How does someone intend to receive the same treatment when they don't have insurance?
Because this is what the system is creating... everyone is going to be treated.. its called socialism.... its like nobody is left behind, but yet those in the lead need to make up the slack for the slackers....
0
How does someone intend to receive the same treatment when they don't have insurance?
Because this is what the system is creating... everyone is going to be treated.. its called socialism.... its like nobody is left behind, but yet those in the lead need to make up the slack for the slackers....
How does someone intend to receive the same treatment when they don't have insurance?
Because this is what the system is creating... everyone is going to be treated.. its called socialism.... its like nobody is left behind, but yet those in the lead need to make up the slack for the slackers....
So, what your saying is that if someone doesn't have insurance, they will be able to go and receive treatment at the hospital?
How does that change what happens now?
0
Quote Originally Posted by BigGame90:
How does someone intend to receive the same treatment when they don't have insurance?
Because this is what the system is creating... everyone is going to be treated.. its called socialism.... its like nobody is left behind, but yet those in the lead need to make up the slack for the slackers....
So, what your saying is that if someone doesn't have insurance, they will be able to go and receive treatment at the hospital?
incase you do not know what ACRON has done in the past maybe you should check this out... They were teaching people how to take advantage of the system. Your Americans teaching people how to rip off the system for their own benefit. These are the people your going to support..... does this make you feel good about being an American?
incase you do not know what ACRON has done in the past maybe you should check this out... They were teaching people how to take advantage of the system. Your Americans teaching people how to rip off the system for their own benefit. These are the people your going to support..... does this make you feel good about being an American?
I have a very simple solution for all of those who think this bill is a great idea. Rather than pass a health care bill that forces higher taxes on small business and ALL taxpayers, why don't we set up a special pre-tax account similar to HSA's for public healthcare. Anyone who thinks this idea is so great, and cares so much about universal health care, can donate as much pre-tax income as their little bleeding heart desires. But don't take money out of my pocket and tax me so that you can advance your social agendas. Like most entitlements, free hand outs rarely serve to motivate people or reduce gov't spending. I'd like to see the moneyline on this actually reducing the deficit as the Dems claim.
0
I have a very simple solution for all of those who think this bill is a great idea. Rather than pass a health care bill that forces higher taxes on small business and ALL taxpayers, why don't we set up a special pre-tax account similar to HSA's for public healthcare. Anyone who thinks this idea is so great, and cares so much about universal health care, can donate as much pre-tax income as their little bleeding heart desires. But don't take money out of my pocket and tax me so that you can advance your social agendas. Like most entitlements, free hand outs rarely serve to motivate people or reduce gov't spending. I'd like to see the moneyline on this actually reducing the deficit as the Dems claim.
So, what your saying is that if someone doesn't have insurance, they will be able to go and receive treatment at the hospital?
How does that change what happens now?
because right now people are responsible for their bills... yea most eventually go into bankruptcy. Although that does have its disadvantages on your credit report, people are able to have that debit wiped clean and they can start fresh. Most actually try to make those payments to pay off the debt, but for some its just never going to end. But now the gov't is saying just pay a small fee per year and you do not have to worry about paying anything back, the people that actually work will pay for your deadbeat ways...
0
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
So, what your saying is that if someone doesn't have insurance, they will be able to go and receive treatment at the hospital?
How does that change what happens now?
because right now people are responsible for their bills... yea most eventually go into bankruptcy. Although that does have its disadvantages on your credit report, people are able to have that debit wiped clean and they can start fresh. Most actually try to make those payments to pay off the debt, but for some its just never going to end. But now the gov't is saying just pay a small fee per year and you do not have to worry about paying anything back, the people that actually work will pay for your deadbeat ways...
because right now people are responsible for their bills... yea most eventually go into bankruptcy. Although that does have its disadvantages on your credit report, people are able to have that debit wiped clean and they can start fresh. Most actually try to make those payments to pay off the debt, but for some its just never going to end. But now the gov't is saying just pay a small fee per year and you do not have to worry about paying anything back, the people that actually work will pay for your deadbeat ways...
So what you are saying is under the health care bill, if you pay the fine, you can recieve medical treatment and not have to pay it back huh?
Here's a link to the bill. Please point out where this provision is in the bill.
because right now people are responsible for their bills... yea most eventually go into bankruptcy. Although that does have its disadvantages on your credit report, people are able to have that debit wiped clean and they can start fresh. Most actually try to make those payments to pay off the debt, but for some its just never going to end. But now the gov't is saying just pay a small fee per year and you do not have to worry about paying anything back, the people that actually work will pay for your deadbeat ways...
