by Curtis W. Caine, MD. Published in Medical Sentinel, 1999;4(6):224.) and that HIV doesn't, in fact, cause AIDS. lain:

And here we are in 2010, two years after the teetering of the Swiss system and the facts don't support the anecdotal and misleading attack. That said, I suggested looking at the Swiss, not copying them whole cloth.

Your second reference is a three year old report by the NCPA. That group is on Right Watch and is affiliated with right wing think tanks that put out policy spin. Anyone confusing Swedish health care with a third world country probably doesn't understand either or has a less than objective axe in need of sharpening.

Here's a general link to Swedish health care (you might want to look at the dental bit, NM) to get things started. From that, "for many years Sweden's health care system has regularly ranked at or near the top of most comparative analyses of various international health care systems."

But don't take their word for it. Do a little research. Sweden's life expectancy has continued to rise and concerns over delays in certain surgical procedures led to the country addressing it with a 90 day guarantee. By late 2008, 75% of patients received treatment within that window.

You know what else does that? Not being able to get an operation at all. lain: And not being able to go to the doctor when you're simply sick and need to work. That sort of thing...lain:

Though they manage to hold costs down significantly better than some other countries...say...us. Have any idea what 1% of our GDP translates to? Now try 6% plus. The rationing bit simply isn't sustained by any current study I've seen.

Without real competition that's fairly meaningless rhetoric. And if we aren't going to have that competition or have the sort of faux competition we see among big oil, good riddance to bad rubbish and absent care.

:e4e:

I cant keep up with you. My position, she's a clear one, no one should be forced to sleep in the hog pen by law. You do not want life insurance, no law says you have to, not yet, the dirty pigs. You do not want home insurance, live in an apartment or rent a home. You don't want auto insurance, do not drive, it is your choice to make a pack with the devil. Now this terrible law the forces good people to deal with the most corrupt business in the world. no morals, no humanity! People should refuse, then take to the street and riot, go all the way never give in life a barn-yard animal. Have a little dignity!

 

[nicholsmom]

It's essentially the same sort that forces you to have coverage on your automobile to keep me from having to carry you if you're in an accident.

But I can opt out of automobile insurance, and I don't pay for it for every member of my household - just for those who will be driving.

Concerning my budget as affected by this bill:

Actually, if it works as advertised you shouldn't see anything but a help in that regard.

What in the plan suddenly makes you unable to continue to be home with your kids or removes any of the medical possibilities you have in front of you now?

It's this:

The CBO said the legislation would lead to higher average premiums in the relatively small and troubled individual market, where the self-employed and others buy coverage directly from insurers. But that extra cost would buy better coverage, the CBO said, and hefty federal subsidies would drive down payments by nearly 60 percent on average for low- and middle-income families.​

I can't afford "better coverage." I can't afford the coverage I have, so I'm glad that for now it's paid for by my husband's employer. That job, however, is coming to an end in two years (says the company - GM). I'm not concerned about my husband getting gainful employment after that - no sweat, he's an HVACR technician - but I am certain that we will not be getting insurance like this (which is not great, btw) again. I cannot afford to pay more than a few hundred bucks a year for health care for my whole family. Now that's not bad considering that I do spend out plenty on healthy food and a healthy lifestyle, so our health costs are minimal, assuming that Stevie continues to dodge those Ds bullets

Now with this bill enacted, premiums are going up - way up by the accounting I've seen. And I will be forced to pay for that, in spite of my inability to pay my mortgage after the payment has gone instead to a health policy that I do not need. Do you understand now? I have earning potential that's not at all bad considering I've been out of the market for over 16 years, but I left that market to raise my kids. I don't want to have to leave my kids to go back to it, regardless of how much I really love that sort of work.

I'll answer the rest later - gotta go get something to eat :chew: and check up on the boys' math papers.

 

[Ktoyou]

I have a deal for you.

How about you insure me and my extended family?

We will give you a set amount of money every month (some for each of the 4 families). You set that money aside and pay our medical bills when they arise.

Oh, and one more thing....

