Ron, I am confused. You just went on about how the tax payers pick up the bill for those who can’t afford their hospital stay, then said people without insurance do not do others harm. Which is it?
It’s not the same concept. But if you want to bring up that strawman, we can play.
The system you are advocating for solves the problem how? Oh, it doesn’t. It only furthers it by subsidizing these people and continuing the problem.
That’s not at all like automobile liability insurance. So which is it TC, did you use a bad analogy or is there some other justification for striping away personal freedom?
Did you not catch it? I posted it up earlier in this thread. If you want to read a massive amount of pages, look it up yourself…what I posted is sufficient..I’m not going to read a 2000+ page document to understand the democrat plan..an overview is sufficient…although the 3 pages in the democrat plan that gives Louisiana 300 million dollars to buy Senator Landrieu’s vote on Saturday would be interesting. And I didn’t say I’d school you, I said I’d blow you out of the water…be patient!
translation=hospitals get short changed, and they pass that down to the consumer==poor health care
I wonder why so many people travel to America for their healthcare? Fear tactics aren’t necessary, the facts are scary enough…watch if you dare!
This is a genuine question: How? Explain this in a bit more detail for me, please.
How is that being ridiculous? You only buy insurance when you need it “now”? Insurance is nothing to plan for? To set aside money for? How does that help the person offering the insurance?
If everyone driving a car only bought atuo insurance until after they crashed…whats the point?
Like this guy…
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26240018-401,00.html
…the taxpayers of Britian are footing the bill for his “life saving surgery”. Maybe if the guy was buying his own insurance he wouldn’t have thought to get soo fat.
It’s not a one size fits all situation either…
No, you posted what I can best describe as a wish-list, but nothing addresses how they plan to get that outcome. I am not saying these numbers and promises do not stem from solid research, but I have to ask the same question you would ask of a democrats plan… HOW?
I am asking you how they plan to make these things happen. I don’t see anything that explains how this will be done. I am assuming you are talking about siring the pot and creation competition amongst pre-exposition private insurance companies… but that isn’t going to help, and isn’t exactly offering any new insight to what I was expecting the republicans to propose.
I propose a plan that gives everyone free health care and it costs us nothing in taxes! Okay… HOW?
Okay, waiting to be blown. Wait, that doesn’t sound right.
'Could" being the keyword there, not “will”. And like I said, more competition = more costs.
Ha, no.
I never said that people should just buy insurance as soon as something turns up wrong with them, and clearly since I support the law that would require everyone to have insurance, I think everyone should have it as soon as possible, but that isn’t to say I don’t think people with pre-existing conditions should be denied. Consider this a moral code rather than an economical one. Stuff happens and people lose their insurance, and they may never get it back, and both the left and the right pretty much agree that this needs to be fixed.
I lost my job and my insurance after I could not physically work that job anymore. They actually found a loop hole to fire me, probably because I was driving up the insurance. Now at my new job I am denied health care because it is pre existing.
But yeah, it’s my fault I lost my job. :rolleyes
Also don’t change jobs after you have a disease and insurance.
Thats Shit Tado You should go all Saw VI Jigsaw on their ■■■■■
I have a Desease but it isn’t going to have much affect until i get older, it only affectys my memory ( which in my opinion was ■■■■■■ up before I contracted it ) and emotional distress but hell, I hope things turn up better for you,
C’mon, lets headbang
Meh, I’m not the first and won’t be the last. That kind of practice has been going on forever. I’m lucky in that it’s not life threatening.
BTW, I’m in the late stages of this.
Since you asked nicely =-)
The problem present now is tax payers foot the bill, yes there are more problems in the system but this is the one the prior questioned invoked regarding harm.
In the Public Option, those who can not afford private insurance must use the government sponsored public option. This is paid for by tax payers.
Status Quo - tax payers pick up the bill.
Democrat Plan - tax payers pick up the bill.
Bohener Amendment - tax payers pick up the bill.
This is vastly different from mandating automobile liability insurance;
The harm in automobile insurance situations is your car is damaged by either your actions or the actions of others. By forcing everyone to have insurance for liability, we prevent time consuming litigation resulting from accidents.
On top of that, it’s a bad analogy for other implications - I know you wouldn’t want us to treat healthcare like we do car insurance. Do we want to treat people like cars? Think of the far reaching implications, if I rear-end someone because my brakes fail and I knew they had been making noises for a year but didn’t go in to fix them - then I am liable for that. That means the damage to my car is no covered by liability insurance, and I can recover from no one because of my own negligence or perhaps in this hypo recklessness.
Apply it to the medical situation, I fail to go for my yearly checkup for six years - should I then be denied coverage when a condition that could have been found during that time and fixed manifests? Right now yeah, but if we treat it like car insurance - perhaps not.
That is why I think it is a bad analogy, and it is possible reasonable minds can differ. I’d like to move away from this tangent if we may - it’s not going to get us anywhere. Except for maybe realizing the problem with this thread and this country.
Look. There is a problem. It’s a significant problem. The Democrat plan is a method of approaching it, the Republican plan is as well. Neither are efficient. I wouldn’t trust either party with my life.
We can continue the trend thus far in this thread of PARTISAN DRIBBLE PARTISAN DRIBBLE ad nauseum, accusing each other of being heartless fear mongers and communists. It gets us nowhere. Let’s approach the problem from a practical standpoint. Use some - common sense - if you will.
