Obama Care Could Be Deadly

[quote name='lawdood']There's no law that requires you not to commit murders either. But there are laws that punish you if you do, just as it is with auto insurance, at least here in California.[/QUOTE]

As I said earlier...

[quote name='UncleBob'](and yes, fining people if they don't have insurance counts just the same)[/QUOTE]

I will give a $25 Amazon Gift Card to the first person who can point me to any Federal, State or Local law that requires all US citizens covered by the jurisdiction of said law to have automotive insurance.

$25 Gift Card. Show it to me. Anyone?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']The government should run health care? Really? Does anyone really believe that's a good idea?

The same government that runs Amtrack, the same Amtrack which has posted a loss for every one of the last 40 years?
The same government runs the postal service - that posted a 2.4 BILLION DOLLAR loss for last quarter, and expects to lose 7 BILLION more in the next year?
This same government runs Medicaid, which by their own admission is crippled with inefficiency and corruption?

So I ask again, who wants to admit they believe it is a good idea to hand the healthcare wheel over to these people?

Finally, by the government's own bloated figures, of the 46 million people without health care, half are eligible for coverage through work or medicaid. Much of the balance of the other 23 million are the laziest, no account, high school drop out bums in the country. By giving them free health care for life and making hard working people like me pay for it, you are giving them another reason to keep their fat asses on their couches for good.[/QUOTE]

Um, Medicaid is administered by the states.

And who is giving anyone free healthcare? Please link to facts to support your claims.

Also, please link to facts that the 23 million you claim are actually just lazy, no account, high school bums...or are you just coming up with that in your own mind after believing everything right wing talk show hosts, who get all their talking points from the for-profit insurance industry, tell you?

That same government you mentioned runs the VA, military healthcare and medicare, some of the best healthcare systems in the country. None of which have insurance number crunchers and bottom line watchers coming between you and your doctor.

[quote name='UncleBob']As I said earlier...



I will give a $25 Amazon Gift Card to the first person who can point me to any Federal, State or Local law that requires all US citizens covered by the jurisdiction of said law to have automotive insurance.

$25 Gift Card. Show it to me. Anyone?[/QUOTE]

We can just require those that choose not to have healthcare to put up multi-thousand dollar bonds instead like they do in California, perhaps that would make you happy? Or do you just want to continue playing juvenile games?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']
I will give a $25 Amazon Gift Card to the first person who can point me to any Federal, State or Local law that requires all US citizens covered by the jurisdiction of said law to have automotive insurance.

$25 Gift Card. Show it to me. Anyone?[/QUOTE]

