|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 31
Rookie
|
|
Rookie
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 31 |
I think you are very correct on all points Phil......
Arch..... i thought of another point I'd like to make. I was under the impression that under Obama's plan we were not going to a "free" health care system. I was made to understand that it was going to be made affordable for "everyone". Even those with pre-existing conditions.
If i wanted a free ride for my health care I would have voted for Hillary.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,530
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,530 |
Quote:
mistake #1 ... your wife had diabates and she quit her job BEFORE U CHECKED INTO THE HEALTH CARE ... not real intelligent ... u ever heard the saying .. DUCKS IN A ROW ... if not, let me know and I;ll explain it to U ..
No need to explain I have the resources and the ability to pay for myself and my family. I have friends that have their own companies and I will simply sign on as if I’m one of their employees and get the insurance that way.
But guy there was no poor choice, it was something we wanted for our children we could and can afford to pay our own way.
Quote:
U MADE A CHOICE ... your wife was going to be a stay at home mom ... GOOD FOR U .. thats a good, noble choice ... WITH CONSEQUENCES ...
What a load of crap. Now come-on dude pull your head out. There is no way you can honestly look the world in the face and think that this is OK. You have diabetes so the hell with you. Get real, honestly this thing stinks, and if it where you and you were out to protect your family, no way would you even say let alone think what I hear coming from you.
You need to TRY to put yourself in someone else’s shoes, when you are actually able to do that it will come to you. Your perspective will change drastically, especially when you have children of your own. All of which you don’t understand because you have to walk in someone else’s shoes. And lets face it you show no ability to do it.
Quote:
can only grab one end of the stick .. U chose the stay at home mom route .. now appearantly u want your cake and u want to eat it too ...
No what I want is health insurance that protects my family, that’s all I want.
Quote:
U are suffering them now ... your wife unfortunatley has diabetes ... and that STINKS ... what are the insurance companies suppose to give u plan where THEY LOSE MONEY?? ... is that all U want ..
Your really don’t get it do you. God help you bro, you need it.
The insurance companies that you think shouldn’t have to insure myself and my family because my wife has diabetes never had a problem taking my money when we never went to the Dr. or used the benefits we were paying for. Now when there is a possibility that my wife may at sometime in the future suffer some sort of consequence of her disease they want no part of us. Where the hell is the fairness in that?
I honestly can’t believe that you think it’s OK for the insurance industry to only insure the healthy.
So here is the deal, you have cancer no insurance for you; you have heart disease no insurance for you, and on and on. You’re OK with that?
So in your world not only are you stricken with a disease the consequences of which could be death, now not only do you think it’s OK for the person to die, but they also should watch as everything they ever worked for is also taken from them. Great I just wasted my time with another……….
Clearly you have no perspective that you bring to this debate which allows for anything that smacks at reason. I actually feel sorry for you.
Quote:
OH NO .. not u .. Mr. i care for others .. U WANT ME AND EVERYONE ELSE TO PAY FOR IT ...
thats what it boils down to ...
No what I want is to pay my share (and I bet I pay way, way, way more in taxes then you do). I want us to share the risk together, that’s the purpose of insurance in case you don’t know (which you clearly don’t), and nobody gets left out, everyone pays according to their ability to pay. Which in many instances is something more then they paid in the past.
What that means in case you don’t know is that you pay now without full benefit, but as you age, and your health begins to become an issue you’re still insured that’s what it means. That is the entire purpose of insurance IMO. If the insurance industry can’t get there arms around that idea of shared risk then we NEED to kick their collective asses to the curb. Insure us all, or get out of the insurance business period.
We both agree I think those without insurance now go to the ER and they pay nothing and we end up paying anyway. And because they would become insured they would then go to the Dr. instead of the ER and again we save.
Oh BTW I bet you my last dollar that I pay way, way more then the average citizen, under any government plan. And you know what I have absolutely no problem with that I just want access to meaningful health care coverage that protects me and my family should I or a member of my family become ill.
Quote:
NG A STAY AT HOME MOM IS A RIGHT ALSO ...
Now you’re just being insulting, what the hell does that have to do with health care? Sling all the mud you want this deal with the insurance industry and health care stinks and you just don’t get it. Not even a little bit.
You’re probably shocked to find out that insurance isn’t available even if you can pay, and dude like it or not that is not right and you know it. It’s time to leave the private sector behind the system is beyond repair IMO.
Quote:
U have gotten through to me QUITE CLEARLY ... EVERYOME ELSE SHOULD PAY FOR YOUR HI SO YOUR WIFE CAN BE A STAY AT HOME MOM ..
at least now i know where your coming from and we understand each other ..
Good luck dude ... thats an unfortunate situation with your wife and the diabetes .. hopefully it never becomes an issue ...
You keep repeating the same thing.
You want others to pay your way.
No sir I want good health care coverage so I can meet my responsibility to myself and my family to insure we don’t lose what we worked for, not to mention so we don’t become a burden on society.
AND GUESS WHAT I WILL PAY FOR IT MYSELF. But it’s not AVAILABLE. You say you hear me but you skip right over that little diddy every single time.
You see you think wrongly that somehow I’m irresponsible and nothing could be further from the truth.
I put money away for rainy days, I have no CC dept what-so-ever, and I could live on unemployment and pay my cobra expenses if I had to. How far do I have to take it?
I get it though you think that health insurance is about corporate bottom lines, I on the other hand think it’s about insuring the population so they aren’t a burden to society and they don’t have to suffer when they are ill. BTW nobody should have to suffer when their ill.
There is a mountain of evidence that proves beyond all doubt that our system of health care coverage erodes away at every fiber of our society and it continues to be a burden that the private sector wants no part of UNLESS of course there are huge profits for them involved. I want that to end. I want to see a health care system that is based on care period, not profit. I see you’re for profit and not for care.
