You could mention Bill Tauzin and Rick Scott, and that would be the only damn reason that you would need to convince people to vote against "for profit" healthcare.
0
You could mention Bill Tauzin and Rick Scott, and that would be the only damn reason that you would need to convince people to vote against "for profit" healthcare.
If the Senate Healthcare Bill, that requires all Americans to purchase health insurance is such a good deal...then why are the Senate, other members of Congress and their staff exempt ?
..are they notAmericans?
Since when does ALL Americans not mean ALL Americans..?
Even an amendment introduced to the bill, - that would require all members of Congress and congressional staff to get their employer-based health insurance through the same exchanges -was refused to even be allowed a vote on the matter ........ twice the amendment was denied even a chance for debate..
.. hypocrtical double standard...
All animals are equal, but those in the US Congress and their staff ..who are much more equal than others...
0
If the Senate Healthcare Bill, that requires all Americans to purchase health insurance is such a good deal...then why are the Senate, other members of Congress and their staff exempt ?
..are they notAmericans?
Since when does ALL Americans not mean ALL Americans..?
Even an amendment introduced to the bill, - that would require all members of Congress and congressional staff to get their employer-based health insurance through the same exchanges -was refused to even be allowed a vote on the matter ........ twice the amendment was denied even a chance for debate..
.. hypocrtical double standard...
All animals are equal, but those in the US Congress and their staff ..who are much more equal than others...
Vice President Joe Biden wrote in an op-ed in The New York Times Sunday that "While it is not perfect, the bill pending in the Senate today is not just good enough -- it is very good.
0
Vice President Joe Biden wrote in an op-ed in The New York Times Sunday that "While it is not perfect, the bill pending in the Senate today is not just good enough -- it is very good.
12/16/09 President Obama: The Senate 'On The Precipice' Of Passing Health Care Reform ..... Obama said anyone who reads the bill will see its a good bill. ...
0
12/16/09 President Obama: The Senate 'On The Precipice' Of Passing Health Care Reform ..... Obama said anyone who reads the bill will see its a good bill. ...
kaplan - if you assume that healthcare is a right and it shouldnt be done for profit...would you say that food and shelter are even more important as rights?
you can go without the first but not the second two
also, the word reform is a bullshit politico speak word and means nothing
reform in this case means - government takeover
in other cases it can mean destruction of federal spending plans or whatever
if you hate both parties and argue for a non profit health sector, you are most likely in bernie sanders socialist camp which is fine however you need to answer a few questions:
-without profit, do you think drugs will be produced? do you think Pfizer and others will spend billions on R&D? -without profit, do you think doctors will take out 200k in med school loans? tough to pay it back working 80 hours a week and making 71k (avg govt salary) -in your ideal system, HC should be "free" but nothing is free, who pays for it? if its government paid where does government get the money?
socialism and liberalism are spineless ideologies...they require nothing more than the desire to pickpocket the producers and to whine about the recipients not having access (code word for "free shit").
0
kaplan - if you assume that healthcare is a right and it shouldnt be done for profit...would you say that food and shelter are even more important as rights?
you can go without the first but not the second two
also, the word reform is a bullshit politico speak word and means nothing
reform in this case means - government takeover
in other cases it can mean destruction of federal spending plans or whatever
if you hate both parties and argue for a non profit health sector, you are most likely in bernie sanders socialist camp which is fine however you need to answer a few questions:
-without profit, do you think drugs will be produced? do you think Pfizer and others will spend billions on R&D? -without profit, do you think doctors will take out 200k in med school loans? tough to pay it back working 80 hours a week and making 71k (avg govt salary) -in your ideal system, HC should be "free" but nothing is free, who pays for it? if its government paid where does government get the money?
socialism and liberalism are spineless ideologies...they require nothing more than the desire to pickpocket the producers and to whine about the recipients not having access (code word for "free shit").
when you have a culture that supports a lifestyle of being........ ...
well, lets just say an unhealthy lifestyle
what good is this reform?
i am a betting man, i wish i could place a prop bet on some of this promises that are being made by our exhalted leaders
until you can fix the poverty and urban inequlaity of life, coupled with the inefficiencies that persist in the veterans health care system, education system, and social security system-----health care will become another federal reserve note sucking machine
merry chriatmas koaj
0
good points kj
when you have a culture that supports a lifestyle of being........ ...
well, lets just say an unhealthy lifestyle
what good is this reform?
i am a betting man, i wish i could place a prop bet on some of this promises that are being made by our exhalted leaders
until you can fix the poverty and urban inequlaity of life, coupled with the inefficiencies that persist in the veterans health care system, education system, and social security system-----health care will become another federal reserve note sucking machine
And I have answered the question on this many times, but once again....if the current system is working so well, why are less people insured this year than the year before and the year before that? Why are less employers offering? What is the ultimate result of this?
i dunno, maybe the solution is to let it play out? the ultimate result should then be, over time, everyone ends up uninsured and then the doctors and potential patients can get down to business. So what you are saying is, the "health" ""insurance"" industry will self implode unless the gov't steps in and gives them another trillion+? and the solution is to give them the 'money' and then problem solved?
can you see why that sounds confusing?