One of us has a very expensive pre-existing condition that needs treatment on a ongoing basis. This one condition alone will cost you tens of thousands of dollars every year. (probably in the neighborhood of $100,000 per year)

Would you be willing to insure us?

"they can't tough me"

Think M.C. Hammer here, dancing around like an idiot.

"they can't touch me"

I have my Medicare and the premium is very small because it is not for profit.

I have my state health care benefit, no premiums.

I have one private plan and I do not care about it if the insurance gang of theirs try to pull anything.

I think it is terrible for other people, but for me, Hah, they cannot as much as put a tube in me without facing a long drawn out lawsuit, the kind they never fight because it takes more than it is worth to win.

I go south, nothing they are allowed to do, and not one penny!

They cannot touch me:rapture:

 

[Servo]

So under this plan, do all uninsured “poor” people NOW have to pay a premium or else be fined?

 

[The Barbarian]

The only thing that irks me more than stupid politicians who vote for something without having read it,

You know of one of those? Last time I checked, everyone was going over it with a fine-toothed comb.

is stupid citizens who say a bill they haven't read being passed is a good thing.

There's a pretty good YouTube video of people who are railing against the bill, but can't tell the interview anything that's in it. I bet there are as many who favor it, who have no idea.

Idiots!

No kidding. What's your opinion on the bill?

 

[Ktoyou]

So under this plan, do all uninsured “poor” people NOW have to pay a premium or else be fined?

It appears to me that is the only thing congress came up with. I do not call it Obama-care because he only agreed to sign something a kid could do. It is the work of congress. This is what they debate about: insurance pigs can make more off American citizen if they do X, then there is contention, no they say, the insurance pigs can make more money if they do Y.

None of these people care about the citizen, unless he runs an insurance company. It is all back door dealings; the companies with the most to pay congress gets their version of the law.

This is about forcing citizens to give up the tight to say no to a vendor or peddler. The big deal is loos of freedom and being sold out, being forced to pay for the right to live in this country and pay it to the most corrupt institution ever conceived.

 

[The Barbarian]

I have a deal for you.

How about you insure me and my extended family?

We will give you a set amount of money every month (some for each of the 4 families). You set that money aside and pay our medical bills when they arise.

Oh, and one more thing....

One of us has a very expensive pre-existing condition that needs treatment on a ongoing basis. This one condition alone will cost you tens of thousands of dollars every year. (probably in the neighborhood of $100,000 per year)

Would you be willing to insure us?

Give me 90,000 randomly chosen families, and we've got a deal. That's why the mandatory insurance thing kicks in. If everyone is in, then the risk is averaged out, and no one suffers large losses.

If I'm an insurance company, and I get to pick only the healthiest people, I like it even better.

It's all about profit.

 

[bybee]

Or

Or

And yours too - assuming that you are among US citizens ... er, victims :dead:

Maybe he is one of the parasites the rest of us must carry? Of course he is elated! bybee

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Give me 90,000 randomly chosen families, and we've got a deal. That's why the mandatory insurance thing kicks in. If everyone is in, then the risk is averaged out, and no one suffers large losses.

If I'm an insurance company, and I get to pick only the healthiest people, I like it even better.

It's all about profit.

Uh... everybody isn't "in".

All you need to do is "opt out" and merely pay a $95 yearly fine for not buying the government enforced health care.

Now... if you opt out several years in a row your fine can go all the way up to $695. $695 per year is pretty cheap if you ask me.

:mock: Government run health care morons.

 

[Ktoyou]

Uh... everybody isn't "in".

All you need to do is "opt out" and merely pay a $95 yearly fine for not buying the government enforced health care.

Now... if you opt out several years in a row your fine can go all the way up to $695. $695 per year is pretty cheap if you ask me.

:mock: Government run health care morons.

Never to doubt your careful reading, it seems fine that one is able to 'opt out', but I sincerely wonder how long that will last? They who choose this, receive nothing but a fine. It is obviously a phony poly. I think the whole deal stinks!

 

[nicholsmom]

Uh... everybody isn't "in".

All you need to do is "opt out" and merely pay a $95 yearly fine for not buying the government enforced health care.