The whole idea that you say you would do anything should a member of your family become ill without insurance is even laughable, if it weren’t so sad it would be that is.
Trust me buddy when your family member is in the hospital sick and dieing without health care insurance, they may patch them together for you if your lucky, and then they will send them packing as quickly as possible, and guess what you think your going to go and beg on a street corner for the money to pay. That’s sad like I said because you can run up a half million hospital bill in a matter of hours. Lets face it get real your about to watch your family member DIE, there isn’t going to be any begging and if there is it will be to late. If that’s your plan you may want to rethink it. Irresponsible me, even I know that won’t work.
I get you and I could not disagree with you more.
BTTB
BTTB
AKA Upbeat Dawg
Can't believe I am in a group that is comprised of the best NOT just fans but people on the planet.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,188
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,188 |
Your right .. your just way to smart for me ... thank god I have intelligent people like U around to show me the light ... I appreciatte your help ... and for someone as compassionate as u make yourself out to be .. U sure did not show me much compassion in your last few posts ... I guess its OK in your world to call people stupid as long as there healthy and have good HC coverage when U do it .... 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,530
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,530 |
Quote:
Your right .. your just way to smart for me ... thank god I have intelligent people like U around to show me the light ... I appreciatte your help ...
No what I have done is THINK about it from all sides, and yes including those that don't have insurance. It's a sad thing that folks like yourself have developed the ME theory as your way of life. I can pay so to hell with everyone else, "I" "ME", I am ALL that matters. I have no problem so there is no problem.  
And yes you do need my help because hopefully you HAVE learned something about what is going on. And I'm truly glad I could help. Maybe your not the lost cause I thought you were after all. 
Quote:
and for someone as compassionate as u make yourself out to be .. U sure did not show me much compassion in your last few posts ... I guess its OK in your world to call people stupid as long as there healthy and have good HC coverage when U do it ....
Hey you started out with this may sound harsh, then you cry a river over your own ignorance when shown the light, come on now, dry those tears it'll be OK. 
BTTB
BTTB
AKA Upbeat Dawg
Can't believe I am in a group that is comprised of the best NOT just fans but people on the planet.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
Quote:
Trust me buddy when your family member is in the hospital sick and dieing without health care insurance, they may patch them together for you if your lucky, and then they will send them packing as quickly as possible, and guess what you think your going to go and beg on a street corner for the money to pay. That’s sad like I said because you can run up a half million hospital bill in a matter of hours. Lets face it get real your about to watch your family member DIE, there isn’t going to be any begging and if there is it will be to late. If that’s your plan you may want to rethink it. Irresponsible me, even I know that won’t work.
You are the one who is truly ignorant when it comes to healthcare.
My, how compassionate you are when spending other people's money.
Trying to paint those that do not want government taking over the healthcare in this country as uncaring and selfish people is compelte bull and the typical way to dismiss someone's opinion.
There does need to be reform, but not in the way you would wish. The government is not the answer.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,530
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,530 |
Quote:
The government is not the answer.
Thanks you have given me a great argument to consider, since the private sector is doing such a GREAT job why would I even consider the fact that the only true solution is the government. Hell the private sector has done great in every respect.
Their solutions to the population of individuals that have health issues is to just not insure them. And you want me to buy into more of the same with reform???
Let me just point something out to you before you dismiss the idea out of hand. Every other government just about in the world has universal health care, and while their system isn't perfect everyone has insurance and can go to the Dr. not to the ER.
The truth is there are no easy answers, but private clearly is not working for far to many people and it just keeps getting worse.
BTTB
BTTB
AKA Upbeat Dawg
Can't believe I am in a group that is comprised of the best NOT just fans but people on the planet.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
Quote:
Thanks you have given me a great argument to consider, since the private sector is doing such a GREAT job why would I even consider the fact that the only true solution is the government. Hell the private sector has done great in every respect.
Their solutions to the population of individuals that have health issues is to just not insure them. And you want me to buy into more of the same with reform???
See, here is where your ignorance shines through. A big part of the reason healthcare costs are high is because of Medicare and Medicaid. Please note that these are government run programs. They cost hospitals tons of money by bogging them down in paperwork and making them jump through endless hoops just so that the hospital can get paid less than the care provided costs. What a great deal! 
The other biggest problem is lawsuits. This litigation happy society, which goes hand in hand with people wanting something for nothing, is costing the hospitals huge amounts of money through malpractice insurance and ridiculous settlements.
The hospitals are forced to up the cost of everything in order to make up for the government and litigation impact.
Get the goverment out of healthcare and work some healthy tort reform and the vast majority of the country could afford healthcare on their own.
Quote:
Let me just point something out to you before you dismiss the idea out of hand. Every other government just about in the world has universal health care, and while their system isn't perfect everyone has insurance and can go to the Dr. not to the ER.
Yes, and their citizens are taxed to death and their healthcare systems suck.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Like I said earlier in the thread, I think the debate has gotten muddled.
For instance...there are entire departments within insurance companies dedicated to making sure they can provide as little care as possible. Now, I don't think many will disagree that something is fundamentally wrong with this.
But instead of addressing the individual issues we all (myself included) tend to get wrapped up in a 'public vs. private' argument that just runs in circles with neither side truly addressing the major flaws.
No, the insurance companies running the game is an awful plan...but I don't know that the gov't running the game is much better. Yes, Europe's systems have problems...but ours are just as egregious.
The people running the show are thinking in ideologies -- the Democrat core wants this so very badly...it's been their baby...but when you get down to business...their model isn't much better than what we have now. It's still bloated and corrupt. And then you have the other side, which isn't just the GOP but the many lawmakers in bed with the insurance companies...they don't want to change a thing. And the insurance lobby has so many tentacles, that even if we did push through a 'nationalized' system, I guarantee you not much would change at all. It would amount to a thinly disguised subsidy. Care wouldn't improve by much, because it would still be a profit game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
Quote:
even if we did push through a 'nationalized' system, I guarantee you not much would change at all. It would amount to a thinly disguised subsidy. Care wouldn't improve by much, because it would still be a profit game.