[FONT=&quot]601 KAR 1:101. Proof of liability and cargo insurance.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] RELATES TO: KRS 281.600, 281.655, 281.656, 281.670, 281.990, 49 C.F.R. Parts 387, 1023, 1043[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] STATUTORY AUTHORITY: KRS 281.600, 49 C.F.R. Parts 387, 1023, 1043[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] NECESSITY, FUNCTION, AND CONFORMITY: KRS 281.655(1) requires that before any certificate or permit will be issued or renewed, the applicant or holder shall file with the department an approved indemnifying bond or insurance policy. This administrative regulation establishes a system of insurance filings for all motor carriers operating in intrastate commerce or which have been registered in Kentucky pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR Part 1023.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Section 1. Proof of Insurance of Interstate Exempt and Intrastate Motor Carriers. (1) Evidence of insurance required by KRS 281.655(1) shall be filed for motor carriers operating in intrastate commerce and those operating in interstate commerce but which are exempt from the authority of the Interstate Commerce Commission with the Division of Motor Carriers in the form of a certificate of insurance. The certificate of insurance shall be written to show the term of the policy to be continuous until cancelled under proper notice. Another form of evidence of insurance shall not be accepted.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] (2) The certificate of bodily injury and property damage insurance shall be on form TC 95-211, "Uniform Motor Carrier Bodily Injury and Property Damage Liability Certificate of Insurance" revised April, 1988.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] (3) All household goods motor carriers shall file proof of cargo insurance on form TC 95-212, "Uniform Motor Carrier Cargo Certificate of Insurance" revised April, 1988.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] (4)(a) Cancellation of insurance required to be filed pursuant to KRS 281.655(9) shall be effected through the filing of form TC 95-213, "Uniform Notice of Cancellation of Motor Carrier Insurance Policies" revised April, 1988.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] (b) Notice of the reinstatement of insurance which was cancelled pursuant to subparagraph (a) of this subsection shall be as set forth in subsections (2) and (3) of this section.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Section 2. Insurance - Interstate Authorized Carriers. (1) Provisions of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 387 as effective January 11, 1995 and 49 CFR Part 1043.2 as effective November 13, 1990, shall govern the minimum amounts of liability insurance of a motor carrier of property or passengers authorized to do so by the Interstate Commerce Commission.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] (2) In accordance with 49 CFR Part 1023, Interstate Commerce Commission authorized motor carriers registered in Kentucky pursuant to 601 KAR 1:040, Section 5 shall file proof of insurance with the Division of Motor Carriers on Form B.M.C. 91, "Motor Carrier Automobile Bodily Injury and Property Damage Liability Certificate of Insurance" revised by the Interstate Commerce Commission in January, 1982, or if more than one (1) insurance carrier is involved, Form B.M.C. 91X, "Motor Carrier Automobile Bodily Injury and Property Damage Liability Certificate of Insurance" revised by the Interstate Commerce Commission in January, 1982. These forms are incorporated by reference.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Section 3. Reinstatement of Insurance. A motor carrier desiring to file a reinstatement of insurance which has been cancelled shall file a new certificate of insurance as required by this administrative regulation.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Section 4. Self-insurers. (1) Persons applying in accordance with KRS 281.655(11) for an exemption in whole or in part, from the requirements of KRS 281.655(1), (5) and (6) shall file their application in petition form accompanied by a balance sheet and an income statement, as exhibits, which shall be prepared by a Certified Public Accountant or a responsible accounting officer of the applicant and shall reflect the actual financial condition of the applicant as of the last calendar quarter preceding the date of the application.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] (2) When an authorized carrier operating exclusively in interstate commerce has qualified as a self-insurer with the Interstate Commerce Commission, and that commission has entered an order allowing the carrier to qualify as a self-insurer, the applicant may file, as an exhibit, a certified copy of the ICC order with its application in lieu of a balance sheet and an income statement.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] (3) The cabinet shall, in its discretion, enter an order consistent with its opinion of the applicant's financial condition.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] (4) The order may be revoked by the cabinet at any time when it has reason to believe that the financial condition of the applicant has changed.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] (5) The cabinet may also require the filing of additional financial statements or at any time it has reason to believe the financial condition of the applicant has changed.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Section 5. Material Incorporated by Reference. (1) The following material is incorporated by reference:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] (a) Form TC 95-211, "Uniform Motor Carrier Bodily Injury and Property Damage Liability Certificate of Insurance", revised April 1988;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] (b) Form TC 95-212, "Uniform Motor Carrier Cargo Certificate of Insurance", revised April 1988; [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] (c) Form TC 95-213, "Uniform Notice of Cancellation of Motor Carrier Insurance Policies", revised April 1988;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] (d) Form B.M.C. 91, "Motor Carrier Automobile Bodily Injury and Property Damage Liability Certificate of Insurance", revised January 1982, Interstate Commerce Commission; and[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] (e) Form B.M.C. 91X, "Motor Carrier Automobile Bodily Injury and Property Damage Liability Certificate of Insurance", revised January 1982, Interstate Commerce Commission.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] (2) This material may be inspected, copied, or obtained at the Department of Vehicle Regulation, Division of Motor Carriers, Third Floor, State Office Building, 501 High Street, Frankfort, Kentucky 40622, Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. The telephone number is (502) 564-4540. (20 Ky.R. 1506; Am. 2330; eff. 2-10-94; 23 Ky.R. 1012; 1592; eff. 10-1-96.)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/kar/601/001/101.htm
[/FONT]

Are we close enough?
 
Howard Dean just slaughtered Newt Gingrich on "This Week."

There's no argument of substance against health care reform.

As Dean pointed out in response to Sarah Palin's twitter about "Obama's death panel" and the various arguments that "Obamacare" will euthanize your grandparents, in his career as a practicing physician, coverage/treatment was never denied as a part of medicare, and regularly bureaucratized, denied, refused payment of, or rescinded at the insistence of private insurance programs.

Now I knew that already, that the "euthanasia/eugenics" and "denied treatment" options were a red herring that sound good and are parroted by people who clearly didn't think critically about what they were saying. But Dean succinctly slew that beast. Now it's just a matter of hoping people will stop making such absurd arguments.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Are we close enough?[/QUOTE]

Nope.