Sure its confusing. There are two ways of dealing with this. 1) Go to the old Asian way. If you don't have insurance or money, you don't get medical treatment. Similar to purchasing goods or services. If people die in front of hospitals, so be it. If you are walking with your kids down the street and stepping over dead people, so be it.
Or we find a way to insure those that don't have insurance or make sure that they have insurance. The entire problem (or great thing) is that we don't do the above. We don't turn people away because of money. What we do is we don't provide treatment unless you have the money, so the most expensive medical care (emergency care) becomes a cost to the system, when people aren't turned away for such care.
The current plan does some of this. It certainly isn't perfect, but for you "free market": guys it allows insurance companies to compete, and really doesn't regulate nor provide a public option, to the dismay of many on the left.
Letting it play out is the worst option. You simply cannot allow an unsustainable situation play out.
0
Quote Originally Posted by be easy:
And I have answered the question on this many times, but once again....if the current system is working so well, why are less people insured this year than the year before and the year before that? Why are less employers offering? What is the ultimate result of this?
i dunno, maybe the solution is to let it play out? the ultimate result should then be, over time, everyone ends up uninsured and then the doctors and potential patients can get down to business. So what you are saying is, the "health" ""insurance"" industry will self implode unless the gov't steps in and gives them another trillion+? and the solution is to give them the 'money' and then problem solved?
can you see why that sounds confusing?
Sure its confusing. There are two ways of dealing with this. 1) Go to the old Asian way. If you don't have insurance or money, you don't get medical treatment. Similar to purchasing goods or services. If people die in front of hospitals, so be it. If you are walking with your kids down the street and stepping over dead people, so be it.
Or we find a way to insure those that don't have insurance or make sure that they have insurance. The entire problem (or great thing) is that we don't do the above. We don't turn people away because of money. What we do is we don't provide treatment unless you have the money, so the most expensive medical care (emergency care) becomes a cost to the system, when people aren't turned away for such care.
The current plan does some of this. It certainly isn't perfect, but for you "free market": guys it allows insurance companies to compete, and really doesn't regulate nor provide a public option, to the dismay of many on the left.
Letting it play out is the worst option. You simply cannot allow an unsustainable situation play out.
If the Senate Healthcare Bill, that requires all Americans to purchase health insurance is such a good deal...then why are the Senate, other members of Congress and their staff exempt ?
..are they notAmericans?
Since when does ALL Americans not mean ALL Americans..?
Even an amendment introduced to the bill, - that would require all members of Congress and congressional staff to get their employer-based health insurance through the same exchanges -was refused to even be allowed a vote on the matter ........ twice the amendment was denied even a chance for debate..
.. hypocrtical double standard...
All animals are equal, but those in the US Congress and their staff ..who are much more equal than others...
I think you are referring to the old plan where the government employees maintained their private plan, despite most federal employees going on the public option. I have a copy of the plan next to me and their isn't anything that exempts government employees from carrying health coverage.
0
Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim:
If the Senate Healthcare Bill, that requires all Americans to purchase health insurance is such a good deal...then why are the Senate, other members of Congress and their staff exempt ?
..are they notAmericans?
Since when does ALL Americans not mean ALL Americans..?
Even an amendment introduced to the bill, - that would require all members of Congress and congressional staff to get their employer-based health insurance through the same exchanges -was refused to even be allowed a vote on the matter ........ twice the amendment was denied even a chance for debate..
.. hypocrtical double standard...
All animals are equal, but those in the US Congress and their staff ..who are much more equal than others...
I think you are referring to the old plan where the government employees maintained their private plan, despite most federal employees going on the public option. I have a copy of the plan next to me and their isn't anything that exempts government employees from carrying health coverage.
i am a betting man, i wish i could place a prop bet on some of this promises that are being made by our exhalted leaders
good god damn, rooster! i'd like to retire early, and know that there's no easy quick way to do it, but hell if we could make prop bets like that, we'd be swimming in it
0
i am a betting man, i wish i could place a prop bet on some of this promises that are being made by our exhalted leaders
good god damn, rooster! i'd like to retire early, and know that there's no easy quick way to do it, but hell if we could make prop bets like that, we'd be swimming in it
You can thank President Bush's prescription drug overhaul from preventing Canadian and other prescription drug imports (still ways around that, but....).