Care wouldn't improve by much? Try this on for size: health care would go down immensely. Sure, everyone would have the same crappy care, but, it would be crappy. Everyone would be able to see a g.p., get diagnosed, and then they'd wait for 6 months to a year before a specialist would see them. But at least it would be "fair".
Oh, and if you have a problem that was caused by you?
Oh, taxes - as if we don't pay enough now....let's get gov't. involved in doling out health care, we'd pay out the wazoo for it, get sub par care, and go bankrupt in the process (setting aside the fact that this country is bankrupt already).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Care wouldn't improve by much? Try this on for size: health care would go down immensely. Sure, everyone would have the same crappy care, but, it would be crappy. Everyone would be able to see a g.p., get diagnosed, and then they'd wait for 6 months to a year before a specialist would see them. But at least it would be "fair".
This is the kind of ideological rhetoric I'm talking about...this sounds like something Glenn Beck or a congressman on the lobby payroll might say.
I'm not advocating nationalized care. I'm saying the current system is awful. Comments like the above do not issue that in anyway...it just perpetuates the watered-down 'public v. private' debate.
We need to focus on the flaws and breaks in the current system and use a combination of ideas to make it more effective. Government and private industry should both be involved. I feel like no one is really addressing the issue. One side argues that a government system would fix our problems (when it wouldn't) while the other argues that a gov't system would be disastrous (meanwhile ignoring that our current system is disastrous).
Not to mention, as I said, that any public or gov't system wouldn't differ much from what we have -- the insurance lobby is very strong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
Quote:
And then you have the other side, which isn't just the GOP but the many lawmakers in bed with the insurance companies...they don't want to change a thing.
I don't think this is entirely true. But Right now I think allot of effort is being put forth just having to fight against a nationalized system that will in the end be WORSE.
I think there has to be a large amount of reformation in a lot of areas. But putting the Government in charge of it is just asking for disaster. We need to take control of care out of the insurance companies hands. We need to add doctors(but continue a HIGH standard for them) We need tort reform. Tort reform would do 2 things...it would reduce the amount of unneccessary procedures that are being done to cover a doctors behind....and it would also lower a doctors insurance premiums which in turn will lower patient costs. And then Hospitals have to have a continued commitment to reducing costs.(however many of these procedures DO cost this much...anyone have any idea how much an MRI machine costs to buy, install, maintain and support??? Plus the workflow to support the information and images that comes from said MRI???) There are lots of things we can do to lower healthcare costs without resortign to a nationalized healthcare system....and I havent even touched the pharmacuetical companies.
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
We need to take control of care out of the insurance companies hands.
I don't know how you do that without heavy gov't involvement...and I'm not even saying a government run system.
Realistically, I think the solution is to tamper down the profits game. As long as the insurance companies operate as entities chasing maximum and increasing profit margins, we're going to have big problems with that.
And the only person who can really reverse or limit that trend is the gov't...but there would be an enormous outcry if we did that, and we'd wind up back at public v. private.
Even if you don't want a government health care system...at some point the government is going to have to get involved in regards to the insurance industry and mandate some things. I"m not saying that's the answer, because our gov't is fairly inept, and it's a moot point because they're corrupt and don't *want* that to happen...but no one else is going to break that stranglehold.
Quote:
...and it would also lower a doctors insurance premiums which in turn will lower patient costs.
It would *theoretically* lower patient costs. Like I said, as long as we continue to treat it as a max profit game, we're going to have problems. And I envision a gov't system would run on the same profit game mentality...they're in bed with insurance, that can't be stated enough.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,319
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,319 |
Commom sense would say that we start correcting health care by refusing to provide free health care to illegal aliens. Charging those idiots who run to the ER with a case of the sniffles just because they have free health care. Stop charging 10 bucks for a single asprin in the Hospital. Put a halt to frivoluous lawsuits, ahhh heck with it, nobody wants to use common sense anymore anyway
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Commom sense would say that we start correcting health care by refusing to provide free health care to illegal aliens.
Well, that's a tough thing to really tackle. I do see what you're saying, and there's ways to cut down the problem in increments...but if someone cracks their head open or has a heart attack, are we really going to check their papers before we send them to the trauma unit?
Quote:
Charging those idiots who run to the ER with a case of the sniffles just because they have free health care.
In terms of the health care crisis in America, I think this is a molehill of a problem. IMO it's a trumped propaganda issue, much like Reagan's 'Cadillac welfare queens'.
Not saying it doesn't happen or doesn't cause problems...but I think I'd put it low on the list.
Quote:
Stop charging 10 bucks for a single asprin in the Hospital.
That is a result of the bureaucracy and the profiteering. It also speaks of a large problem with the industry -- it's one of the few areas in American business where often times there really isn't room to get a second quote or to shop around...something happens to you, they take x-rays, give you trifling pain meds, and then you are on the hook for the bill, meaning that they can pretty much charge whatever they damn well please. It's not like someone with a very painful or life threatening injury is going to ask for a quote and check around for other rates...the lack of that lends to rates that amount to extortion.
Quote:
Put a halt to frivoluous lawsuits
Absolutely...but the Catch-22 here is, how do you halt it and who is judging what is or isn't frivolous?
Drum roll...the government.
Health care in America cannot be fixed without a massive intervention by the state and federal government. I'm not even talking about a nationalized system...I'm just pointing out an obvious truth -- this monster can't be fixed without government (who in my opinion, is another monster)...so eventually this broad 'public v. private' debate needs to be put to bed, and we need to start examining things in a more narrowed scope, and deciding when and where public and private interests can help to better the situation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 683
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 683 |
I really wouldn't want to iterate my entire feeling on this, and it would be too long to read anyway. But there are three main issues that you should ponder in this debate.