Would anyone in the class like to provide the right answer?
 
I can't help but roll my eyebrows at the people who think the current system is fine, and that rationing health-care is a greater evil because coverage is denied to certain people. Even if coverage is denied in a lottery-style national health-care system, at least care would be apportioned to people on a random basis, rather than in the current system where the quality of the care you receive is largely a function of your socio-economic class or economic resources. As it stands we simply treat those who possess money as worthwhile while those without as detritus. Which is completely contrary to the ethics of equality this nation was supposedly founded on. But America has always more been about mouthing words rather than following them.


And to be clear: I have no issues with health care; my father owns a business, so I would be one to benefit from the current system.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Nope.

Would anyone in the class like to provide the right answer?[/QUOTE]

No one wants to play your stupid game. Either provide your own facts and explanations or GTFO.
 
[quote name='lawdood']No one wants to play your stupid game. Either provide your own facts and explanations or GTFO.[/QUOTE]

Dangit! I thought I told my stable of trained Ninja-Assassins to stop holding people at knife point, forcing them to read and respond to my posts. I'll resend that memo out right away and make sure everyone gets it this time.

So, for those who still can't seem to understand, I'll give you a big ol' hint - how many four year old girls have automotive insurance?
 
UncleBob, you're line of thinking is ludicrous.

The law states that if you drive you MUST buy auto insurance. You owe FOC $25.

Why would they make people who don't drive buy insurance? They wouldn't make dead people buy health insurance.

Living -> Buy health insurance

Driving -> Buy car insurance.


Easy as that.
 
[quote name='HowStern']UncleBob, you're line of thinking is ludicrous.

The law states that if you drive you MUST buy auto insurance. You owe FOC $25.[/quote]

No, I don't. I was very clear in my offer.
[quote name='UncleBob']I will give a $25 Amazon Gift Card to the first person who can point me to any Federal, State or Local law that requires all US citizens covered by the jurisdiction of said law to have automotive insurance.[/QUOTE]

Why would they make people who don't drive buy insurance? They wouldn't make dead people buy health insurance.

Living -> Buy health insurance

Driving -> Buy car insurance.

Easy as that.

See, that's where there's a huge difference between auto insurance and health insurance (aside from the "CARS ARE NOT PEOPLEZ", of course). No one is required to have auto insurance. If you don't want to take it out, you have the simple option of not operating a motor vehicle.

In a world where you are required by law to pay for health insurance, the only other option available is to kill yourself.
 
On an aside, all this talk about Princess Nancy and the Nazi-Symbolism makes me wonder where she was during the entire Bush era...
bush_nazi.jpg


Don't recall her speaking up against the same stuff then.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']No, I don't. I was very clear in my offer.




See, that's where there's a huge difference between auto insurance and health insurance (aside from the "CARS ARE NOT PEOPLEZ", of course). No one is required to have auto insurance. If you don't want to take it out, you have the simple option of not operating a motor vehicle.

In a world where you are required by law to pay for health insurance, the only other option available is to kill yourself.[/QUOTE]

No the other option is to pay the stupid fine so that the rest of don't foot the bill for those without insurance. Everyone pays their own way,
 
[quote name='UncleBob']On an aside, all this talk about Princess Nancy and the Nazi-Symbolism makes me wonder where she was during the entire Bush era...
bush_nazi.jpg


Don't recall her speaking up against the same stuff then.[/QUOTE]

That's because it wasn't this prevalent at Congressional townhalls and community meetings. Please, by all means, show us where "average" citizens were showing up with posters like that.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Lawdood:

Try not to respond to Bob's irrelevant meandering.

Trust me.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, you're right. my bad. ;)
 
Could it be? Government corruption in the health care bill!
The NYT is reporting that PhRMA will spend $150 million in advertising to support the White House health care plan in August:
The drug industry has already contributed millions of dollars to advertising campaigns for the health care overhaul through the advocacy groups like Healthy Economies Now and Families USA. It has spent about $1 million on similar advertisements under its own name.
All of the commercials closely echo common Democratic themes about medical care for all, consumer protection and “health insurance reform.” Some supporters of the overhaul have hired public affairs and advertising firms with close ties to the White House and Senate Democrats, including GMMB, which worked on the Obama campaign, and AKPD, which previously included David Axelrod, who is now the president’s top political adviser.