0
Quote Originally Posted by rooster010:
import drugs man
You can thank President Bush's prescription drug overhaul from preventing Canadian and other prescription drug imports (still ways around that, but....).
Sure its confusing. There are two ways of dealing with this. 1) Go to the old Asian way. If you don't have insurance or money, you don't get medical treatment. Similar to purchasing goods or services. If people die in front of hospitals, so be it. If you are walking with your kids down the street and stepping over dead people, so be it.
Or we find a way to insure those that don't have insurance or make sure that they have insurance. The entire problem (or great thing) is that we don't do the above. We don't turn people away because of money. What we do is we don't provide treatment unless you have the money, so the most expensive medical care (emergency care) becomes a cost to the system, when people aren't turned away for such care.
The current plan does some of this. It certainly isn't perfect, but for you "free market": guys it allows insurance companies to compete, and really doesn't regulate nor provide a public option, to the dismay of many on the left.
Letting it play out is the worst option. You simply cannot allow an unsustainable situation play out.
So we don't turn anyone away, so in essence everyone is already covered. The plan is to find a way to PAY for them. And we're gonna do it thru taxes. That doesn't sound like it's saving money in any way shape or form. Just sounds like forcing someone else to pay for it at gunpoint.
Djbrow, what effect do you feel the 600+B gift the gov't gives the drugcare industry thru medicare has had on prices?
0
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
Sure its confusing. There are two ways of dealing with this. 1) Go to the old Asian way. If you don't have insurance or money, you don't get medical treatment. Similar to purchasing goods or services. If people die in front of hospitals, so be it. If you are walking with your kids down the street and stepping over dead people, so be it.
Or we find a way to insure those that don't have insurance or make sure that they have insurance. The entire problem (or great thing) is that we don't do the above. We don't turn people away because of money. What we do is we don't provide treatment unless you have the money, so the most expensive medical care (emergency care) becomes a cost to the system, when people aren't turned away for such care.
The current plan does some of this. It certainly isn't perfect, but for you "free market": guys it allows insurance companies to compete, and really doesn't regulate nor provide a public option, to the dismay of many on the left.
Letting it play out is the worst option. You simply cannot allow an unsustainable situation play out.
So we don't turn anyone away, so in essence everyone is already covered. The plan is to find a way to PAY for them. And we're gonna do it thru taxes. That doesn't sound like it's saving money in any way shape or form. Just sounds like forcing someone else to pay for it at gunpoint.
Djbrow, what effect do you feel the 600+B gift the gov't gives the drugcare industry thru medicare has had on prices?
You can thank President Bush's prescription drug overhaul from preventing Canadian and other prescription drug imports (still ways around that, but....).
i have much disdain for all three of the bush family that have served our great nation
prescott, gb(1), gb(2)
dont know that florida kid too well
0
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
You can thank President Bush's prescription drug overhaul from preventing Canadian and other prescription drug imports (still ways around that, but....).
i have much disdain for all three of the bush family that have served our great nation
Okay. So what to do. Continue to operate the healthare system as we have? Does the right have any ideas?
1. End lawsuits against doctors
2. Allow interstate insurance purchases.
Both noble approaches, but neither comes close to making even a baby step in the attempt to fix our healthcare debacle.
If I'm not mistaken, ending lawsuits is not the main savings in tort reform driving up insurance costs. That seems to be the short-sighted, simplistic view of people who don't see the value in tort reform. The real savings come in the form of doctors not having to perform so many tests and practicing "defensive medicine".
This is a personal example from my own experience: I went to donate blood at a red cross blood drive and I was rejected due to high blood pressure. The lady said to go have it checked out. At the doc's office he checked it and said it's a little high and recommended a couple cycles of little pills and we will re-evaluate it afterwards. He then asked about my insurance and I told him, he said "let's run a few more tests just to be safe". I got bloodwork done, a chest x-ray, and one other thing where he put sticky patches all over my torso that were wired to some other machine. I wonder now if I would have those same tests had I not had "good" insurance. I never understood why until I learned a little about defensive medicine. Not sure what all those extra tests were but I'm glad he did them and they didn't cost me anything extra out of pocket but I would guess they were not cheap.
0
Quote Originally Posted by kaplan:
Okay. So what to do. Continue to operate the healthare system as we have? Does the right have any ideas?