1: The problem with medical insurance is who is set up to be their customer. It's not the recipient, it's the employer 9 times out of 10. If health insurance were like auto insurance, they would swiftly improve coverage and decrease cost to individuals. It's geared to groups now and that makes it difficult for an individual to get personal coverage.
2: malpractice and operating insurance. One of the major "costs of doing business" here. Not just the policies, but the extreme measures taken to avoid any lawsuit that would raise the rates of those policies. Even a "hospital grade" plug costs 10 times what the exact same part would cost without the green dot. The recalls, quality assurance and packaging to make medical goods safe are astronomically priced. There are pros and cons to this condition, but believe me, when I said extreme, I meant it. This issue could also touch on organizations like the Joint commission and the ACR drive up costs also. Again, pros and cons, but not entirely necessary and all at a cost to the consumer.
3: The technology will wither and die with any of the reforms being discuss here. Without profits, there will be NO reinvestment. Competition will die and mediocrity will be the norm. This applies to diagnostic equipment, pharmaceuticals and treatment equipment. In 4 to 8 years, we would lose any technological edge we have in this country and begin the decent into mediocrity.
The system is broken, yes. I am in hospital management, and our reimbursement is so poor now, we are really on a precipice. Staffing is low, and staff is overworked. We are being forced to meet standards that are astounding. There are initiatives in the works (by the government) forcing us to maintain customer satisfaction levels that you won't find in any other industry. Compensation will likely be tied to these scores in the near future. I don't think I need to say it, but no, we won't get more money, we'll just get prorated based on these surveys.
Ironically, these standards would likely disappear in a national health care system. Maybe our English Dawgs can attest to that fact.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,319
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,319 |
Quote:
In terms of the health care crisis in America, I think this is a molehill of a problem. IMO it's a trumped propaganda issue, much like Reagan's 'Cadillac welfare queens'.
Not saying it doesn't happen or doesn't cause problems...but I think I'd put it low on the list.
I see it happen every single time I am in or going through the ER, in a small town hospital. Multiply that on a daily basis at every ER in the country and IMO we are talking billions of dollars wasted every year.
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,530
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,530 |
Here goes, sorry if it’s long. Jules you actually brought something to the debate this time.  Even if it is misguided. Here is why.  Yes Medicaid and Medicare are a huge burden on the tax payers. But for the most part theses agencies serve the retired population and those with physical and mental disabilities. And yes welfare recipients as well. And yes these agencies are headed for financial ruin according to what I have read. But here is the kicker if you will. With the ever increasing aging population coupled with sky rocketing health care costs, coupled with the fact that as we age (all of us) our health care needs increase, and well you have a system that is more a reflection of who they are set up to service along with the costs of servicing them, In other words the fact that they are headed towards financial difficulty is not a reflection on the job they do, but rather a reflection of the costs associated with the programs they administer. Let’s be totally honest here for just one moment, I can not recall ever hearing a client of Medicare, complaining they couldn’t get the care they need. I assume you all have someone you know who is retired, ask them sometime? I would also point out that clients of these agencies have endured more and more out of pocket costs, something in many instances these people aren’t equipped to handle. But Jules these agencies aren’t poorly run is the point they are poorly funded but there not poorly run. So if you’re holding up these agencies as proof that the government can’t effectively run a health care plan your mistaken. Now back to the debate. Some of you raise great points. I want to praise the Bee Jesus out of Phil, great posts Phil with very unique perspectives. And just think you avoided the mud sling part of the debate, well done. You actually have me taken aback a bit. Well done. The rest I read and you all have your points, good stuff too. Here is somewhat of a repeat with a different sort of spin. And overview if you will; from my perspective. When I was young (in my twenties and throughout my thirties), I seldom if ever went to the Dr., in fact to this day I seldom go to the Dr.. But all during that time I had insurance thru my employer in which I contributed and my employer contributed, but I was always paying in something, and in reality I was asking for little if anything at all in return. In other words I wasn’t truly benefiting from my benefits. But still I paid and my employer paid, and I had my safety net so to speak. I was protected against whatever health issues might come my way. Now I am nearly 50 my wife 9 years my junior it ends up has diabetes The rest you know from my other posts. But the bottom line is now when I have reached an age where it’s likely I will begin to have some health care needs and my wife while she does control her diabetes thru diet still at some point my need treatment for her disease. And now the insurance companies want no part of my family. So I say to myself what happened? Where is my safety net? Where is my insurance? Where is my protection?? I paid, my employers paid, and I am still willing to pay, where are you insurance company I MAY need you. And as the moment approaches when I or my family may need what we have always paid for and continue to want to pay for, you abandon me???? When you reach that point the fog begins to clear, this isn’t about taking care of you, or providing you with a safety net, this is about taking care of the bottom line, you (meaning me) can go to hell. So my response is no sir you can go to hell. I keep saying it, and I don’t think some of you get it. It’s not about the ability to pay, it’s not about wanting someone else to flip the bill, it’s about access to decent health care coverage, period. I want to participate, I can’t, the insurance companies won’t let me. Oh yes they will sell me a policy that goes like this. I did this off the cuff the other day and I did just now go back and look again. Here IS THE BEST THEY WOULD OFFER ME. Dr. services would be paid at a rate of 80% after a deductible of $15,000. Hospital visits would require me to pay $15,000 deductible per calendar year then pay at a rate of 80%. Meds would be paid for at a rate of 80% after a deductible of only $5,000. All that for just $761.21 per month. No wonder I want the insurance company instead of the government run insurance. Any fool can see this is a bargain.  