RE: AMA & AARP endorse House health care bills

RE: AMA & AARP endorse House health care bills (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tazzygirl -> RE: AMA & AARP endorse House health care bills (11/8/2009 3:05:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl No they dont. I completely agree. And our resources as a nation have been tapped out. Not only by health care, but by military spending, bandaids and tarps. I also know our health care is going bankrupt. Obama made it a priority. He has also said he would address the immigration problems next. I expect him to do so. I dont expect him to round them all up and deport them. Not only would that be cost prohibitive, it would be time consuming. Im eager to see what proposals both sides come up with. But i dont see how both problems could have been addressed at the same time, considering the three ring circus the health care issue has become. These problems didnt occur over night. They are the product of many administrations, not just one. To suggest that these problems can all be overcome within a year, in my opinion, is assinine. I have my own issues with illegal aliens. The drain alone on health care has been incredible. But, people are losing their homes, their savings, their lives because the insuarnce companies have become a monopoly that has taken over and become "Big Brother". Its my opinion that this issue had to be tackled first. Those who have insurance can sit back and grumble all you like. Most of us are only one paycheck away from financial ruin. Are you saying here that all of your savings, etc have been wiped out because you've paid too much in medical expenses? It has nothing to do with related issues? Part of this is a mindset as well. People are always throwing that "one paycheck away" deal as though they have no funds, but in many cases, they do. The government isn't the only place to look at poor financial management. Individuals have to do that, too. We also need to look at where our own money goes. Are we spending it on actual necessities, such as health care, or is it going to the cell phone bill, cable bill, etc? That's where a lot of cries of "one paycheck away" really fall through. I spent a few hours at the ER recently. 102 fever, chills, rigors, disorientation, lower back pain. Diagnosis, pyelonephritis. Costs... 4 days out of work, 200 for the ER (up front), 180 for the ER Physician, i havent gotten the bill yet for the cat scan or the rest of the ER services yet.. Medicine, thankfully, antibiotics, free from Giant Eagles. Salary... minimum wage.. server... the last week has been hell at work dealing with the swollen kidneys and trying to keep up with tables. This isnt a whine. This is reality. Being sick doesnt just cost at the Dr or ER, it costs in all directions, as you should know. Last year was a surgery for my stomach, polyps, wont go into details. Was out of work for over a month. No income. Bills still due. Between then, workman's comp for a knee injury. And, let me tell you, WC is a bitch no matter what happened. We are making it, barely. We have cell phones. We have cable and internet. We dont go out, we dont go to restaurants, we dont go to movies. We cut corners at every turn. Even if i had insurance, it would have been private because my job doesnt offer, they wouldnt have picked up a cent of this bill so far. My deductible would not have been met yet. Master has insurance through his job. Now, you can sit back and talk about people throwing away checks. We count every dime. We dont drive, its public transportation, cost savings there as the monthly pass is 75 a month for each. Most people spend that in two weeks to drive back and forth to work. Our cells are bare minimum they offer. My son has a bad heart. Sorry, the cells are not a luxury. And we dont have welfare, foodstamps, ect, because we make too much.. lol.. now thats funny!

LadyPact -> RE: AMA & AARP endorse House health care bills (11/8/2009 3:39:40 PM)
Just a quick question to throw out to you, tazzy. It sounds to Me as though you and your Master live together. If so, have you looked into being added to his health insurance as his domestic partner? Laws do vary on that from state to state, but in most cases, any company that extends domestic partner insurance to same sex couples, offers it to het unmarried partners as well. Granted, you would have to go through some red tape, but it would be worth it in the end. That entry was probably something of a hijack, but I'm thinking you and I are just coming from opposite opinions on the issues regarding health care reform.

tazzygirl -> RE: AMA & AARP endorse House health care bills (11/8/2009 3:47:46 PM)
I will have to get him to check into that. But i have only been here since may. I doubt that has been long enough. But thank you for the suggestion. Its definitely worth looking into, if not for now, then later.

rulemylife -> RE: AMA & AARP endorse House health care bills (11/8/2009 10:56:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity It was a simple direct question, but I understand why you refuse to answer. And here I was thinking I did.