Now... if you opt out several years in a row your fine can go all the way up to $695. $695 per year is pretty cheap if you ask me.

:mock: Government run health care morons.

It's a bit like the public option for education, isn't it? Those who take the least concern for their own health/kids' education, opt for the government version - along with lots of folks who do care, but they are sunk for proper funding thanks to the sink-hole of those who do not.

 

[Egbert]

What makes you think that they will make a single change?

I didn't say that I thought they would make further changes. They just have to deal with the reconciliation bill before we know exactly what we're getting. (It's effectively done, though.)

We can see it already by looking around in the world. This thing that they passed - won't. No amount of government control beyond what is needed for simple law and order is ever a good thing.

In principle, I agree. I'm of a libertarian mindset. But pragmatically, it makes no sense to push for such ideals in the health care system when the rest of the government is inconsistent with them. Let's face it: the government is simply not going to downsize the way we want it to. The best thing to do is to ensure that what spending does go on is properly allocated. Universal health care can be done more cheaply.

Other countries have already gone down that road and found relative success. It's about time we looked at our own exorbitant costs and lousy results and started thinking about how to improve them.

 

[Ktoyou]

Ok, let's assume the chart is accurate, In the USA twice the percentage of money is spent on about half as many people.

Can you, then, say to us, or the topic addressed, as to why this is the case?

 

[nicholsmom]

I didn't say that I thought they would make further changes. They just have to deal with the reconciliation bill before we know exactly what we're getting. (It's effectively done, though.)

Sounds like Nancy Pelosi (we won't know what we have until it passes)

In principle, I agree. I'm of a libertarian mindset. But pragmatically, it makes no sense to push for such ideals in the health care system when the rest of the government is inconsistent with them.

What?

Let's face it: the government is simply not going to downsize the way we want it to.

Not unless we make them :Clete: ... by voting the bums out ... regularly.

The best thing to do is to ensure that what spending does go on is properly allocated.

You mean like right back into my pocket? :thumb:

I'm not willing to lie down while my government tramples the Constitution :nono: I'll not "face it."

Universal health care can be done more cheaply.

Other countries have already gone down that road and found relative success. It's about time we looked at our own exorbitant costs and lousy results and started thinking about how to improve them.

I'm not interested in their "relative success" because, you see, I happen to know folks in those countries who have kids with Down syndrome. Rationing hits the disenfranchised first. The chart tells me exactly nothing of importance. It doesn't tell me how long the waiting period is for needed surgery, or for receiving therapy. It doesn't tell me about prenatal testing requirements or subsequent abortions. It doesn't tell me other ways in which human life is brought to a matter of dollars and perceived benefit of life, nor how competent are the doctors, nor how advanced the technologies, nor the procedures allowed and denied. Now how can I go shopping for a new country without knowing if my prescriptions will be covered?

 

[nicholsmom]

Other countries have already gone down that road ...

Hey, did you notice on that wiki chart rolleyes that the USA is paying 45.4% of all our health care costs already? That's crazy! I mean, without anything more than Medicaid and Medicare, our tax dollars are being spent at an alarming rate to pay for health care. Yowza! Well, I guess you have to add in that amazing insurance that Congressmen get and the pathetic care of our military personnel, and vets.

 

[Egbert]

Ok, let's assume the chart is accurate, In the USA twice the percentage of money is spent on about half as many people.

Can you, then, say to us, or the topic addressed, as to why this is the case?

Not in detail, but it appears that other countries have more efficient systems. Since we are the outlier both in cost and in our lack of some kind of universal health care, I think it's reasonable to assume that those two facts are related.

I'm not interested in their "relative success" because, you see, I happen to know folks in those countries who have kids with Down syndrome. Rationing hits the disenfranchised first.

We don't have to borrow the whole of another country's system. The point demonstrated by the numbers is that we could be doing a lot better than we are. I rather dislike the notion of a single-payer, government-run healthcare system, because then rationing and restrictions on experimentation are problematic. But we could save a whole lot with a government insurance option, and while this bill fell short in that area, I think it has made an eventual move in that direction much more likely to occur.