|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044
Hall of Famer
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044 |
Quote:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.4995:
End the Mandate Act of 2010 (Introduced in House)
HR 4995 IH
111th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 4995
To restore the American people's freedom to choose the health insurance that best meets their individual needs by repealing the mandate that all Americans obtain government-approved health insurance.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 13, 2010
Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Education and Labor, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A BILL
To restore the American people's freedom to choose the health insurance that best meets their individual needs by repealing the mandate that all Americans obtain government-approved health insurance.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `End the Mandate Act of 2010'.
SEC. 2. REPEAL OF INDIVIDUAL AND EMPLOYER MANDATES ENACTED BY PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.
(a) Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act- Effective as of the enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, subtitle F of title I of such Act, as amended by title X of such Act, is hereby repealed.
(b) Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010- Effective as of the enactment of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, sections 1002 and 1003 of such Act are hereby repealed.
Quote:
Statement of Congressman Ron Paul
United States House of Representatives
Statement Introducing the Private Option Health Care Act
May 27, 2010
Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Private Option Health Care Act. This bill places individuals back in control of health care by replacing the recently passed tax-spend-and-regulate health care law with reforms designed to restore a free market health care system.
The major problems with American health care are rooted in government policies that encourage excessive reliance on third-party payers. The excessive reliance on third-party payers removes incentives for individual patients to concern themselves with health care costs. Laws and policies promoting Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) resulted from a desperate attempt to control spiraling costs. However, instead of promoting an efficient health care system, HMOs further took control over health care away from patients and physicians. Furthermore, the third-party payer system creates a two-tier health care system where people whose employers can afford to offer "Cadillac" plans have access to top quality health care, while people unable to obtain health insurance from their employers face obstacles in obtaining quality health care.
The Private Option Health Care Act gives control of health care back into the hands of individuals through tax credits and tax deductions, improving Health Savings Accounts and Flexible Savings Accounts. Specifically, the bill:
A. Provides all Americans with a tax credit for 100% of health care expenses. The tax credit is fully refundable against both income and payroll taxes;
B. Allows individuals to roll over unused amounts in cafeteria plans and Flexible Savings Accounts (FSA);
C. Provides a tax credit for premiums for high-deductible insurance policies connected with a Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) and allows seniors to use funds in HSAs to pay for medigap policies;
D. Repeals the 7.5% threshold for the deduction of medical expenses, thus making all medical expenses tax deductible.
This bill also creates a competitive market in heath insurance. It achieves this goal by exercising Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause to allow individuals to purchase health insurance across state lines. The near-monopoly position many health insurers have in many states and the high prices and inefficiencies that result, is a direct result of state laws limiting people's ability to buy health insurance that meets their needs, instead of a health insurance plan that meets what state legislators, special interests, and health insurance lobbyists think they should have. Ending this ban will create a truly competitive marketplace in health insurance and give insurance companies more incentive to offer quality insurance at affordable prices.
The Private Option Health Care Act also provides an effective means of ensuring that people harmed during medical treatment receive fair compensation while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system. The bill achieves this goal by providing a tax credit for negative outcomes insurance purchased before medical treatment. The insurance will provide compensation for any negative outcomes of the medical treatment. Patients can receive this insurance without having to go through lengthy litigation and without having to give away a large portion of their awards to trial lawyers.
Finally, the Private Option Health Care Act also lowers the prices of prescription drugs by reducing barriers to the importation of Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved pharmaceuticals. Under my bill, anyone wishing to import a drug simply submits an application to the FDA, which then must approve the drug unless the FDA finds the drug is either not approved for use in the United States or is adulterated or misbranded. This process will make safe and available imported medicines affordable to millions of Americans. Letting the free market work is the best means of lowering the cost of prescription drugs.
Madam Speaker, the Private Option Health Care Act allows Congress to correct the mistake it made last month by replacing the new health care law with health care measures that give control to health care to individuals, instead of the federal government and politically-influential corporations. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Ron Paul is trying.....this bill seems much better then what was passed
full text of Bill will become availabe here in a few days after the GPO has received it
http://thomas.loc.gov/
thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,446
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,446 |
It takes control away from government.
