Obama Care Could Be Deadly

thats a british study, so i guess thats one more reason we shouldnt have universal health care.

plus, i dont buy that not knowing what lungs look like is "a precursor to poorer health"
 
Uhh, did your ead the link I posted where people couldn't identify the location of their hearts and lungs?
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']seriously, do you guys really think people are so stupid they need to be told that being fat and overweight is bad for their health.[/QUOTE]

Yes and no.

They know that being overweight is a health risk.

But they don't consider themselves overweight, or they think themselves an exception to the rule.

It's called the fundamental attribution error.
 
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2009/06/healthcare-ceos-shoot-themselves-foot

Yesterday the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations decided to investigate the practice of recission. This is when you pay your premiums for years to a healthcare insurer, then get sick, and then have your insurance cancelled. The insurance industry executives at the hearing did not exactly cover themselves with glory:

A Texas nurse said she lost her coverage, after she was diagnosed with aggressive breast cancer, for failing to disclose a visit to a dermatologist for acne.

The sister of an Illinois man who died of lymphoma said his policy was rescinded for the failure to report a possible aneurysm and gallstones that his physician noted in his chart but did not discuss with him.

....Late in the hearing, [Bart] Stupak, the committee chairman, put the executives on the spot. Stupak asked each of them whether he would at least commit his company to immediately stop rescissions except where they could show "intentional fraud."

The answer from all three executives: "No."

Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) said that a public insurance plan should be a part of any overhaul because it would force private companies to treat consumers fairly or risk losing them. "This is precisely why we need a public option," Dingell said.

Even the Republicans on the committee couldn't defend the insurance company position. A few more hearings like this and getting a public option into healthcare reform is suddenly going to look like a real possibility. Nice going, guys.
Click to expand...

How could anything be worse again?
 
[quote name='HowStern']I think the reverse is true and I'll explain why. Statistics show that obesity levels are highest for the poor. (see: Correlation between Obesity and Poverty)
So, it's safe to say the majority of these people have no health insurance.

Perhaps if they did, and they had a doctor to "measure their waist" so to speak and tell them they need to lose weight or else, obesity levels would drop. Helping eliminate heart disease and other obesity related diseases and cut care costs.[/QUOTE]

BOOM. HEADSHOT.

But this is true. The more poor you are the fatter you tend to be since the cheapest foods are often the worst for you. But another thing that would help is if we stopped deep frying, refrying, ULTRA GRILLING and choking everything with preservatives. Everything has so much artificial shit in there that it's simply amazing. I'm fat and yes I know it's bad for me, but currently the cost of HEALTHY food is so fucking amazing that it's cheaper to just get the cheapest shit you can find.

Also of worthy note is that when people go to foreign countries they tend to lose weight if they stay there for a certain amount of time that's longer then a visit. Not shoving preservatives and additional shit tends to fix the body. I lost significant amounts of weight just going to Mexico for a while because the food was more natural and I wasn't eating SKUNCH
 
The first and most serious problem with healthcare in this country is that it is a for-profit industry.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']I'm sure the diarrhea helped too. :lol:[/QUOTE]

That's only crap we say to keep white people out so they don't ruin the women. I have the shits far more in America then in Mexico since I'm not getting refried preservatives up the bung hole.
 
[quote name='Paco']I'm fat and yes I know it's bad for me, but currently the cost of HEALTHY food is so fucking amazing that it's cheaper to just get the cheapest shit you can find.[/QUOTE]
That's a crock of shit. Are you going to tell me that a bag of carrots is more expensive than a can of Pringles? If so, is it significantly more expensive? Is whole grain bread that much more than white? Is water that much more than soda!?


"Why you filing for bankruptcy man?"

"I ate too much fresh fruit."

:roll:
 
Hey RAM. It's called a garden and it's pretty cheap.

Hell, you can even grow tomatos without a patch these days and you can do damn near anything with them. Put those with a 99 cent head of lettuce and you have something called a salad. Eat one of those before every meal and you won't have as much room for the processed crap that you might eat for the entree.

It's a bad conspiracy by the grocers of America. They push the junk food and soda because the profit margin is huge. They can leave the stuff on the shelves for days while the veggies go bad after a couple days. Also, if they pushed veggies and fruits, people might figure out they can grow the stuff on their own and just cut out the grocery store for everything but milk, break, and meat.

Another thing you can do to be healthier is to cut out soda completely. It's got absolutely zero nutritional value and a ton of processed sugar but I'm pretty sure that some CAGs would be willing to rip up the Bill of Rights before they gave up Mountain Dew.

But hey, this isn't a get healthier thread. This thread is all about how Obama is trying to kill all of us. It's about leaving the HMOs to do what they've been doing for decades now. Deny. Deny. Deny.
 
[quote name='Koggit']
obama/dems want:
- forced healthcare, everyone has coverage, people without insurance are fined, like car insurance.
[/QUOTE]

Hey - I wasn't the first one to compare health insurance to auto insurance! How come no one attacked Koggit? :p
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Hey - I wasn't the first one to compare health insurance to auto insurance! How come no one attacked Koggit? :p[/QUOTE]

Because we like Koggit.

So conservatives would rather have people fall by the wayside because they can't get coverage.