In a statement released by the President on June 20:
I am pleased to announce that an agreement has been reached between Senator Max Baucus and the nation's pharmaceutical companies that will bring down health care costs and reduce the price of prescription drugs for millions of America's seniors. As part of the health reform legislation that I expect Congress to enact this year, pharmaceutical companies will extend discounts on prescription drugs to millions of seniors who currently are subjected to crushing out-of-pocket expenses when the yearly amounts they pay for medication fall within the doughnut hole any payments by seniors not covered by Medicare that fall between $2700 and $6153.75 per year.

Former Blue Dog Billy Tauzin, who now heads PhRMA, told the New York Times it was a "rock solid deal." Jim "Stickboy" Messina (Obama's "Josh Lyman") "confirmed Mr. Tauzin’s account of the deal in an e-mail message" to the NYT.
McJoan asked the other day if Baucus is writing the White House's health care bill. I don't think there is any question that he is, that Tauzin knows he is, and that the idea that he's "holding up" the White House is not grounded in reality. And that the deal cuts the legs out from underneath Jeff Merkeley, who was trying to negotiate for $63 billion in rebates for drugs provided under Medicare.
The only question is how much the Democrats got in exchange for gutting the government's ability to control health care costs.
During the campaign, this was Obama's position:
Obama will allow Americans to buy their medicines from other developed countries if the drugs are safe and prices are lower outside the U.S. Obama will also repeal the ban that prevents the government from negotiating with drug companies, which could result in savings as high as $30 billion.

It no longer appears on the health care page at mybarackobama.com.
But, let's do the math. In ten years, $30 billion a year would mean $300 billion in savings. The deal cut by the White House is for $80 billion in savings. So the pharmaceutical industry gets to keep $220 billion for the low low price of $150 million in August to pass health care reform so Rahm Emanual won't be 13-1.
A hundred fifty million for two hundred twenty billion in savings: an excellent return on investment by anyone's standards.
http://firedoglake.com/2009/08/09/democrats-in-pay-for-play-deal-with-phrma/
Before you start screaming about how this article is "written by those damn dirty cons," its actually written by liberals, who want Obamacare.
 
Honestly, after all of the shit that has gone on the past few years, if you at this point think government is there to help you deserve to be swindled.

It's hilarious watching idiots believe the liberals, esp when the liberals are just as corrupt as republicans.

After all, this is the same administration who needs $18 MILLION to redesign the gov web site.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/07/18m-being-spent-to-redesign-recoverygov-web-site.html

Which really at the most should be half a million to a million, but Obama has to pay his special interest groups with taxpayer money...
 
[quote name='HowStern']No the other option is to pay the stupid fine so that the rest of don't foot the bill for those without insurance.[/quote]

So, you can avoid having health insurance by paying "fines" into the government health insurance program?

Everyone pays their own way,

Really?

Really?

It seems a government option, paid for by taxpayer funds, means everyone doesn't pay their own way.
 
[quote name='homeland']Anyone else get a chuckle on the irony from the republicans lately? I.e. they stating government run health care is bad because the government will get between you and your doctor and now they demand any public option not cover abortions which last I checked (regardless of ones personal beliefs) is a legal medical condition that is decided between you and your doctor.[/QUOTE]

And now, we demonstrate why Government-ran Health Care is a bad idea.

One moment, we're refusing to fund abortions. Then, perhaps, some innovative Stem-Cell therapy. Next thing you know, you can't get medical care for your infertility because you don't meet the government criteria for having children.

It's easy to laugh it off and say stuff like this would never happen - but, let's say in eight years, there's another "political revolution". We all know one party doesn't keep power for long. What happens when Another Bush-like conservative gets back in power and his party tries to push an agenda that refuses to allow tax dollars to go toward abortions?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']And now, we demonstrate why Government-ran Health Care is a bad idea.

One moment, we're refusing to fund abortions. Then, perhaps, some innovative Stem-Cell therapy. Next thing you know, you can't get medical care for your infertility because you don't meet the government criteria for having children.