So what you are saying is under the health care bill, if you pay the fine, you can recieve medical treatment and not have to pay it back huh?
Here's a link to the bill. Please point out where this provision is in the bill.
I have a very simple solution for all of those who think this bill is a great idea. Rather than pass a health care bill that forces higher taxes on small business and ALL taxpayers, why don't we set up a special pre-tax account similar to HSA's for public healthcare. Anyone who thinks this idea is so great, and cares so much about universal health care, can donate as much pre-tax income as their little bleeding heart desires. But don't take money out of my pocket and tax me so that you can advance your social agendas. Like most entitlements, free hand outs rarely serve to motivate people or reduce gov't spending. I'd like to see the moneyline on this actually reducing the deficit as the Dems claim.
43% of medical costs are never paid. That is the main factor for the high cost of insurance and medical care. How does your idea change that?
0
Quote Originally Posted by juelesbenedict:
I have a very simple solution for all of those who think this bill is a great idea. Rather than pass a health care bill that forces higher taxes on small business and ALL taxpayers, why don't we set up a special pre-tax account similar to HSA's for public healthcare. Anyone who thinks this idea is so great, and cares so much about universal health care, can donate as much pre-tax income as their little bleeding heart desires. But don't take money out of my pocket and tax me so that you can advance your social agendas. Like most entitlements, free hand outs rarely serve to motivate people or reduce gov't spending. I'd like to see the moneyline on this actually reducing the deficit as the Dems claim.
43% of medical costs are never paid. That is the main factor for the high cost of insurance and medical care. How does your idea change that?
Having debt may motivate people to go to work, but when debt never accumulates people will use, use and use, and will never repay. People will take advantage of the system, and those who work hard do not see the benefits. Those who do nothing see the benefits... see the point of this situation?
0
Having debt may motivate people to go to work, but when debt never accumulates people will use, use and use, and will never repay. People will take advantage of the system, and those who work hard do not see the benefits. Those who do nothing see the benefits... see the point of this situation?
43% of medical costs are never paid. That is the main factor for the high cost of insurance and medical care. How does your idea change that?
How does this bill fix that? Other than making all other citizens responible for the unpaid bar tab.
Why don' t we approach it with a real world, free market solution. What would you do in your business if someone didn't pay you? You would probably cut them off, or demand payment up front. The problem is not lack of health insurance, the majority of people that currently lack health insurance could afford if they wanted to. The problem is a lack of personal responsibility, and gov't takeover won't help that issue.
0
[Quote: Originally Posted by djbrow]
43% of medical costs are never paid. That is the main factor for the high cost of insurance and medical care. How does your idea change that?
How does this bill fix that? Other than making all other citizens responible for the unpaid bar tab.
Why don' t we approach it with a real world, free market solution. What would you do in your business if someone didn't pay you? You would probably cut them off, or demand payment up front. The problem is not lack of health insurance, the majority of people that currently lack health insurance could afford if they wanted to. The problem is a lack of personal responsibility, and gov't takeover won't help that issue.
I am afraid that this bill will divide our country more than anything has in years. I do not profess to know what is going to happen but it is my feeling that it won't be good and will involve stuff that no one likes. We will just have to wait and see. By 2012 it will either be withdrawn or the country will be split and at war (just a guess). Good luck to us.
0
I am afraid that this bill will divide our country more than anything has in years. I do not profess to know what is going to happen but it is my feeling that it won't be good and will involve stuff that no one likes. We will just have to wait and see. By 2012 it will either be withdrawn or the country will be split and at war (just a guess). Good luck to us.
43% of medical costs are never paid. That is the main factor for the high cost of insurance and medical care. How does your idea change that?
How does this bill fix that? Other than making all other citizens responible for the unpaid bar tab.
Why don' t we approach it with a real world, free market solution. What would you do in your business if someone didn't pay you? You would probably cut them off, or demand payment up front. The problem is not lack of health insurance, the majority of people that currently lack health insurance could afford if they wanted to. The problem is a lack of personal responsibility, and gov't takeover won't help that issue.
So your idea is to require people to pay medical expenses upfront?
I hope you are never in a position of not having money to pay for a medical procedure. It can happen to anyone.
0
Quote Originally Posted by juelesbenedict:
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
43% of medical costs are never paid. That is the main factor for the high cost of insurance and medical care. How does your idea change that?
How does this bill fix that? Other than making all other citizens responible for the unpaid bar tab.
Why don' t we approach it with a real world, free market solution. What would you do in your business if someone didn't pay you? You would probably cut them off, or demand payment up front. The problem is not lack of health insurance, the majority of people that currently lack health insurance could afford if they wanted to. The problem is a lack of personal responsibility, and gov't takeover won't help that issue.