Why does big healthcare contribute large sums of money to both parties? Thats a question we need to ask. Can we make something more effective than Medicare? How do we reform Medical and Legal education to bring it in line with other countries so that we can have a better healthcare system?
There are a lot of tough issues here, but if we are going to keep going back and forth with Olberman and Beck inspired talking points - then I’ll just stay out. Liberals are people, Conservatives are people - and we all need to get over ourselves.
Flash forward 4 years. I’m now on disability and getting medicare. I could have told you all that before, but you really wouldn’t get the 4 years of hopelessness and pain I went through. No one should be denied health care. That is why I weep for humanity every night.
It will never be fixed. Nixon, Reagen, Mrs. Clinton, Obama, they all have their reasons behind their plan and I highly doubt it is to make you healthy.
I hope you guys aren’t being quiet because I’m a victim/beneficiary of the debate. That would be dumb. Stop being dumb.
I would just like to see a plan that cuts costs to make it more affordable for most, like I mentioned earlier with tort reform and regulations/ de-regulations increasing competition between insurance companies to make it more affordable for most. America was about guaranteed opportunity, not guaranteed outcomes.
and tadao, that’s awful, that should be reformed as well, I think both parties want to outlaw that pre existing condition stuff.
TC, great questions and valid too, but you’ll just have to research it for yourself…just as I don’t expect you to comb through the democrat bill to answer my questions…the notion that I’d spend any amount of time on that for you is just silly.
why don’t you make me stop being dumb?..or have you been blown out of the water as well?
Now, I’m voicing this from the point of view of a normal guy who has heard things not from any BS news source but simply from those around me, and from you folks as well. There is never going to be a sure fire way to take the taxes out of the equation. Like Ron said, from the long running track record that is any dingus running the government in it’s many branches, that they require money to do anything, even go to the bathroom in the White House. There is no way in hell they’ll figure out a way to make it so there is no tax increase. If you believe that, I’m going to tell you now, that’s never going to happen. They don’t want to look through the budget and cut things. They refuse to do it. It’s just another program to sucker money out of.
Making it illegal to not have health insurance? Are you retarded? Chances are, if you go to the hospital with no insurance, you’re going to pay for it anyway. How will they arrest you anyway? Pull you over and ask for your health insurance card? When you’re in the ER, the nurse in reception calls the cops on you? Like one of you guys said, that’s going against the Hippocratic Oath. Not much an oath when government law tells you it’s a fancy saying. Makes me a little leery of that whole concept.
The only outcome of this whole thing is the private companies take a massive dump in member holders, Government is going to supply Craptacular health insurance that since is going to be paid by public dollar, they’re going to make it as cheap as possible because no one in Congress, the Senate, or the White House know how to use a friggan calculator.
Also, why do small companies have to pay massive fines because they can’t supply insurance? Wait… is that part of the argument? Someone get back to me on that one.
It’s just it seems to me they’re structuring it in a way to take more money out of people’s pocket if not by taking the taxes out of ones income, but by fines if you don’t play ball with the government and go Public Option. Sorry for sounding like a conspiracy loon, but why does this look like a way to make some fast money to get the government out of the hole. Seeing they’re dumber than dirt, I added that to the equation so if it sounds stupid, it’s because this government has done some stupid shit in its time and I can’t help but not putting it past them.
What do I know? I have insurance through my company and am in no way effected by this other than another freaking tax increase. I say knock down the captains of industry, take all their money in taxes and fix the damn deficit that way? But then again, that’s one loon’s opinion.
If I’m gonna get blown, I hope it’s from you. 
The way I see it is we have to go after the Hospitals, Dr’s, and Pharmacy’s to reduce the ridiculous costs. They are the ones holding our health hostage.
Well Hell since we are sharing lol
I’m not a fan of increased federal power, nor am I a fan of mandatory health insurance. If people want it, they should be able to get it, but the government does not exist to hold our hand and guide our every choice. The individual needs to make the decision on his/her own.
Let me step out of my Libertarian mindset for a second and propose an imperfect solution for an imperfect system.
How about a public option managed at a state level?
Nearly every other government service cited as a success in the face of us small-government proponents (police, firefighters, EMS, municipal water, public education, public transportation) is run at the state level or lower. There’s far too much bloat and bureaucracy at the federal level to make this work, plus I cringe at the thought of the more federal expansion.
Under the current situation, I think the best solution is to cut out the Fed. Reroute the tax money currently earmarked for Medicare/Medicaid to the states, allow the states to optimize the way the money is being spent, cut out the fluff and mismanaged money, and develop the public option from these rerouted funds. Public option health care should be a no-frills, basic healthcare package. Generic medications, care by the most efficient doctor (One that is indeed a good doctor, with regular inspection and evaluation), a reasonable co-payment (comparable to base package health insurance plans); this would leave private health insurance as the more attractive option still, while not denying someone who needs treatment.
While we’re at it, why not tighten up on malpractice suits? Throw out more cases in which the doctors acted in good faith, problems beyond the physicians’ control, etc. If the doctors don’t have to pay exorbitant amounts of malpractice insurance, costs of treatment will go down. This would benefit the public option AND the private option.
As I said, not a perfect solution, but our system isn’t perfect. Talking about JUST healthcare reform without working toward a reform of the entire system is a bit like putting a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. The REAL solution, I believe, will come from a gradual transfer of power from the federal government back to the states, a re-evaluation of the way tax money is spent, cutting out the excesses in government spending, restoring governmental accountability, and ultimately a transition from the income tax to a FairTax or user fee-based system.
Hey, a guy can dream, can’t he?