It's easy to laugh it off and say stuff like this would never happen - but, let's say in eight years, there's another "political revolution". We all know one party doesn't keep power for long. What happens when Another Bush-like conservative gets back in power and his party tries to push an agenda that refuses to allow tax dollars to go toward abortions?[/QUOTE]


That's a non-issue. Its not like their are these huge citizens revolutions and government reforms every 4-8 years when there are policy changes. Like the fact that I don't freak out, nor do presidents change things back and forth depending on party, that my tax money goes to killing criminals or funding a war I have been against since the beginning. Or how about paying to jail people who I think shouldn't even be in jail.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']And now, we demonstrate why Government-ran Health Care is a bad idea.

One moment, we're refusing to fund abortions. Then, perhaps, some innovative Stem-Cell therapy. Next thing you know, you can't get medical care for your infertility because you don't meet the government criteria for having children.

It's easy to laugh it off and say stuff like this would never happen - but, let's say in eight years, there's another "political revolution". We all know one party doesn't keep power for long. What happens when Another Bush-like conservative gets back in power and his party tries to push an agenda that refuses to allow tax dollars to go toward abortions?[/QUOTE]


That's a non-issue. Its not like there are these huge citizens revolutions and government reforms every 4-8 years when there are administration changes. Like the fact that I don't freak out, nor do presidents change things back and forth depending on party, that my tax money goes to killing criminals or funding a war I have been against since the beginning. Or how about paying to jail people who I think shouldn't even be in jail.
 
[quote name='lawdood']Um, Medicaid is administered by the states. [/quote]
That doesn't qualify as "Government"?

And who is giving anyone free healthcare? Please link to facts to support your claims.
Ask any emergency room worker that question, and try to keep a straight face so they don't punch it.

Also, please link to facts that the 23 million you claim are actually just lazy, no account, high school bums...or are you just coming up with that in your own mind after believing everything right wing talk show hosts, who get all their talking points from the for-profit insurance industry, tell you?
This is hard to take seriously from someone with your avatar, so I'll only wink at you and play the same game by asking you to prove that I'm wrong.

I never claimed those are hard facts, those are my guesses. You really believe 23 million without insurance are all victims? Really?
The point your missing is the fact that there is only 23 million out of 380 million people being totally uninsured in this country (yes some by choice), makes it a very hard sell on everyone else that they need to put any of their present coverage in jeopardy by allowing risky massive overhauls of the entire system.

That same government you mentioned runs the VA, military healthcare and medicare, some of the best healthcare systems in the country. None of which have insurance number crunchers and bottom line watchers coming between you and your doctor.
I'd expect anyone working for the government to get great healthcare from the government.

We can just require those that choose not to have healthcare to put up multi-thousand dollar bonds instead like they do in California, perhaps that would make you happy? Or do you just want to continue playing juvenile games?
The only games I see being played are in the house and senate.

Look, I'm not arguing that nothing should change or that there aren't problems. I am arguing against anyone that believes the answers lie within government run healthcare/single payer system. History and facts simply prove the government can't manage anything efficiently or effectively, even with their newfound endless supply of money.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So, you can avoid having health insurance by paying "fines" into the government health insurance program?



Really?

Really?

It seems a government option, paid for by taxpayer funds, means everyone doesn't pay their own way.[/QUOTE]


Yeah, they do. That's what the fine is. It's saying "OK, look you didn't buy insurance for yourself and the rest of us aren't going to pay for you so now you are being fined."

We aleady have this in massachusetts. Forced health insurance. The fine isn't small. You can't collect your tax return without proof of insurance. That's a hefty fine.
 
[quote name='HowStern']Yeah, they do. That's what the fine is. It's saying "OK, look you didn't buy insurance for yourself and the rest of us aren't going to pay for you so now you are being fined.[/QUOTE]

So, again, the only way to opt out of have health insurance is to kill yourself. Otherwise, you get to pay "fines" into the system that pay for your health insurance - thus giving you health insurance anyway.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So, again, the only way to opt out of have health insurance is to kill yourself. Otherwise, you get to pay "fines" into the system that pay for your health insurance - thus giving you health insurance anyway.[/QUOTE]


I don't think this is the current bill though. Forced coverage.

They way they do it here though is you pay based on your income.

But to think killing yourself is a better option is plain demented. Not to mention extremely privileged. There are people who will die without coverage. My brother in law is 17 and has type 1 diabetes. He doesn't live in MA though. So, next year when he turns 18 his insurance coverage is gone. If he goes 3 days without his medicine he can die.