So your idea is to require people to pay medical expenses upfront?
I hope you are never in a position of not having money to pay for a medical procedure. It can happen to anyone.
You wouldn't go to a restaurant and order food off the menu with no money. If you did you would be kicked out, or arrested. Healthcare is not a right, it is a privelege that comes with being a productive member of society and having a job. Now back to the restaurant analogy, there are obviosly food kitchens and shelters to assist those with no money that are hungry. Non-profit orgs can set up free health care clinics, or urgent cares to treat those with no means of paying. But if you go to a private sector clinic, you don't get treatment. That sounds cold to you I am sure, but that is what is needed to get costs in line. If you have to wait longer for care in a free clinic, sorry, you should have bought insurance. Just like people at shelters don't complain about the food, they are just happy to eat.
0
You wouldn't go to a restaurant and order food off the menu with no money. If you did you would be kicked out, or arrested. Healthcare is not a right, it is a privelege that comes with being a productive member of society and having a job. Now back to the restaurant analogy, there are obviosly food kitchens and shelters to assist those with no money that are hungry. Non-profit orgs can set up free health care clinics, or urgent cares to treat those with no means of paying. But if you go to a private sector clinic, you don't get treatment. That sounds cold to you I am sure, but that is what is needed to get costs in line. If you have to wait longer for care in a free clinic, sorry, you should have bought insurance. Just like people at shelters don't complain about the food, they are just happy to eat.
So your idea is to require people to pay medical expenses upfront?
I hope you are never in a position of not having money to pay for a medical procedure. It can happen to anyone.
Only those with no insurance. Right now there is no incentive for the uninsured to get insurance. They know that if they don't have insurance, society will just pick up the tab.
0
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
So your idea is to require people to pay medical expenses upfront?
I hope you are never in a position of not having money to pay for a medical procedure. It can happen to anyone.
Only those with no insurance. Right now there is no incentive for the uninsured to get insurance. They know that if they don't have insurance, society will just pick up the tab.
You wouldn't go to a restaurant and order food off the menu with no money. If you did you would be kicked out, or arrested. Healthcare is not a right, it is a privelege that comes with being a productive member of society and having a job. Now back to the restaurant analogy, there are obviosly food kitchens and shelters to assist those with no money that are hungry. Non-profit orgs can set up free health care clinics, or urgent cares to treat those with no means of paying. But if you go to a private sector clinic, you don't get treatment. That sounds cold to you I am sure, but that is what is needed to get costs in line. If you have to wait longer for care in a free clinic, sorry, you should have bought insurance. Just like people at shelters don't complain about the food, they are just happy to eat.
So naive.
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
Quote Originally Posted by juelesbenedict:
You wouldn't go to a restaurant and order food off the menu with no money. If you did you would be kicked out, or arrested. Healthcare is not a right, it is a privelege that comes with being a productive member of society and having a job. Now back to the restaurant analogy, there are obviosly food kitchens and shelters to assist those with no money that are hungry. Non-profit orgs can set up free health care clinics, or urgent cares to treat those with no means of paying. But if you go to a private sector clinic, you don't get treatment. That sounds cold to you I am sure, but that is what is needed to get costs in line. If you have to wait longer for care in a free clinic, sorry, you should have bought insurance. Just like people at shelters don't complain about the food, they are just happy to eat.
When you tax people more, there's now less money floating around from business to business (The American people run these business, and pay other AMericans, its all a cycle). When you give the government your money, you hope they can use it wisely to generate more of it. If they do not and spend poorly, its guarenteed to LOSE. The governemnt should not be involved with telling people what they need to buy. Its their job to govern people, to lead them in a direction, and not FORCE the ways.
0
When you tax people more, there's now less money floating around from business to business (The American people run these business, and pay other AMericans, its all a cycle). When you give the government your money, you hope they can use it wisely to generate more of it. If they do not and spend poorly, its guarenteed to LOSE. The governemnt should not be involved with telling people what they need to buy. Its their job to govern people, to lead them in a direction, and not FORCE the ways.
Its funny how you read that article, and choose to point out the things you do above, but DONT point out:
1. Your Kids are Covered 2. You Can't be Dropped 3. You Can't be Denied Insurance 4. You Can Spend What You Need to 5. You Don't Have to Wait 6. You Must be Insured 7. You'll Have More Options 8. Flexible Spending Accounts Will Become Less Flexible 9. If You Earn More, You'll Pay More 10. Medicare May Cover More or Less of Your Expenses
Out of all of that, you point out that IF YOU EARN MORE THAN 250K PER YEAR, you will have to pay 3.8% on a portion of your income. Jeez, thats horrible.