What this all adds up to is it kills the American dream. I worked I script and saved my money, bought some machines and started my own machine shop. And now I can’t get insurance to protect myself, and yes I think that it is and should be for all of us unacceptable. If you haven’t reached my station in life yet but you hope too, that is what is waiting for you or likely worse. Like I said before I am far from rich but I am not poor either, I can pay but I do have a limit, and I do require a level of insurance that protects me, and the insurance that is being offered up to me would see me have to sell off my business in order to cover my health care obligations under this policy. In other words it would essentially ruin me. Everything I worked for gone. So I stand back and I look at this thing, and I see no way to fix it. It will always be about the bottom line, I get it. I’m slow but it eventually does come shining thru. That’s what I think is missing from Diam and Jules. They just haven’t seen what I’m talking about YET . But it’s out there its real and it’s unfair, and I want it fixed, before one more person has to declare bankruptcy or be turned away for health issues. I don’t want to watch the evening news and see a story about some kid or adult or fellow human being losing their life because they had no coverage. Call me a bleeding heart liberal if you like but I do care, and I can’t just want something for me and not understand and help those around me as well. The blind eye theory doesn’t address the problem, and left unchecked it will eventually land on all of our heads if it hasn’t already. For sure there are some painful choices that are about to be made not just by our elected officials but by us as well. And yes there are costs associated with insurance, and the burden of those costs will be born by the tax payers. That’s just how it is, how it has always been. But were the ones that are flipping for the bills now, and we aren’t getting anywhere near what we should be getting in the way of services for those dollars, that’s also true. But you take all the monies that are currently going to private insurance and couple that money with Medicaid/Medicare money, let the young pay into that system and draw their benefits from that system over a life time and you begin to have a system that has balance to it. As is now the private insurance industry wants no part of the retired population so the government is left to offer these services, yet the private insurance industry absolutely loves 20 and 30 year olds. Why? Because they have few if any health care issues and they seldom go to the Dr. They see 20-30 they see MONEY, they see 50 and over they see loses and so they do all they can to stay the hell away. With a system that has balance with each generation paying in, and so on it won’t totally balance out but it will be a hellish lot better all around then the system we have in place currently. As is the insurance industries takes all the profit from health care and we the tax payers take all the loses. But we don’t even have good health care coverage that protects us against bankruptcy, after all we have paid in, and our employers have paid in on our behalves. It’s time for a change, it will be somewhat painful, and it will take a bit of time to get fully up and running, but it is IMO the only real option available. And folks that’s why nearly every single country in the word has socialized medicine. They have reached the conclusion that if they are to bear the burden of the old they should also take the profit from the young, and so should we. No it isn’t perfect and likely never will be, but it sure as hell cannot be worse then what we currently have. At the end of the day we can hope for and expect better, and it’s out there for us “IF” we make the right choices. But the goal has to be to protect us all, and to protect us all for our life time. I hear what is being said by many they don’t want another burden cast onto their shoulders; it’s already there in the form of the Insurance industries bottom line. Take that money and apply it to health care, and our costs should actually go down.
BTTB
AKA Upbeat Dawg
Can't believe I am in a group that is comprised of the best NOT just fans but people on the planet.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
Quote:
Here goes, sorry if it’s long.
Jules you actually brought something to the debate this time.
Too bad I can't say the same for you.
Quote:
Even if it is misguided.
Yes, I have absolutely no idea what goes on in healthcare. 
Quote:
Yes Medicaid and Medicare are a huge burden on the tax payers. But for the most part theses agencies serve the retired population and those with physical and mental disabilities. And yes welfare recipients as well.
The elderly, disabled, and people without insurance.
A large percentage of the elderly are quite well off, it's seems rather ridiculous that all of them get healthcare even if they are completely able to pay for it themselves or afford health insurance.
Quote:
And yes these agencies are headed for financial ruin according to what I have read. But here is the kicker if you will. With the ever increasing aging population coupled with sky rocketing health care costs, coupled with the fact that as we age (all of us) our health care needs increase, and well you have a system that is more a reflection of who they are set up to service along with the costs of servicing them, In other words the fact that they are headed towards financial difficulty is not a reflection on the job they do, but rather a reflection of the costs associated with the programs they administer. Let’s be totally honest here for just one moment, I can not recall ever hearing a client of Medicare, complaining they couldn’t get the care they need. I assume you all have someone you know who is retired, ask them sometime?
I talk to them all the time and they complain plenty. The fact that the goverment cannot fund these programs is a huge part of their failure, yet you gloss right over this fact as if it's not.
Quote:
I would also point out that clients of these agencies have endured more and more out of pocket costs, something in many instances these people aren’t equipped to handle. But Jules these agencies aren’t poorly run is the point they are poorly funded but there not poorly run.
So if you’re holding up these agencies as proof that the government can’t effectively run a health care plan your mistaken.
They are horribly run agencies. Just because everybody gets the their freebies which you apparently so cherish, you think that proves that these are somehow wonderfully run agencies. They are bankrupting themselves as well as the hospitals and dictating the care of the individual. Oh yes, how fabulous they are.
As far as the rest of the post, you, like Phil, would like the goverment heavily involved in the process of reform. I vehemently disagree with both of you.
Reform is needed, nobody is arguing that. But, it can be done without letting the government run healthcare and running it into the ground like they do everything else they get their hands on.