It stands no chance of passing .... and even less chance of having this President sign it.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 70
Rookie
|
|
Rookie
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 70 |
It's obviously not going to be passed, but it gives Ron Paul something an issue to run on in 2012
"Every time that I score, I'm going to get the ball and sign it "To Holmgren" and give it to him just so he has the proof that I'm worth every penny"- JC
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,753
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,753 |
My problem with it is the below item. Quote:
D. Repeals the 7.5% threshold for the deduction of medical expenses, thus making all medical expenses tax deductible.
I had 14k out of pocket medical bills a few years ago, so I have experienced the > 7.5%. I've also averaged 3-4k every year, not including that year, the last 10 years, so I know about being just below the 7.5%. Do I think that the 7.5% should be lowered? Yes, most bankruptcies (prior to this economic downturn) were due to medical bills.
Is 0% too low? Yes. My tax guy wanted me to go through every single receipt I could find and see if there was anything that could be remotely considered medical. That included aspirin, tissues, vitamins, sun tan lotion, and just about anything else you could come up with. If it is 0%, everything you could think of would be tax deductible. If the government is essentially giving you some money back for every dollar you spend on anything medical, how much different is it than if they pay for your coverage (rhetorical question, I'm making a point).
I'm all for lowering it, but it needs to be something reasonable. Lets try half of the current rate - 3.75% instead of 7.5% and put in a clause that allows for adjustments if it is too high or low after a year or two.
Other than that, it sounds like a pretty simple and solid start.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
If the government is essentially giving you some money back for every dollar you spend on anything medical, how much different is it than if they pay for your coverage (rhetorical question, I'm making a point).
They aren't giving you anything back.. they are essentially allowing you to buy it with pre-tax dollars...
We have a flex spending plan at work, this year we got a flex spending "credit card" that we can use to pay for co-pays or scripts or whatever.. neatest thing because I can go to Target and buy all kinds of stuff, groceries, housegoods, and some meds... have it all rung up together and pay with my flex spending card and the computer knows which stuff qualifies to be paid for by my flex card.. then I pay for the rest of my stuff with my own money... the technology is there to make it really easy to track qualifying medical expenses.... so convenience shouldn't really be an issue.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,908
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,908 |
Quote:
To restore the American people's freedom to choose the health insurance that best meets their individual needs by repealing the mandate that all Americans obtain government-approved health insurance.
that opening statement implies that Americans have a choice of the health insurance they want..
nothing could be further from the truth.....
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,753
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,753 |
And then they'll let you deduct it from your taxes. AKA, giving you money back.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,666
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,666 |
I am a bit surprised that he did not suggest to repeal medicare, medicaid and social security and stop pell and other eductaion loans.
Welcome back, Joe, we missed you!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
And then they'll let you deduct it from your taxes. AKA, giving you money back.
Except, if you "choose" not to have insurance, you won't be getting it free anyway or being fined for it. Also, it means you have choices, something that overtime I am confident will fade from existence with the current bill.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,281
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,281 |
Quote:
that opening statement implies that Americans have a choice of the health insurance they want..
nothing could be further from the truth.....
Why do you say that?
Did you see the paragraph regarding the ability to offer health insurance "across state lines"? I suppose that even WITH such competition, one could believe that even the best insurance policy could be considered the lesser of two or more evils.
I haven't read the entire thing (like an Obama appointee), so maybe you see some detail in that regard that I do not know about.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,753
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,753 |
I wasn't saying anything about that, I was saying repealing the 7.5% is the problem I have with his new bill. Lower it, yes, take it to 0, no.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044 |
Quote:
I am a bit surprised that he did not suggest to repeal medicare, medicaid and social security and stop pell and other eductaion loans.
I am too, but he should have.
All the above programs are Ponzi Schemes and are just as bad as Bernie Madoff. They are systems that CAN NOT be maintained and have no Constitutional right to even exist.
there is no money and no Social Security Trust Fund..it doesn't exist..it only exists in your mind. The govt takes the money and throws an IOU in the pot and NEVER gives back any of the money they take out of it. It is just a second income tax they take and spend for whatever they want, and later down the road they just "Borrow more money at interest" to hand you your so called "retirement"
All the above programs are Ponzi schemes, and if we don't stop them you will see the collapse of the USA government due to debt, and inability to make good on its loans...it will be forced at some point to default on its debts...its not a matter of if, its a matter of when....
see California....they are going to be forced to cut many welfare programs to close the 19.1 billion dollar budget shortfall they have.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/15/local/la-me-state-budget-20100515
New York is also in trouble with a 9 billion dollar budget deficit
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/27/opinion/27thu4.html
what are we going to do, bail those states out? and continue with the problem that has gotten them there (government handouts we can't afford)
I know social security and such was put into existence with the greatest intentions, however it is not a system that can be maintained...the govt is not capable of taking care of people and thats becoming more and more apparent every year and will become even more so in the future
why?