Im just amazed that anyone could read that article - or any article like it - and somehow say that overall this is not a great thing.
Van, for your information i was agreeing with all the things on the list and was only pointing out a couple of things i didnt agree with. Maybe you should ask questions next time before you jump to conclusions. Also i didnt cathc the part about only incomes over 250k being taxed an extra 3.8 percent, thought it was for all incomes.
I still dont know why they have to wait until 2014 to make the rule that insurance companies have to take people with pre existing conditions coverage. Why the 4 year wait.
Very dissapointed with you Van, you know me better then that.
0
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:
Its funny how you read that article, and choose to point out the things you do above, but DONT point out:
1. Your Kids are Covered 2. You Can't be Dropped 3. You Can't be Denied Insurance 4. You Can Spend What You Need to 5. You Don't Have to Wait 6. You Must be Insured 7. You'll Have More Options 8. Flexible Spending Accounts Will Become Less Flexible 9. If You Earn More, You'll Pay More 10. Medicare May Cover More or Less of Your Expenses
Out of all of that, you point out that IF YOU EARN MORE THAN 250K PER YEAR, you will have to pay 3.8% on a portion of your income. Jeez, thats horrible.
Im just amazed that anyone could read that article - or any article like it - and somehow say that overall this is not a great thing.
Van, for your information i was agreeing with all the things on the list and was only pointing out a couple of things i didnt agree with. Maybe you should ask questions next time before you jump to conclusions. Also i didnt cathc the part about only incomes over 250k being taxed an extra 3.8 percent, thought it was for all incomes.
I still dont know why they have to wait until 2014 to make the rule that insurance companies have to take people with pre existing conditions coverage. Why the 4 year wait.
Very dissapointed with you Van, you know me better then that.
Vanzach i usually like your posts however his point at the end makes a vaild argument. You may call it being naive, but its how the world should work. People have options, they have an option to pay for health care, and to not pay for it. Those who choose to pay for it spend their hard earned money for a serivce they may never even use, but when they need it, its always there. So in turn they may lose money if they never use the service. They always have the clear mind as having INSURANCE to back their daily lives. Those that do not choose to pay for it make that their option. INstead they use that money else where, somewhere where they know they get something for that they have spent their earned money on. If they do not choose to pay for a service, they shouldn't expect the same service that those who do pay receive. People pay for a gym membership to stay healthy, some do not. Others spend that money harming their body. The person going to the gym more then likley will not need to visit the hospital as much as someone who doesn't. They like to maintain a healthy life style, and health insurance is a healthy life style. They may never use the insurance, but they are the ones bulding this economy. They pay for a serivce they rarley ever use, they allow that money to grow and not be spent. The person spending the health insurance payment money else where is probably harming, and not maintaining their body. They are more then likely to visit the hospital more often then the person going to the gym. They inturn are sucking money that could be used to generate more, while not paying it back, or paying for the insurance of ever having to use that money for a service that may be more then what they have paid. Beggers can not be choosers.
0
Vanzach i usually like your posts however his point at the end makes a vaild argument. You may call it being naive, but its how the world should work. People have options, they have an option to pay for health care, and to not pay for it. Those who choose to pay for it spend their hard earned money for a serivce they may never even use, but when they need it, its always there. So in turn they may lose money if they never use the service. They always have the clear mind as having INSURANCE to back their daily lives. Those that do not choose to pay for it make that their option. INstead they use that money else where, somewhere where they know they get something for that they have spent their earned money on. If they do not choose to pay for a service, they shouldn't expect the same service that those who do pay receive. People pay for a gym membership to stay healthy, some do not. Others spend that money harming their body. The person going to the gym more then likley will not need to visit the hospital as much as someone who doesn't. They like to maintain a healthy life style, and health insurance is a healthy life style. They may never use the insurance, but they are the ones bulding this economy. They pay for a serivce they rarley ever use, they allow that money to grow and not be spent. The person spending the health insurance payment money else where is probably harming, and not maintaining their body. They are more then likely to visit the hospital more often then the person going to the gym. They inturn are sucking money that could be used to generate more, while not paying it back, or paying for the insurance of ever having to use that money for a service that may be more then what they have paid. Beggers can not be choosers.