Sanity -> RE: AMA & AARP endorse House health care bills (11/9/2009 5:38:09 AM)
No, you can call that a dodge or a lot of other things, but it wasn't an answer. But like I said before, that's okay, I understand why you can't or won't answer such a simple and direct question. Your ideology is indefensible. quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity It was a simple direct question, but I understand why you refuse to answer. And here I was thinking I did.

Louve00 -> RE: AMA & AARP endorse House health care bills (11/9/2009 5:46:41 AM)
Tazzy, I'm not sure what, if any of these programs can do for you. Your salary as a nurse may push you just beyond the limit of help (ironic, I know). But check it out and see if there's anything you can get help for. http://www.govbenefits.gov/govbenefits_en.portal

tazzygirl -> RE: AMA & AARP endorse House health care bills (11/9/2009 6:00:05 AM)
Im not working as a nurse at the moment. I hold an active license, but they require a refresher course because i havent practiced in a number of years. Something i hope to be able to do come spring. Thank you for the link!

rulemylife -> RE: AMA & AARP endorse House health care bills (11/9/2009 9:20:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity No, you can call that a dodge or a lot of other things, but it wasn't an answer. But like I said before, that's okay, I understand why you can't or won't answer such a simple and direct question. Your ideology is indefensible. OK, let me defend it. You rely on the government for safety, right? You don't want bombs dropping on your house, or criminals breaking down your doors. So, explain the difference to me. Isn't your health more of a primary safety issue?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: AMA & AARP endorse House health care bills (11/9/2009 12:11:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity No, you can call that a dodge or a lot of other things, but it wasn't an answer. But like I said before, that's okay, I understand why you can't or won't answer such a simple and direct question. Your ideology is indefensible. OK, let me defend it. You rely on the government for safety, right? You don't want bombs dropping on your house, or criminals breaking down your doors. So, explain the difference to me. Isn't your health more of a primary safety issue? Huge difference. Enemies and criminals are outside forces who's impact can be mitigated by military and police, government functions that an individual cannot replicate. Your health is a personal issue and largely unaffected by outside influences. To the extent there are outside influences, such as ineffective or harmful treatments, environmental issues etc then the government is and should be involved. And you didnt answer one of Sanity's questions, air, and Ill expand it a little. If the government should provide you with health care, why shouldnt they provide you with a house? a car? a big screen tv? a personal masseuse?

tazzygirl -> RE: AMA & AARP endorse House health care bills (11/10/2009 5:36:54 AM)
The house.. the government already pays for. The rest, the government doles out money for people to buy.

Mercnbeth -> RE: AMA & AARP endorse House health care bills (11/10/2009 10:10:47 AM)
~ Fast Reply ~ In case there was any doubt... During an exclusive interview with ABC News Jake Tapper today, President Obama said that penalties are appropriate for people who try to 'free ride' the health care system but stopped short of endorsing the threat of jail time for those who refuse to pay a fine for not having insurance. So, all you working young people who currently have mandatory auto insurance coverage at a cost exceeding the value of your car, better get ready to add another mandatory line item to your budget - health care insurance. The President doesn't put jail time for failure to do so on the table yet; but penalties are appropriate. After all - you have to pay. Why the vast majority of you can't do that now is a personal decision. Granted there is a small percentage of people who "don't qualify" however instead of closing that loophole with a simple Bill that says no health insurance carrier can deny or drop coverage - the Administration's solution is to make everyone pay, or suffer penalty. Good idea? Who gets paid? Well, noting that there is some weak, albeit visible anti-Health Care Bill lobbying going on; this Bill will be a boon for existing health care insurance companies. It will become law that the represented number of 30% "uninsured" must get coverage. Pricing will be determined on existing actuary tables best as I can determine from the appropriate sections of the Bill I've read. That will be, out of the gate, cheap for all the in good health under 30 crowd, height/wight proportionate. Outside those guidelines it gets a little vague in the current Bill as to how pricing will be determined based upon income. But in any event having health care insurance will be mandatory. Another interesting note, the three year provision for the 'government option'. I doubt many, (any?) will appreciate that timing in the scheme of insurance but for those interested it's the Lloyd's of London Structure. Lloyd's syndicates work on the basis of a three year accounting cycle. It takes that long to compare the results to the assumptions made at the point of underwriting. If this deal is a loser for the insurance companies, guess what - they bail; or at least get bailed out, and the government steps in as a replacement. At best new pricing will be implemented based upon the results. Anyone think the cost will be reduced? There is only one source who will be paying for plan to make it work - people who aren't using it; young, healthy people, like those currently making Social Security contributions who should have zero expectation to ever see a penny of their money returned. Now insurance companies can't make you buy coverage. Congress and this Administration insures that will no longer be the case. Whether this will be a boon for the Health Care Insurance companies down the road can't be determined. I think they are hedging their bets with the weak lobbying effort. For the short term however, this is corporate welfare at it's finest. The government requiring you buy a product. A 'cash for health insurance clunkers' distinguished by the requirement that everyone has to buy one even if you don't plan on driving. Why anyone would want yet another decision taken out of their hands and celebrate another government program that requires participation or penalty which may, or may not, include jail is beyond me. However, I expect that there was some group similarly excited about the new 1% 'Income Tax' in 1913.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: AMA & AARP endorse House health care bills (11/10/2009 10:26:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl The house.. the government already pays for. The rest, the government doles out money for people to buy. I didnt ask what they did (and your claim that they do is an exagerration) I asked SHOULD they.