You are NOT entitled to everything you want or desire. And it's not the job of families around you to take care of you and your family. That's YOUR job.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,188
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,188 |
I find 3 or 4 things he said pretty funny ... I may as well laugh as the other option is to cry cause as Mr. T would say .. "I Pity the Fool" ... I love how in rant #1 he gives the gov't a pass for there failure with the "Medi's because of the age and/or disabilities of the folks in the program .. and the fact that in his words "coupled with sky rocketing health care costs," .. so he understands that the COST OF HEALTHCARE is SKYROCKETING .. and that is part of the Medi's problem and a portion of the reason he gives them a FREE PASS on their FAILURES .. then in his rant on how bad a job the private sector is doing its solely because of the profits they seek and he just IGNORES the SKYROCKETING COSTS that is a part of the gov't getting a free pass .... how conveniant ... and to make it even worse .. does he not KNOW that the gov't DICTATES the PRICES THEY PAY to the physicans and suppliers of meds and such ... so they pay a MUCH LOWER FEE FOR THE SAME SERVICES??? ... and please correct me If I;m wrong here Jules .. I very well may be .. but thats MY UNDERSTANDING OF IT .. so therefore the SKYROCKETING COST of HC does not affect the gov't near as much as it does the private sector .. It also amuses me that NO WHERE does he adress the SKYROCKETING COST OF HC as a part of the problem to be solved ... to me .. the FIRST STEP IN REFORM (not gov't subsidzing ... another concept he seems to have trouble with) ... is to MANAGE THE COST ... that means the Insurance companies have to pay less witch means LOWER PREMIUMS ... and then theres this little gem ... "With a system that has balance with each generation paying in, and so on it won’t totally balance out but it will be a hellish lot better all around then the system we have in place currently." .. that sounds an awful lot like SS to me .. and last I looked .. thats not faring so well either .. but hey .. I'm sure thats not the govt's fault either ...  then in his last paragraph he says ... "I hear what is being said by many they don’t want another burden cast onto their shoulders; it’s already there in the form of the Insurance industries bottom line. Take that money and apply it to health care, and our costs should actually go down." first of all I love the fact that he hears us and UNDERSTANDS it .. but when we disagree with him we do NOT UNDERSTAND or GET IT so appearantly we must not not hear him ...  but more importantly ...... Jules can U please tell me why if this is just a simple transfer of $$ from what were paying the private insurance crooks to us sending that same $$$ to the lords of good business the gov't ... where does the 2 TRILLION MORE DOLLARS NEEDED number thats being floated around to run the gov't reform HC program come from?? .. (and i have no clue where that # is coming from as we have no plan yet ... but i keep hearing it .. ) ... and U know what else is making me feel real good about this .... Palosi saying they will ahve the bill ready before the summer break at the end of July .. so these LORDS OF BUSINSESS are going to solve our HC issues in a little over 2 months ... i hope they DON'T RUSH .. cause lord only knows they don't have a histroy of rushing things and its not like this is that important anyhow .....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
You are correct in your points. I didn't think I needed to point out the fundamental issues with the current system, but apparently some people are so woefully uninformed that it is needed sometimes. People need their hands held through everything anymore....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,642
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,642 |
Quote:
People need their hands held through everything anymore....
Will you hold mine?
![[Linked Image from i75.photobucket.com]](http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i302/lrhinkle/d5eaf0b9-e429-4211-b53f-b843bfcf6aa9_zps2ac17420.jpg) #gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
As far as the rest of the post, you, like Phil, would like the goverment heavily involved in the process of reform. I vehemently disagree with both of you.
I said that we - unfortunately - can't have reform without government involvement. I mean, that's a stark truth. Unfortunate, of course, as our gov't is as bloated and corrupt as the system that needs reforming.
But there's really no way to reach any kind of reformation without government involvement...which wouldn't ever really happen anyway, as the gov't is too cozy in bed with insurance.
But it's necessary...our system is screwed either way, because the insurance companies will never let go of their profit game, government or private system.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
The Medicare Ponzi Scheme John Stossel Wednesday, May 20, 2009 Isn't it high time America did less for the elderly? A politically incorrect question for sure. But Medicare has an astounding $34-trillion unfunded liability. And because of rising unemployment, its hospital-stay program will go broke two years earlier than previously predicted. For my recent ABC special "You Can't Even Talk About It", I spoke with residents of La Posada, a development in Florida that made Forbes's list of top 10 "ritzy" retirement communities. These folks are well off. And they get a bonus: You pay for most of their health care under Medicare. The retirees love it. Everyone likes getting free stuff. And Medicare often makes going to the doctor just about free. Why is this a good thing? "What about those young people [who pick up the tab]? What kind of legacy are we leaving for them?" asks Harvard Business School Professor Regina Herzlinger. "We're really stealing from them." Some high-school students are alarmed about the scam. "20/20" interviewed a group that is willing to help needy seniors -- they volunteer at a food bank -- but they are angry that Medicare forces them to pay for even wealthy seniors. "This program, Medicare, is essentially ripping my generation off," Zach Hadaway said. Policy experts say the kids are right. "The government spends around $6 on seniors for every dollar it spends on children, and yet the poverty rate among children is far higher," said Andrew Biggs of the American Enterprise Institute (www.aei.org). The federal government stiffs the young in favor of the old. So I told the La Posada seniors that the kids called them "greedy geezers." They said, "We've paid our dues." Money was taken from every paycheck they earned. But, in fact, the average Medicare beneficiary today collects two to three times more money than he paid in. "I would argue that this is not only unfair, it's downright immoral," says billionaire Pete Peterson. Peterson is a rarity: a senior who decided he cannot in good conscience accept Medicare. He and his foundation (www.pgpf.org) worry about the looming fiscal disaster. When Medicare began in 1965, six working-aged people paid for each Medicare recipient. Now the figure is four. It will get worse as baby boomers like me retire. Medicare is unsustainable. "There is $34 trillion sitting off the balance sheet, waiting for future generations to pay," Herzlinger said. That's how much more Medicare money government has promised than it has budgeted. It's the price of about 30 Iraq Wars. We locked up Bernie Madoff for running a Ponzi scheme. Medicare is a bigger one. Seniors think the money deducted from their paychecks was stored in a trust fund. But, in fact, it was spent immediately. The "trust fund" is an accounting gimmick. The giant seniors' lobbying group, AARP (www.aarp.org), rarely talks about Medicare's coming bankruptcy, and it rejects reforms like means-testing or raising the eligibility age, claiming most problems can be solved simply by lowering health-care costs. "Do things like make better use of health information technology," David Certner, AARP's director of legislative policy, told me. The Congressional Budget Office says such reforms won't save much money. "Well, they're going to have to," Certner said. That sounds like wishful thinking -- not unusual among powerful lobbies that ignore basic economics. When something is free for one group, demand runs wild, pushing up prices for those who must pay for themselves and the subsidized group. On top of that, the demographic problem Peterson emphasizes won't go away, no matter how cleverly the "fix health care" argument tries to bury it. Fewer workers per retiree means shrinking Medicare tax revenues -- period -- even if health-care costs are flat. "Ultimately, somebody's going to have to give up some medical treatment they'd been getting," Peterson says. Our group of seniors had second thoughts after we spoke. "I hear what the kids are saying," a man said, "When they get to be our age, there may not be any Medicare." "Tell them to change the law," one said. "If the kids can get the votes, then they can get it done." Fat chance. The elderly vote on Medicare. Most young people don't even know they're getting ripped off. http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2009/05/20/the_medicare_ponzi_scheme
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
When something is free for one group, demand runs wild, pushing up prices for those who must pay for themselves and the subsidized group.