To assume everyone is so privileged that they would consider killing themselves to avoid having health insurance is beyond fucked.
 
[quote name='HowStern']I don't think this is the current bill though. Forced coverage.

They way they do it here though is you pay based on your income.

But to think killing yourself is a better option is plain demented. Not to mention extremely privileged. There are people who will die without coverage. My brother in law is 17 and has type 1 diabetes. He doesn't live in MA though. So, next year when he turns 18 his insurance coverage is gone. If he goes 3 days without his medicine he can die.


To assume everyone is so privileged that they would consider killing themselves to avoid having health insurance is beyond fucked.[/QUOTE]

Its not about "privilage." Its about having a choice. If you don't want health insurance, or can't afford it, you shouldn't be forced into the option of, "buy insurance, or pay the government fines." I like how all these proposals on the Democrat's side force people to buy insurance, or pay a large fine, and insist that they will make health care "affordable." Then they say that subsidies won't kick in for the poor until they spend 11-12% of their income on health care. How is that affordable? I guess they won't even be able to choose between food and health insurance anymore.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']

Look, I'm not arguing that nothing should change or that there aren't problems. I am arguing against anyone that believes the answers lie within government run healthcare/single payer system. History and facts simply prove the government can't manage anything efficiently or effectively, even with their newfound endless supply of money.[/QUOTE]

What you are actually arguing is so factually wrong and illogical, it borders on not making sense and/or just plain made up.

First, the government is NOT taking over the healthcare system, they are simply creating a public option for those that can't get it any other way and by doing so hopefully bringing down and reigning in spiraling costs when the FOR PROFIT healthcare providers have to compete.

Secondly, there is NO OTHER ENTITY possible that could reform healthcare other THAN the government. Either they do it or it never gets done and spiraling healthcare costs break the system and bankrupt the nation. See, if you didn't know, the FOR PROFIT healthcare industry makes BILLIONS each year on the backs of Americans sicknesses, disease and other ailments. They have no reason to make any changes while their profits keep flowing in. It's like the oil companies really caring about Americans getting away from their dependence on foreign oil. They don't.

And finally you compeltely ignored my statement about the government run VA and Medicare healthcare systems. They are quite successful and as well run, if not better run, than any other healthcare systems in the country.

PROTIP: Those that receive their healthcare from those agencies are NOT government employees.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']The logic behind fining people without healthcare is that they will use healthcare anyway (emergency rooms), and the rest of us pay for it.[/QUOTE]

Simple solution - deny individuals access to the emergency room if they cannot pay for it.

[quote name='lawdood']And finally you compeltely ignored my statement about the government run VA and Medicare healthcare systems. They are quite successful and as well run, if not better run, than any other healthcare systems in the country.[/QUOTE]

Medicare is successful? Really? Even more so considering it's pretty much completely funded by confiscated taxpayer dollars?

Oh, and the idea of the government picking and choosing what health procedures individuals can get paid for by the government - the Liberal Gods over at DailyKos had some comments and the following link: http://m.factcheck.org/2009/07/surgery-for-seniors-vs-abortions/

Seems like the government already does this in the cases of abortions - and will likely continue to do so.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']I like how all these proposals on the Democrat's side force people to buy insurance, or pay a large fine[/QUOTE]

You're either misinformed or outright lying. Either way, I recommend you rectify that.

Massachusetts ≠ "all these proposals on the Democrat's side."
 
[quote name='lawdood']
First, the government is NOT taking over the healthcare system, they are simply creating a public option for those that can't get it any other way and by doing so hopefully bringing down and reigning in spiraling costs when the FOR PROFIT healthcare providers have to compete.[/quote]
Well it's kind of early to be making claims as to what the change will actually do. Especially when there are several proposals. Some are more 'government takeover' than others.

Secondly, there is NO OTHER ENTITY possible that could reform healthcare other THAN the government. Either they do it or it never gets done and spiraling healthcare costs break the system and bankrupt the nation.
I don't disagree with that statement, but there is a huge difference between government taking control of an industry and government providing regulatory laws, policies, and guidelines for an industry. Different proposals on the table waffle between each extreme, which is the heat source of the debate, imo.

And finally you compeltely ignored my statement about the government run VA and Medicare healthcare systems. They are quite successful and as well run, if not better run, than any other healthcare systems in the country.
I honestly can't comment on the VA. You could be right about that. But Medicare? Seriously? The words "Fraud" and "Medicare" are used in sentences together more often than "Country Music" and "Shit".