because the founders never intended the government to be what it has become.
help for the old, and the sick, and the crippled is better managed and received by non-profits, and charitable institutions who will better spend the money in a "non-political" manner. If peoples tax money was not raped from them at their pay check, many Americans would gladly give out of the goodness of their hearts for reasons different to each individual.
see St. Judes Hospital as a prime example of charity...it is funded and such primarily through charity and service...yes folks donate not only money, but time, equipment, etc...its one of the best hospitals in the world...
the systems mentioned above are a Ponzi Scheme and are not sustainable...infact those systems "lower" the quality of life for everyone in this nation, and they also lower the quality of life for those who receive the benefits......
if each individual America started an RIA when they were 18...they would be set by 60, and the economy would also grow with it because in order to "produce" one must be able to save and create "capital" which is invested into the economy to make jobs...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Not to mention mention the false sense some folks get that they will be fine come retirement, so there is no need for them to plan for it themselves.
Thankfully, most of us have learned better, but there are still many many folks that believe you can live off of SS benefits. And they believe they will be there when they need them.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,908
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,908 |
Quote:
Quote:
that opening statement implies that Americans have a choice of the health insurance they want..
nothing could be further from the truth.....
Why do you say that?
Did you see the paragraph regarding the ability to offer health insurance "across state lines"? I suppose that even WITH such competition, one could believe that even the best insurance policy could be considered the lesser of two or more evils.
I haven't read the entire thing (like an Obama appointee), so maybe you see some detail in that regard that I do not know about.
I said it because it's true... anyone who thinks that the majority of folks has had a choice of medical plans is fooling themselves..
What happens in the future,, we shall see....
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,281
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,281 |
Quote:
I said it because it's true
Daman...that is funny.
I am serious here...why would people not have a choice?
Are you saying due to pre-existing conditions, state-line limited monopolies, can't afford it?
What chew talkin bout, Willis?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,517
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,517 |
Tree,meet forest.
SS is not a ponzi scheme.It was setup as a safety net for those that didn't have retirement benefits from thier employers,and a good plan it was.
Unfortunately,Congress saw it as a source of income,which it was never intended for,and stole,stole and stole some more,until nothing is left.
Remember Al Gore's "Lock Box" campaign promise that went over so well.
The problem is not SS,the problem is the politicians who stole the money.
If you want to rail against something,don't choose the program that's been plundered,choose the thieves that did it.
Indecision may,or maynot,be my problem
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
SS is not a ponzi scheme.It was setup as a safety net for those that didn't have retirement benefits from thier employers,and a good plan it was.
It is a ponzi scheme.. read the definition. It was never a good plan, it has always paid a rate of return below what anybody could have earned with their own money even in pretty conservative investments. It was a program set up to protect irresponsible people from themselves because the government obviously felt that people were too stupid to take care of themselves. And since about the mid 70s people identified that the number of people collecting was rising far faster than the number of people paying in and that this problem would be further exacerbated when the baby boomer generation reached retirement (what was then 30 years away).. so in 30 years what did they do to gear up and prepare themselves (and us) for that day? Yep.. nothing, zilch, zero, nada.. now they act like it's a big surprise that it's here... 
Quote:
If you want to rail against something,don't choose the program that's been plundered,choose the thieves that did it.
Why must I choose? Yes the thiefs that raided it have been wrong for these many years.. now go find me the government program that is prepaid by tax dollars where they sit and wait to be spent?... I'll wait.... Ok, now that you were unable to find one since our government spends every nickle of revenue and then some each and every year with the anticipation that they will pay it off with some amount of money to be received later.. tell me exactly how this was going to be different?
And Al Gore... Gore was going to fill the lockbox full of money that didn't exist. It was PROJECTED to exist but it didn't exist yet.. And it would have existed if 9/11 hadn't happened, if the tech bubble hadn't burst, if the economy had not started to tank.. The only lockbox I can think of that works is the IRA/401K of a responsible person.. that's it.
It's a bad program run by thieves.. and when Bush wanted to change it, everybody jumped up and down and said there was nothing wrong with it.... Now I'm not saying his fix was ideal and that it wouldn't have come with difficulties but its amazing how loudly people scream.. those within the government and those that live off it.. when one proposes to pull just a little government safety net out from underneath them...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,517
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,517 |
I could be wrong here,but it is my assumption that SS was created during the great depression.