Startling revelation there.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Social Security, Medicare they both depend on the current workforce to support the elderly. Great in concept if you believe that the population will continue to grow and the rate of inflation grows evenly with wages.
But it seldom happens like that. Nothing quite like paying for 40+ years only to retire and find the programs shutdown. Which is what we are facing with future generations.
As much as some seniors will say "We've paid our dues", the younger generation can say "I don't want to pay for something that won't be around when it's my turn to benefit."
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,293
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,293 |
Quote:
It will get worse as baby boomers like me retire.
Medicare is unsustainable.
Same up here, basically. It's simple math and common sense. Especially with the old folks running to the doctor every 2nd day. I think when a person reaches a certain age, we should put them on an iceberg like the eskimos used to do.
I admit that not everyone will agree with that.
![[Linked Image from i28.photobucket.com]](http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c201/shadedog/mcenroe2.jpg) gmstrong -----------------
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 478
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 478 |
Quote:
Quote:
It will get worse as baby boomers like me retire.
Medicare is unsustainable.
Same up here, basically. It's simple math and common sense. Especially with the old folks running to the doctor every 2nd day. I think when a person reaches a certain age, we should put them on an iceberg like the eskimos used to do.
I admit that not everyone will agree with that.
Honestly I agree with you. Sometimes it is more noble to die than to prolong the inevitable, but forcing that decision on someone is morally wrong. Sometimes I wonder if the more civilized we become the more we fear death?
I am in my 20's. I consider every dollar I spend on Social Security and Medicare a waste. To me it is just the cost of living in the US, as I have no doubt that I will never see that money again or benefit from those programs. I don't even factor in Social security when I am planning for retirement.
I would love to see those programs repealed sooner rather than later. However it does not matter what happens because I will be paying taxes of some form or another to pay for those people who depend upon it and the legacy debt. My only hope is that my children do not have to pay for this scheme.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
Quote:
There is $34 trillion sitting off the balance sheet, waiting for future generations to pay," Herzlinger said.
That's how much more Medicare money government has promised than it has budgeted. It's the price of about 30 Iraq Wars.
Where is mac and all the other libs that have been scraming about the money we have been spending in Iraq????
The money we spend in Iraq and on the military is a drop in the bucket compared to the social entitlement programs we spend on.....
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,188
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,188 |
Pete, Pete, Pete ... U poor misguided sole U ... those aren't entitlements there are RIGHTS ...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
Funny I missed that part in the Declaration of Independance...
Life, Liberty, Pusuit of Happiness, Free Healthcare, Free Retirement, Free checks if I don't want to work, free food stamps, severely reduced rent and utilities......
Where do I sign up?
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
Quote:
Quote:
There is $34 trillion sitting off the balance sheet, waiting for future generations to pay," Herzlinger said.
That's how much more Medicare money government has promised than it has budgeted. It's the price of about 30 Iraq Wars.
Where is mac and all the other libs that have been scraming about the money we have been spending in Iraq????
The money we spend in Iraq and on the military is a drop in the bucket compared to the social entitlement programs we spend on.....
Probably the same place as they were when I posted an article by David Walker, retired comptroller general of the U.S........I posted it about 6 months ago or so. No one commented on it. I found that odd.
Do a search of David Walker, comptroller.........you will see how truly far in debt this country is, and you won't like it. You may even deny it. He was the comptroller under Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush again.....the guy is retired. He has no reason to bash anyone, no reason to lie.
Read what he has to say. Then translate that into today....with billions more promised. What do you get? Taxes go up higher than you can imagine. OR, this country fails. Soon. I wonder why they want our guns? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
We're ridiculously in debt, I will give you that absolutely. But the gun stuff...why? You know I'm not a big gun control guy, but sometimes I think hysteria emerges just because a Democrat gets elected. If Obama wanted to take your guns, he'd wait until the second term anyway. And like I always say, if the gov't wanted to take away guns, they wouldn't do it through sweeping legislation. You ever hear the quote that says I didn't care when they took it from [blank], etc., etc. and then there was np one to take it from me? If the wicked gov't wanted guns, they'd take them systematically by deeming opponents to be mentally unstable or criminal.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
Quote:
We're ridiculously in debt, I will give you that absolutely.
You will "give me that"???? No need for you to give me anything. Facts are facts, whether I state them or you do. This country is beyond "debt", this country is in servitude.
Quote:
But the gun stuff...why? You know I'm not a big gun control guy, but sometimes I think hysteria emerges just because a Democrat gets elected.
Thanks for pointing out that I think Dems are in charge of wanting guns banned.......oh, wait a minute. I never said that. YOU did.
Quote:
You ever hear the quote that says I didn't care when they took it from [blank], etc., etc. and then there was np one to take it from me? If the wicked gov't wanted guns, they'd take them systematically by deeming opponents to be mentally unstable or criminal.