Anarrus -> RE: AMA & AARP endorse House health care bills (11/10/2009 10:54:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy And you didnt answer one of Sanity's questions, air, and Ill expand it a little. If the government should provide you with health care, why shouldnt they provide you with a house? a car? a big screen tv? a personal masseuse? I'll field this question.... Seems to me that health care is not a commodity like a car or big screen tv etc. You having a car or a big screen tv benefits no one but you..period! A healthy citizenry benefits society and the community as a whole. Now if I have to splain that to you..... Now if you want to lump health care into the same sort of commodities as a car and big screen tv, then how about lumping police departments, fire departments, etc into that same lump of commodities. I sincerely hope your house never starts to burn and when you call the fire dept they ask for your CC# before they'll send any trucks and firemen out.

Lucylastic -> RE: AMA & AARP endorse House health care bills (11/10/2009 11:41:37 AM)
not in response to Annarus but to people like willbur and sanity.....I find it strange that no other country gives you a free house, free tv, free bills, free anything. So why on earth would you expect the US to do something so ridiculously stoopid. No matter how socialistic they are, they dont provide free either. One country that provides everything for their citizenry please??? One?? NO??? then stop using such pathetic bullshit as an argument. You really are showing yourselves up and not in a good way

Mercnbeth -> RE: AMA & AARP endorse House health care bills (11/10/2009 11:42:55 AM)
quote: Seems to me that health care is not a commodity like a car or big screen tv etc. You having a car or a big screen tv benefits no one but you..period! A healthy citizenry benefits society and the community as a whole. Now if I have to splain that to you..... Using that logic once we get this law on the books can we set up a Government pizza & Chinese Food delivery plan, since you can't be healthy if you don't eat. Wait a minute - as a corollary to the nanny health care service maybe that should be a Government tofu, low fat yogurt, and diet Pepsi plan. Unless someone needs to "splain" to you that you can't be healthy without eating a government approved and politically correct diet. Come to think of it, maybe TV is also a nanny requirement; how else can the mandated exercise program be monitored insuring that citizens are not only properly feed and have access to health care, but are keeping up their obligation to exercise to keep themselves within the healthy government established height/weight charts. However, things still happen right? A government health care car service may seem excessive but having eaten government food and exercising per the government mandate you can still sprain an ankle. Isn't it incumbent on that same government to not only give you access to that care, but provide a way to get there? It is implied that a government transportation program is necessary. These aren't "commodities" these are essential to obtain the goal of a health citizenry!

mnottertail -> RE: AMA & AARP endorse House health care bills (11/10/2009 11:53:10 AM)
nope, Merc.....you take the logic to a slippery slope. And we just don't see national healthcare going that way in the developed countries. Ron