1. End lawsuits against doctors
2. Allow interstate insurance purchases.
Both noble approaches, but neither comes close to making even a baby step in the attempt to fix our healthcare debacle.
If I'm not mistaken, ending lawsuits is not the main savings in tort reform driving up insurance costs. That seems to be the short-sighted, simplistic view of people who don't see the value in tort reform. The real savings come in the form of doctors not having to perform so many tests and practicing "defensive medicine".
This is a personal example from my own experience: I went to donate blood at a red cross blood drive and I was rejected due to high blood pressure. The lady said to go have it checked out. At the doc's office he checked it and said it's a little high and recommended a couple cycles of little pills and we will re-evaluate it afterwards. He then asked about my insurance and I told him, he said "let's run a few more tests just to be safe". I got bloodwork done, a chest x-ray, and one other thing where he put sticky patches all over my torso that were wired to some other machine. I wonder now if I would have those same tests had I not had "good" insurance. I never understood why until I learned a little about defensive medicine. Not sure what all those extra tests were but I'm glad he did them and they didn't cost me anything extra out of pocket but I would guess they were not cheap.
kaplan - if you assume that healthcare is a right and it shouldnt be done for profit...would you say that food and shelter are even more important as rights?
you can go without the first but not the second two
also, the word reform is a bullshit politico speak word and means nothing
reform in this case means - government takeover
in other cases it can mean destruction of federal spending plans or whatever
if you hate both parties and argue for a non profit health sector, you are most likely in bernie sanders socialist camp which is fine however you need to answer a few questions:
-without profit, do you think drugs will be produced? do you think Pfizer and others will spend billions on R&D? -without profit, do you think doctors will take out 200k in med school loans? tough to pay it back working 80 hours a week and making 71k (avg govt salary) -in your ideal system, HC should be "free" but nothing is free, who pays for it? if its government paid where does government get the money?
socialism and liberalism are spineless ideologies...they require nothing more than the desire to pickpocket the producers and to whine about the recipients not having access (code word for "free shit").
I realize that in the "I've got mine, screw everyone else world" which is even more of a spineless ideology than socialism, our system would be such one doesn't receive any form of medical treatment without CIH (cash in hand), but we are never going to go to that approach (god willing). Sorry man. So based on that, how to we resolve the system?
You can go on and on about taxes, spinless ideologies, etc. but our system itself creates disproportionalities on all sides. The lower and middle class paying a higher share of proportional taxes which go to roads, highways, schools, police, firemen, rescue, parks, etc., yet all of those services disproportionally help who? Not the lower and lower middle classes. For all your talk of leeches, it just simply is code for "I've got mine, I use mine to find ways to pay as little as possible, I don't agree with paying anything at all and anyone who benefits from taxes are leeches." Classy. Fucking classy.
0
Quote Originally Posted by KOAJ:
kaplan - if you assume that healthcare is a right and it shouldnt be done for profit...would you say that food and shelter are even more important as rights?
you can go without the first but not the second two
also, the word reform is a bullshit politico speak word and means nothing
reform in this case means - government takeover
in other cases it can mean destruction of federal spending plans or whatever
if you hate both parties and argue for a non profit health sector, you are most likely in bernie sanders socialist camp which is fine however you need to answer a few questions:
-without profit, do you think drugs will be produced? do you think Pfizer and others will spend billions on R&D? -without profit, do you think doctors will take out 200k in med school loans? tough to pay it back working 80 hours a week and making 71k (avg govt salary) -in your ideal system, HC should be "free" but nothing is free, who pays for it? if its government paid where does government get the money?
socialism and liberalism are spineless ideologies...they require nothing more than the desire to pickpocket the producers and to whine about the recipients not having access (code word for "free shit").
I realize that in the "I've got mine, screw everyone else world" which is even more of a spineless ideology than socialism, our system would be such one doesn't receive any form of medical treatment without CIH (cash in hand), but we are never going to go to that approach (god willing). Sorry man. So based on that, how to we resolve the system?
You can go on and on about taxes, spinless ideologies, etc. but our system itself creates disproportionalities on all sides. The lower and middle class paying a higher share of proportional taxes which go to roads, highways, schools, police, firemen, rescue, parks, etc., yet all of those services disproportionally help who? Not the lower and lower middle classes. For all your talk of leeches, it just simply is code for "I've got mine, I use mine to find ways to pay as little as possible, I don't agree with paying anything at all and anyone who benefits from taxes are leeches." Classy. Fucking classy.
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.
can you see why that sounds confusing?
Hot Forum Topics