Ah, you're getting it. The gov't. is taxing more and more people and things at higher and higher levels, in order to "help those that need help", and what do the masses do? Follow along, since it might help them.
Can you draw the line to cars, or business in general, or to guns, or to property, etc etc etc? Or do I need to draw it for you? Regardless of who's in the white house.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
Obama says health care a must this year _ or never May 28 02:10 PM US/Eastern By PHILIP ELLIOTT Associated Press Writer Share on Facebook WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama warned Thursday that if Congress doesn't deliver health care legislation by the end of the year the opportunity will be lost, a plea to political supporters to pressure lawmakers to act. "If we don't get it done this year, we're not going to get it done," Obama told supporters by phone as he flew home on Air Force One from a West Coast fundraising trip. Obama's political organization, Organizing for America, invited campaign volunteers to a midday conference call to describe a nationwide June 6 kickoff for its health care campaign. The president's message to his re-election campaign-in-waiting was simple: If volunteers don't pressure lawmakers to support the White House's goal on health care, Washington would drag its feet and nothing would change. "The election in November, it didn't bring about change. It gave us an opportunity for change," Obama said. The presidential plea came as lawmakers prepare for an aggressive schedule of work aimed at producing comprehensive health care overhaul bills in the House and Senate by August. Committee hearings—and soon thereafter votes—will start next week, as soon as lawmakers return to Washington from a weeklong recess. Many members of Congress spent the break holding town hall meetings and other forums with their constituents about health care, even as opponents and supporters of Obama's plans ramped up television and radio ads for and against. "I think the status quo is unacceptable and that we've got to get it done this year," Obama repeated, ginning up his supporters for a door-to-door and phone-to-phone canvass similar to his presidential campaign. Obama's top aides, including former campaign manager David Plouffe, told the supporters that they have a challenge ahead of them. "If the country stands with the president and if the country is demanding health care reform than we'll get it done; Washington will not have any option but to follow us," Plouffe said on the call, which was not announced on the White House's official schedule. The president's conversation with his supporters was part pep talk and part a nod to political reality. Obama is looking to use his network of supporters to deliver a campaign promise, and if he seeks a second term in 2012—an almost certainty—he hopes to keep many of those volunteers engaged in person and online. The president said the costs of the nation's $2.5 trillion health care system are crushing families and businesses and pose the largest threat to the economy. The White House is leaving it to lawmakers to work out the details of a health care plan, but Obama has said it should ensure choice and lower costs, while extending coverage to the 50 million Americans now uninsured. The cost of accomplishing that has been estimated around $1.5 trillion, and figuring out how to pay is emerging as a major challenge for Congress and the White House. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D98FE3B00&show_article=1
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
President Barack Obama warned Thursday that if Congress doesn't deliver health care legislation by the end of the year the opportunity will be lost,
Well thank God he isn't using fear like the last evil administration did...
Isn't this similar to how he pushed through the stimulus package because he had to have it immediately? Don't bother reading it or debating it, just sign it.. we need it today.. if it's not signed today, we're all going to die.. 
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Well thank God he isn't using fear like the last evil administration did...
Isn't this similar to how he pushed through the stimulus package because he had to have it immediately? Don't bother reading it or debating it, just sign it.. we need it today.. if it's not signed today, we're all going to die..
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
WHAT ELSE IS HAPPENING IN THE BACK HALLS OF WASHINGTON By Neal Boortz While the rest of the world is arguing about whether or not Sonia Sotomayor is a racist - she isn't - and concerned about the government takeover of General Motors ... the Democrats are busy working on their baby ... nationalized healthcare. The looters are determined to have a bill out by August and so they are hashing out the details of their grand plans. Those details include two things: how do we trick the people into believing they have a choice when it comes to healthcare and how can we further demonize the rich to pay for it? Do you want to know where we stand right now? Read this, from the Politico: If Congress were to take a vote on a health reform bill today, Democrats and Republicans would find a surprising level of agreement -- so much so that the broad outlines of a consensus plan already are taking shape. Sick or healthy, rich or poor, all Americans would be guaranteed access to health insurance. In fact, they'd probably be required to purchase it -- perhaps through mandates in the law that would include stiff tax penalties for anyone who tried to opt out. Newly created insurance marketplaces would make finding a plan as easy as shopping for cheap airfare. People could keep their coverage, even if they switched jobs. And they might be able to choose between private insurers and a government-backed plan. But here's the catch -- none of this would come free, with the wealthiest Americans likely to face higher taxes to help pay for coverage for all. If the Republicans don't get their act together real quick, there is going to be absolutely no hope to block this monstrous excuse for government growth and control. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AND LET'S DROP THE WORD "INSURANCE" FROM ALL OF THIS By Neal Boortz It's not health "insurance" we're talking about here; it's a health care payment plan. Insurance is something you purchase to partially reimburse you for UNEXPECTED expenses related to home or auto ownership, or your health. Your auto insurance policy will step in with some cash for a crash, but not for an oil change or new tires. Your homeowner's insurance will come up with some money for repairs to fire damage, but not to replace your water heater or that 20-year-old roof. There are certain budgetary requirements that come into play when you own a house or a car, and your insurance company would laugh you out of the county if you went to them to be reimbursed for an oil change or having your carpets cleaned. Why, then, do you think that your health "insurance" should pay for ordinary and expected healthcare expenses? It shouldn't. These are things that you should budget for. But the American people have a different idea. They believe that their health care is someone else's responsibility - either their employer's or the governments. Power-mad politicians are only too glad to pander to that idiotic expectation. You think the government has control over vast amounts of your life now? Wait until the government controls your health care. http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/index.html
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
I love the second one.. Some of us have been saying this for years... people will save to go on vacation or buy a new car or buy their kid an X-box.. but ask them to save for routine medical care? Nah, that's insanity.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Private sector signs on for health
care reform
|
|