Vanzach i usually like your posts however his point at the end makes a vaild argument. You may call it being naive, but its how the world should work. People have options, they have an option to pay for health care, and to not pay for it. Those who choose to pay for it spend their hard earned money for a serivce they may never even use, but when they need it, its always there. So in turn they may lose money if they never use the service. They always have the clear mind as having INSURANCE to back their daily lives. Those that do not choose to pay for it make that their option. INstead they use that money else where, somewhere where they know they get something for that they have spent their earned money on. If they do not choose to pay for a service, they shouldn't expect the same service that those who do pay receive. People pay for a gym membership to stay healthy, some do not. Others spend that money harming their body. The person going to the gym more then likley will not need to visit the hospital as much as someone who doesn't. They like to maintain a healthy life style, and health insurance is a healthy life style. They may never use the insurance, but they are the ones bulding this economy. They pay for a serivce they rarley ever use, they allow that money to grow and not be spent. The person spending the health insurance payment money else where is probably harming, and not maintaining their body. They are more then likely to visit the hospital more often then the person going to the gym. They inturn are sucking money that could be used to generate more, while not paying it back, or paying for the insurance of ever having to use that money for a service that may be more then what they have paid. Beggers can not be choosers.
I asked you to provide facts in post 56. Look forward to your factual answer.
0
Quote Originally Posted by BigGame90:
Vanzach i usually like your posts however his point at the end makes a vaild argument. You may call it being naive, but its how the world should work. People have options, they have an option to pay for health care, and to not pay for it. Those who choose to pay for it spend their hard earned money for a serivce they may never even use, but when they need it, its always there. So in turn they may lose money if they never use the service. They always have the clear mind as having INSURANCE to back their daily lives. Those that do not choose to pay for it make that their option. INstead they use that money else where, somewhere where they know they get something for that they have spent their earned money on. If they do not choose to pay for a service, they shouldn't expect the same service that those who do pay receive. People pay for a gym membership to stay healthy, some do not. Others spend that money harming their body. The person going to the gym more then likley will not need to visit the hospital as much as someone who doesn't. They like to maintain a healthy life style, and health insurance is a healthy life style. They may never use the insurance, but they are the ones bulding this economy. They pay for a serivce they rarley ever use, they allow that money to grow and not be spent. The person spending the health insurance payment money else where is probably harming, and not maintaining their body. They are more then likely to visit the hospital more often then the person going to the gym. They inturn are sucking money that could be used to generate more, while not paying it back, or paying for the insurance of ever having to use that money for a service that may be more then what they have paid. Beggers can not be choosers.
I asked you to provide facts in post 56. Look forward to your factual answer.
You wouldn't go to a restaurant and order food off the menu with no money. If you did you would be kicked out, or arrested.Healthcare is not a right, it is a privelege that comes with being a productive member of society and having a job. Now back to the restaurant analogy, there are obviosly food kitchens and shelters to assist those with no money that are hungry. Non-profit orgs can set up free health care clinics, or urgent cares to treat those with no means of paying. But if you go to a private sector clinic, you don't get treatment. That sounds cold to you I am sure, but that is what is needed to get costs in line. If you have to wait longer for care in a free clinic, sorry, you should have bought insurance. Just like people at shelters don't complain about the food, they are just happy to eat.
Under Obamacare you can go into a restaurant and order whatever you want without money ..and NOT get kicked out or arrested ..
What you do after eating is just hand the check to the guy at the table next to you and he HAS to pay the bill + the tip .....
0
Quote Originally Posted by juelesbenedict:
You wouldn't go to a restaurant and order food off the menu with no money. If you did you would be kicked out, or arrested.Healthcare is not a right, it is a privelege that comes with being a productive member of society and having a job. Now back to the restaurant analogy, there are obviosly food kitchens and shelters to assist those with no money that are hungry. Non-profit orgs can set up free health care clinics, or urgent cares to treat those with no means of paying. But if you go to a private sector clinic, you don't get treatment. That sounds cold to you I am sure, but that is what is needed to get costs in line. If you have to wait longer for care in a free clinic, sorry, you should have bought insurance. Just like people at shelters don't complain about the food, they are just happy to eat.
Under Obamacare you can go into a restaurant and order whatever you want without money ..and NOT get kicked out or arrested ..
What you do after eating is just hand the check to the guy at the table next to you and he HAS to pay the bill + the tip .....
DJ my computer will not open that file.... my words may have been wrong about not paying it back.... i guess what i meant to say was; people that do not pay for the monthly payments should not have the same treatment as those that do. Also, people that make more money should not have to pay more for the same service that some who pays less gets. Its not fair, and it does not help this country.
0
DJ my computer will not open that file.... my words may have been wrong about not paying it back.... i guess what i meant to say was; people that do not pay for the monthly payments should not have the same treatment as those that do. Also, people that make more money should not have to pay more for the same service that some who pays less gets. Its not fair, and it does not help this country.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