Anarrus -> RE: AMA & AARP endorse House health care bills (11/10/2009 11:59:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: Seems to me that health care is not a commodity like a car or big screen tv etc. You having a car or a big screen tv benefits no one but you..period! A healthy citizenry benefits society and the community as a whole. Now if I have to splain that to you..... Using that logic once we get this law on the books can we set up a Government pizza & Chinese Food delivery plan, since you can't be healthy if you don't eat. Wait a minute - as a corollary to the nanny health care service maybe that should be a Government tofu, low fat yogurt, and diet Pepsi plan. Unless someone needs to "splain" to you that you can't be healthy without eating a government approved and politically correct diet. Come to think of it, maybe TV is also a nanny requirement; how else can the mandated exercise program be monitored insuring that citizens are not only properly feed and have access to health care, but are keeping up their obligation to exercise to keep themselves within the healthy government established height/weight charts. However, things still happen right? A government health care car service may seem excessive but having eaten government food and exercising per the government mandate you can still sprain an ankle. Isn't it incumbent on that same government to not only give you access to that care, but provide a way to get there? It is implied that a government transportation program is necessary. These aren't "commodities" these are essential to obtain the goal of a health citizenry! Come on Merc, I've read many of your posts you usually come across as much more reasoned and intelligent in thought then the above crap. I won't even argue what's above as it's pure nonsense. I know it and you know it. You haven't painted a slippery slope with the above, you've created a XX black diamond ice glazed run.

AnimusRex -> RE: AMA & AARP endorse House health care bills (11/10/2009 12:27:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy If the government should provide you with health care, why shouldnt they provide you with a house? a car? a big screen tv? a personal masseuse? You raise a good question- I don't think the government owes anyone health care; but then I don't think the government owes anyone a public primary school system, a public secondary school system, a public college system, a public water system, a public sewage system, a public storm drain system, a public road system, a public utility system, a public library system, a public parks system, a public highway system, a public bus system, a public port and harbor system, a public disease control system, a public disaster relief system, a public aircraft control system, a public rail system, a public science research system, a public mail delivery system, a public ambulance system, a public fire suppression system, a public law enforcement system, a public court system, a public prison system, a public zoning and land use control system, a public building standards and enforcement system.... I don't find any of these things in the Constitution anywhere, do you? So why have we decided to create these things? Most of the list I enumerated above were created during the 19th Century, and early 20th Century. Almost all of these were fought with arguments that it was none of the governments business to intervene in the workings of society, that this was not a Constitutionally mandated service. All of them became accepted and embraced by the overwhelming majority of the population. We created these things not because we are "entitled" to them, but because it was recognized that society works better because of them. When a child gets an education anywhere in society, we all benefit; when there is a government run system of roads, sewers, storm drains, and utility grid, we all benefit. On the other hand, when someone gets sick and is unable to work as a result, we all suffer; when people avoid treatment for lack of coverage, they end up in the emergency ward, for which we all pay double. Health care is not a perk, like a masseuse; it is a public good, a benefit to make our society more efficient and productive.

Anarrus -> RE: AMA & AARP endorse House health care bills (11/10/2009 12:50:59 PM)
Great post AnimusRex. You covered the point I wanted to make in much more eloquent and in depth way.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: AMA & AARP endorse House health care bills (11/10/2009 1:33:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Anarrus quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy And you didnt answer one of Sanity's questions, air, and Ill expand it a little. If the government should provide you with health care, why shouldnt they provide you with a house? a car? a big screen tv? a personal masseuse? I'll field this question.... Seems to me that health care is not a commodity like a car or big screen tv etc. You having a car or a big screen tv benefits no one but you..period! A healthy citizenry benefits society and the community as a whole. Now if I have to splain that to you..... Now if you want to lump health care into the same sort of commodities as a car and big screen tv, then how about lumping police departments, fire departments, etc into that same lump of commodities. I sincerely hope your house never starts to burn and when you call the fire dept they ask for your CC# before they'll send any trucks and firemen out. Already addressed. Health care IS a commodity. There is no rational basis for saying it isnt, all you can claim is that it "feels different" than other commodities. The other things you name are also commodities, but there is a difference. Police, military, fire etc protect you primarily against OUTSIDE AGENCIES. Your health is largely not subject to outside agencies. To the extent that it is via the environment, epidemic, snake oil remedies etc. there are already government agencies to address those problems.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875