PROTIP: Those that receive their healthcare from those agencies are NOT government employees.
I realize that. Except in the case of the VA, they are or were government employees.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Well it's kind of early to be making claims as to what the change will actually do. Especially when there are several proposals. Some are more 'government takeover' than others.


I don't disagree with that statement, but there is a huge difference between government taking control of an industry and government providing regulatory laws, policies, and guidelines for an industry. Different proposals on the table waffle between each extreme, which is the heat source of the debate, imo.[/QUOTE]

Please post links to the sections of the healthcare bill that actually spell out the government taking control of the healthcare industry...all that is proposed is a public OPTION...There's NOTHING in reality which says what you're trying to suggest. Either back up your claims or admit you're wrong.


[quote name='thrustbucket']I honestly can't comment on the VA. You could be right about that. But Medicare? Seriously? The words "Fraud" and "Medicare" are used in sentences together more often than "Country Music" and "Shit".


I realize that. Except in the case of the VA, they are or were government employees.[/QUOTE]

What does fraud being perpretrated by individuals have to do with the government running of Medicare? Individuals try to (and do) defraud private insurance companies EVERY DAY, please try again.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='lawdood']What you are actually arguing is so factually wrong and illogical, it borders on not making sense and/or just plain made up.

First, the government is NOT taking over the healthcare system, they are simply creating a public option for those that can't get it any other way and by doing so hopefully bringing down and reigning in spiraling costs when the FOR PROFIT healthcare providers have to compete.

Secondly, there is NO OTHER ENTITY possible that could reform healthcare other THAN the government. [/quote]
That's true. If government could just get rid of many of the health insurance regulations, health insurance could be affordable again.
Either they do it or it never gets done and spiraling healthcare costs break the system and bankrupt the nation.
In case you haven't noticed, we are already going to be bankrupt. See bailouts/social security/medicare.
See, if you didn't know, the FOR PROFIT healthcare industry makes BILLIONS each year on the backs of Americans sicknesses, disease and other ailments. They have no reason to make any changes while their profits keep flowing in. It's like the oil companies really caring about Americans getting away from their dependence on foreign oil. They don't.
That tends to be what happens when you let a few companies have a monopoly over an industry.
What does fraud being perpretrated by individuals have to do with the government running of Medicare? Individuals try to (and do) defraud private insurance companies EVERY DAY, please try again.
When you have billions of dollars a year in fraud, that's not a good thing. If you look at the article I posted earlier, you will see that there is already fraud in the health care bill. $220 billion of it to be exact.
[quote name='mykevermin']You're either misinformed or outright lying. Either way, I recommend you rectify that.

Massachusetts ≠ "all these proposals on the Democrat's side."[/QUOTE]
The reform bills offered by both Senate and House Democrats would impose an individual mandate — a requirement that everyone obtain health insurance. Taxpayer-provided subsidies would go to lower-income Americans if they could not afford to purchase it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31782553/ns/politics-capitol_hill/
 
[quote name='lawdood']Please post links to the sections of the healthcare bill that actually spell out the government taking control of the healthcare industry...all that is proposed is a public OPTION...There's NOTHING in reality which says what you're trying to suggest. Either back up your claims or admit you're wrong. [/quote]
I'm busy and am at work, so I'll go ahead and opt for being wrong this time.

What does fraud being perpretrated by individuals have to do with the government running of Medicare? Individuals try to (and do) defraud private insurance companies EVERY DAY, please try again.
If you seriously haven't heard about the corruption, ineffeciencies, and fraud in Medicare and Medicaid, then lucky for you. See above. You can call me wrong and I will believe your naive and we can leave it at that.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']That's true. If government could just get rid of many of the health insurance regulations, health insurance could be affordable again.[/QUOTE]

Aside from the fact that this is code for dropping unprofitable people off of insurance this line of "thought" was destroyed roughly twenty pages ago.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/health/policy/09lobby.html?_r=1

The drug industry has authorized its lobbyists to spend as much as $150 million on television commercials supporting President Obama’s health care overhaul, beginning over the August Congressional recess, people briefed on the plans said Saturday.