If that is true,it would difficult to classify the people that the program was setup to help as irresponsible and stupid.
Indecision may,or maynot,be my problem
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Point taken.. however that is exactly what makes it a ponzi scheme.. it was set up to pay people with future receipts.. the very definition of a ponzi scheme..
And I shouldn't have labeled them as irresponsible and stupid.. so I'll clarify, the reason it exists 80 years LATER is to take care of people that are irresponsible and stupid.. The problem is that the people today aren't necessarily irresponsible, they just worked most of their lives under the assumption that sometime they would get that money back with a reasonable return.. and they will, if they retire at 65 and live to be 120.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,446
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,446 |
Social Security is a ponzi scheme, as it requires more and more people to pay into it in order to sustain itself.
As there are fewer and fewer working age people, and more people collecting benefits for a longer period of time, the system collapses.
I just used the Social Security Calculator to determjine what the benefits would be for someone who worked since 1970 ...... and started out at about 7000 per year ..... working their way up each year ..... and who earned between 30,000 and 40,000 per year over the past 25 years. (with steady increases each year, starting at 30,000 in 1984, moving to 41,000 in 2009)
The monthly Social Security Benefit would be $1969 per month.
Assuming a steady payroll tax of 6.2% for both employee and employer, this would total approximately $130,000 in payroll taxes.
Using the benefit above, this means that the payroll taxes (without interest) would pay for about 5 1/2 years of Social Security payments. It would be less with a permanent disability or surviving spouse and child.
Now, there would have been interest on monies collected in the form of taxes ... but the problem is that Social Security started out with current workers paying for already retired workers who had never paid into the fund. That was fine while the labor pool was expanding, and more workers paid taxes than collected benefits. However, as life expectancies increased, and fewer workers were paying Social Security taxes,the scheme began to show signs of collapsing on itself.
A system that was designed to have an ever expanding workforce, with more workers paying in this year than last ... combined with a system that planned on a worker receiving benefits for 7 years after retirement becoming a system that has to pay out for 10 or more years after retirement .... and the problems become evident.
It goes beyond Congress and President dipping their fingers into the pool of money. The scheme itself was not supportable once the number of retirees collecting benefits exceed the number of workers paying in.
It was a Ponzi scheme. It was notr sustainable over the long term because of the system starting out paying out to those who never paid in ..... to them having a massive baby boom retirement without a larger generation paying in behind them, to retirees living longer lifespans and collecting benefits for far longer than the system was set up for.
That's why the retirement age keeps getting pushed back further and further. They can't afford to have people collecting the benefits they were supposed to have received when they were supposed to have started receiving them. 65 became 67, and 70, and 72 ..... and the "retirement age" may hit 80 in my lifetime.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,230
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,230 |
Great, Ron Paul wants to have a bidding war when somebody is dying in the hospital. Great job. Oh, you are sick and dying? Ron Paul is there to help you by bringing an auction to your hospital room where HMO's get to have a public auction over how much of your bills to pay. Just what people need!! 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
That's what you got out of this? 
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,230
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,230 |
Quote:
That's what you got out of this?
You mean aside from the "Teabagger" drivel?
Yes.
Quote:
This bill also creates a competitive market in heath insurance.
Ergo, a bidding war over insurance. Arizona proposes paying for 2% of your medical costs. New York outbids them by saying they'll pay 3%. So on and so forth.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
You're not too bright....are you??? competitive market as in this company in New York can give you the same coverage for $300/mo, while this company in Arizona can give you the came coverage for $250/mo. It's like buying a car. if you can find the Chevy Malibu you want for a couple grand less at a different dealer...you may go buy from them instead. I can't believe I actually had to spell that out for someone
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: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
You're not too bright....are you???
competitive market as in this company in New York can give you the same coverage for $300/mo, while this company in Arizona can give you the came coverage for $250/mo.
It's like buying a car. if you can find the Chevy Malibu you want for a couple grand less at a different dealer...you may go buy from them instead.
I can't believe I actually had to spell that out for someone
My only concern is that insurance companies may just become national providers that eventually lead us to the same choices we have now.. and we will still be in the same boat... Because I'm sure there will be no more Blue Shield of *insert state here*.. it'll just become Blue Shield of America.... but on the plus side... they will be all have a larger pool of subscribers to get money from.