The unusually large scale of the industry’s commitment to the cause helps explain some of a contentious back-and-forth playing out in recent days between the odd-couple allies over a deal that the White House struck with the industry in June to secure its support. The terms of the deal were not fully disclosed. Both sides had announced that the drug industry would contribute $80 billion over 10 years to the cost of the health care overhaul without spelling out the details.

With House Democrats moving to extract more than that just as the drug makers finalized their advertising plans, the industry lobbyists pressed the Obama administration for public reassurances that it had agreed to cap the industry’s additional costs at $80 billion. The White House, meanwhile, has struggled to mollify its most pivotal health industry ally without alienating Congressional Democrats who want to demand far more of the drug makers. White House officials could not immediately be reached for comment.

So it's the conservatives that are being funded by people from the healthcare system?
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']That's true. If government could just get rid of many of the health insurance regulations, health insurance could be affordable again.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, that would work wonders to help American citizens and reform the healthcare industry. I mean, look what it did for Wall Street.

[quote name='thrustbucket']
If you seriously haven't heard about the corruption, ineffeciencies, and fraud in Medicare and Medicaid, then lucky for you. See above. You can call me wrong and I will believe your naive and we can leave it at that.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I've also heard about the fraud and inefficiencies of the private insurance sector...that's why we're trying to REFORM healthcare.

[quote name='perdition(troy']So it's the conservatives that are being funded by people from the healthcare system?[/QUOTE]

Why wouldn't the drug companies want to help reform the system? More people with health insurance = more customers. Isn't that what cons like?
 
I have advocated the single-payer healthcare system. It is less drastic than what Obama wants to do, creating a whole new government institution to "compete" with health insurance companies.

I have no love for health insurance companies. People advocating against reform or any universal system probably never had a pre-existing condition.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']fullmetal720: See if you can find it here.

Bob: That's disgusting.[/QUOTE]
‘‘PART VIII—SHARED RESPONSIBILITY
20 PAYMENTS
‘‘Sec. 59B. Shared responsibility payments.
21 ‘‘SEC. 59B. SHARED RESPONSIBILITY PAYMENTS.
22 ‘‘(a) PAYMENT.—
23 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any indi
vidual who did not have in effect qualifying coverage
104
O:\BAI\BAI09A84.xml [file 1 of 6] S.L.C.
1 (as defined in section 3116 of the Public Health
2 Service Act) for any month during the taxable year,
3 there is hereby imposed for the taxable year, in addi4
tion to any other amount imposed by this subtitle,
5 an amount equal to the amount established under
6 paragraph (2).
There you go.
 
[quote name='lawdood']

Yes, I've also heard about the fraud and inefficiencies of the private insurance sector...that's why we're trying to REFORM healthcare.

[/QUOTE]

I am not defender of private healthcare. Reform is fine with me. As long as there is never a chance that I MUST get some type of approval from a government suit or committee to get surgery, I'm cool.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I am not defender of private healthcare. Reform is fine with me. As long as there is never a chance that I MUST get some type of approval from a government suit or committee to get surgery, I'm cool.[/QUOTE]

lol, but getting that approval from an insurance company suit or committee only looking out for the profitability of the company and not your well being, is just fine?

BTW- for the millionth time, there is NO government takeover of healthcare in any bill being proposed. Of course if you get your info from the likes of someone like Glenn Beck, you might think differently. I encourage you to do some research on the proposals yourself rather than relying on the misinformation coming from talking heads on the right.
 
[quote name='lawdood']BTW- for the millionth time, there is NO government takeover of healthcare in any bill being proposed. Of course if you get your info from the likes of someone like Glenn Beck, you might think differently. I encourage you to do some research on the proposals yourself rather than relying on the misinformation coming from talking heads on the right.[/QUOTE]

While there is no straight-up government takeover, what is proposed in the forerunner house bill will likely result in insurance companies being unable to financially compete with the gov't due to businesses picking cheaper subsidized public plans for their employees. The loss of so many contracts will cause a crumbling of the private insurance industry, and possible destruction of it (see Canada).

So while there is no direct government takeover, the Pelosi bill (and likely any other with a public option) will result in indirect government takeover over time. This will result in Americans losing their freedom to choose another insurance provider, losing their personal freedoms under the disguise of "preventative healthcare," increased taxes to pay for the public plan, and lowered quality of care in order to serve a greater quantity of people. The public option needs to be removed from any proposal before you will see a majority of Americans supporting it.
 
bread's done
Back
Top