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](http://i.imgur.com/FUKyw.png) "Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,191
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,191 |
They are already national companies... they are simply forced to do business individually in each state right now.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044 |
of course Charlie because a "tea bagger" pays for goods and services he or she consumes...
I can see what camp charlie is from, he thinks Health care should be "free to the masses"
hey lets everyone get free health care....doctors, and nurses, and nurses aids and everyone should just work for free and provide him medical insurance...who cares if those mentioned need a pay check and have a family to raise to...
How bout you work for free Charlie? whatever job you do, be it serving burgers, making cars, fishing, whatever, everyone gets whatever service your provide for free, and you don't get paid to work since the service is free of charge
I mean afterall, thats what you want the healthcare industry to do..it should be free
I can't wait until all the folks that supported this bill get the wonderful letter in the mail that requires them to pay 550 to 600 dolars a month for insurance and if they don't pay it, they will be fined (and at some point jailed for refusing to pay the fine)
its going to be extremly funny...
folks like Charlie have no no idea how much Pelosi and the likes have miffed them....no idea whatsoever, but they will soon see....its going to be so funny to hear them scream bloody murder...very funny...
your definition of "reasonable health care" and the governments definition of "reasonable healthcare " are two different ballparks....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,908
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,908 |
Quote:
Quote:
I said it because it's true
Daman...that is funny.
I am serious here...why would people not have a choice?
Are you saying due to pre-existing conditions, state-line limited monopolies, can't afford it?
What chew talkin bout, Willis?
LOL,, I like that last line... 
I'm a guy that because of certain issues had to get insurance where I could find it.. Very expensive..
The insurance I wanted I could not get at any price..
So, the line stating that Americans can get the insurance that want is bull.... it's just not that simple
So I stopped reading the thing.. if that's the premise, then the premise is flawed...
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Charlie I hope the government takes real good care of you.. I seriously do, I hope they provide you with a good retirement, good health insurance, good quality automobiles, good quality radio and television to entertain you.. I hope they take real good care of you... and I hope you never lose one ounce of sleep worrying about who is paying for it....
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,831
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,831 |
Quote:
The Private Option
The Private Option...since the GOP is now on board for the Public Option, let's just go back and expand Obama's Healthcare plan!
This is great news...now all Americans can agree, the Public Option should be the law of the land when it comes to healthcare coverage. I'm sure the Dems will welcome the Repubs now that there is agreement concerning the Public Option.
BTW, is Ron Paul's healthcare plan "paid for"?
Won't all these "tax credits" run up our debt?
Has CBO scored Paul's public option?
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,230
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,230 |
Quote:
of course Charlie because a "tea bagger" pays for goods and services he or she consumes...
I can see what camp charlie is from, he thinks Health care should be "free to the masses"
hey lets everyone get free health care....doctors, and nurses, and nurses aids and everyone should just work for free and provide him medical insurance...who cares if those mentioned need a pay check and have a family to raise to...
No, they wouldn't work for free. They would get paid by the government. Based off of how healthy their patients are. It is really messed up that when you are sick and in desperate need of help somebody comes along and says:
"Yea, I'll help you. IF you give me everything you have!!"
Quote:
How bout you work for free Charlie? whatever job you do, be it serving burgers, making cars, fishing, whatever, everyone gets whatever service your provide for free, and you don't get paid to work since the service is free of charge
No, not "whatever service". Let me guess, you consider going to the doctor to be the same as buying a hamburger. Oh, I'm sick and may not make it a week. Nobody will do anything for me unless I have money. That is NO way to live. Making a profit because somebody is sick and desperate.
Quote:
I mean afterall, thats what you want the healthcare industry to do..it should be free
Health care for free is much like water in the desert for free.
If you are in the desert and you find somebody dying of thirst after being lost and they come to you asking, no, begging for water. What do you do? Do you say:
"I see you are in desperate need of water, good sir. Why, I can help you for the low, low price of $150. I have the supply, you have the demand, seeing that I have a monopoly of this good. Give me $150, good sir, and you will live."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
j/c
There aren't many - if any - countries that have national health care that are doing okay - from the health care front that is.
In fact, most are seeing premium increases that they can't afford.
But we want that here??????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,123
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,123 |
Quote:
They would get paid by the government.
Where's the government gets the money from to pay the hospitals? From YOU! Either way, you are still paying, only now you have hundreds of layers of government bureaucracy added to make these service even more expensive.
Simple fact is, running a hospital costs money. I know you like to pretend it doesn't, but the bills need to be paid.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
This bill also creates a competitive market in heath insurance. It achieves this goal by exercising Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause to allow individuals to purchase health insurance across state lines. The near-monopoly position many health insurers have in many states and the high prices and inefficiencies that result, is a direct result of state laws limiting people's ability to buy health insurance that meets their needs, instead of a health insurance plan that meets what state legislators, special interests, and health insurance lobbyists think they should have. Ending this ban will create a truly competitive marketplace in health insurance and give insurance companies more incentive to offer quality insurance at affordable prices.
My problem with this line of thinking is that IMO, the rate savings by just allowing sales across state lines will largely be achieved by insurance companies simply moving to states with the least regulation. I'm all for competition, but competitive advantage is only meaningful for consumers if companies come up with better, more efficient ways of delivering a product, not effectively deregulating the industry. That only results in us getting lower premiums b/c we will end up getting less, worse coverage for our money.
There also has to be some way to provide for every region of the nation. Because of the nature of health insurance (young, healthy people are pure profit; older, unhealthy people are pure cost for the insurance companies) you can bet that insurance companies will flock to areas with large young populations, but places like Florida, with a large retired population, will be much less well served.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Paul's line of thinking is very flawed in many areas here... and if I'm reading it right he's pitching the greatest tax evasion scheme in history.  I do however, agree with repealing the current bill. For the life of me, I can't figure out why anyone supports it ... I honestly believe it's because of repulsion to the GOP's more absurd views on the matter. This bill does absolutely nothing to improve health care in America. Nada. Care is not being expanded, cost is not being lowered.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
This bill does absolutely nothing to improve health care in America. Nada. Care is not being expanded, cost is not being lowered.
Sure it is. They keep telling us it's free.. 
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,446
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,446 |
I can't wait till mine is free. I'm gonna ask my employer when they are going to stop taking out money to pay for my free health care ..... 
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,446
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,446 |
Personally, my health care program would be this ......
I would abolish Medicaid. I would build free clinics all over the country .... and staff them with medical school graduates who could do their residency there and also earn a reduction in their student loans as payment.
This is where those who have no health care would go. They would not be able to show up ayt the emergency room except in a life threatening emergency situation. If they go to the ER and it's not a life threatening emergency, they lose the cost of the ER visit out of their next check. Simple. The hospital bills the welfare department and they deduct it from their check.
I just find it funny that people with a Medicaid card and a couple of kids show up at the ER 5-10 times per year. My mom had 3 kids. Know how many times we went to the ER while growing up? Twice. Once I went over the handlebars of my bike and ripped my chin open and once my brother broke his leg.
That's it.
I would bet that today's families could make due with limited visits as well. We give welfare recipients "Cadillac" care .... and they contribute NOTHING to the system. Nothing at all. They should get clinic care .... and if they don't like that they can go get a job that offers health care. Would that be easy? Nope .... but it never is for most people. It takes hard work and dedication. It takes drive and determination. Unfortunately, we have bred this out of entire generations by virtue of government handout programs, and government babysittiing.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,230
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,230 |
Quote:
Where's the government gets the money from to pay the hospitals? From YOU! Either way, you are still paying, only now you have hundreds of layers of government bureaucracy added to make these service even more expensive.
Simple fact is, running a hospital costs money. I know you like to pretend it doesn't, but the bills need to be paid.
Actually, no. It is paid by me, you, and everyone else.
Adds layers of government beuracracy that increases the cost?
You are so right there!
You and I pay for the Fire Department and that is just SOOO expensive. The Police Department too!! That is freaking expensive from all that beuracracy involved!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887 |
Quote:
You and I pay for the Fire Department and that is just SOOO expensive. The Police Department too!! That is freaking expensive from all that beuracracy involved!!
I'm not sure why you are laughing? Just about everyday I see some municipality needing to cut costs due to low tax revenue that they are laying off Police, Fire and EMS workers. So you want a system that would possibly lay off doctors and nurses because there isn't enough tax dollars to pay them?
Not to mention you want doctors and nurses to make far less then what they are making today??? Yeah lets see how many people will be willing to do that after they went through 10+ years of school and internships.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Ron Paul Introduces Private Option
Health Care Act (Repeal Obama
Care)
|
|
![[Linked Image from mypsn.eu.playstation.com]](http://mypsn.eu.playstation.com/psn/profile/Letherface.png)