What's the big deal about forced coverage? People without it drag not only themselves but their family down the tubes without it. Kids don't go to college, homes go into foreclosure, etc. Is this what conservatives really want for our country? Are you guys so selfish that you can't see that all Americans need to be able to financially survive serious health issues?

You guys act like the government is taking every single dollar out of your pocket. Why don't you look at Denmark or Sweden. Both countries have tax levels over 50%. Even with that high tax burden, the people are consistently rated at the top when it comes to happiness. Why? The people have little to no stress. You still have money to go out to eat, buy a bigger home, but there's no worry that a broken leg could end your life as you know it. You don't have to worry about getting cancer and getting your insurance cancelled. I guess, conservatives would rather have a small sliver of the rich be happy while the rest of us schlubs scrape along.
 
What's the big deal about the federal government forcing people to spend money on something they may not want or need? Really?

Why don't you look at Denmark or Sweden. Both countries have tax levels over 50%.
Click to expand...
Has there ever been a study to actually show the true tax rate of various countries around the world? I'm looking for something that includes both Federal and State income taxes, State, County and Local sales taxes - and then adds in all the various corporate and payroll taxes that individuals end up paying (through the costs of higher goods and lower wages). I'd be interested in the results of that study.

Anywhoo, my interest isn't *just* about how much taxes I'm paying in. It's also about how much the Federal Government is spending that they SIMPLY DO NOT HAVE. PERIOD. It won't do a lick of good for our government to be providing a health care solution when the fit hits the shan and China starts calling in their chips are such.

I know living beyond one's means and spending more money than you make is the American way and all, but this needs to stop.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You don't need health care? Really?

To make this more conservative friendly, businesses wouldn't have to provide health benefits and their profits would go up. They could use said money to hire more people and lower unemployment. That would mean less people sucking on the gov't tit.

But it's really just about you, isn't it?
 
[quote name='depascal22']You guys act like the government is taking every single dollar out of your pocket. Why don't you look at Denmark or Sweden. Both countries have tax levels over 50%. Even with that high tax burden, the people are consistently rated at the top when it comes to happiness. Why? The people have little to no stress. You still have money to go out to eat, buy a bigger home, but there's no worry that a broken leg could end your life as you know it. You don't have to worry about getting cancer and getting your insurance cancelled. I guess, conservatives would rather have a small sliver of the rich be happy while the rest of us schlubs scrape along.[/QUOTE]

You can't honestly say you have gone through life worrying about losing everything because you broke your leg and had no health insurance. I went without health insurance for 7-8 years and that thought didn't cross my mind once.
 
[quote name='depascal22']You don't need health care? Really?

To make this more conservative friendly, businesses wouldn't have to provide health benefits and their profits would go up. They could use said money to hire more people and lower unemployment. That would mean less people sucking on the gov't tit.

But it's really just about you, isn't it?[/QUOTE]

What businesses have to provide health benefits now?

Now, take all the "newly created" jobs from your bubbly picture and stack that against the rise in corporate taxes that the federal government would put in place to "help cover" the costs of universal health coverage. Wonder how many jobs that'll cost...

And I'm not sure how this is "about me". I pay for my heath care, thank you very much. I'm not screaming to anyone that'll listen "Hey, gimme free health care. I need it. Who cares what it'll cost everyone else."
 
[quote name='depascal22']

To make this more conservative friendly, businesses wouldn't have to provide health benefits and their profits would go up. They could use said money to hire more people and lower unemployment. That would mean less people sucking on the gov't tit.
[/QUOTE]



unless of course theres a "pay or play" mandate on employers, meaning employers would be forced to pay higher taxes if they didnt offer insurance to employees.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']
And I'm not sure how this is "about me". I pay for my heath care, thank you very much. I'm not screaming to anyone that'll listen "Hey, gimme free health care. I need it. Who cares what it'll cost everyone else."[/QUOTE]

It's supposed to lower gross cost for the country, so it wil cost less. just because you are healthy and can afford insurance doesn't mean everyone else can. A lot of sick people can't even get coverage within reason because of their existing medical problems. Do you even think about other people?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Hey - I wasn't the first one to compare health insurance to auto insurance! How come no one attacked Koggit? :p[/QUOTE]

It wasn't so much that you compared health insurance to car insurance it is that you compared people like koggs sister to a wrecked car.

I recently posted a link which pointed out that insurance companies target people with expensive illnesses and then using any semi legal excuse to force them out, the heads of these companies flat out refuse to stop these practices.

What's the big deal about the federal government forcing people to spend money on something they may not want or need? Really?
Click to expand...

Again, using the comparison to auto insurance has two different dimensions. There are people who have never been in an accident who buy insurance and that is a much different comparison than saying a loved one is like a wrecked 1988 Toyota Celica.

Now as for something I have pointed out before, saying "we can't afford a different system" say a system where everyone is covered is hogwash. We already pay more for what we have now than anyone a new system would bring costs down and even a not insignificant portion of the deficit.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
^^ how much (time and money) would it take to transfer our current system to the one you envision?
 
[quote name='tivo']^^ how much (time and money) would it take to transfer our current system to the one you envision?[/QUOTE]

I will probably sincerely regret this but I am going to go ahead and take your question (even though it is more of a subject for pages and pages of white paper) as one in good faith.

Probably less time than you would think, one possible way to do it would be to simply expand medicare, the costs assuming that you do not see a restriction on bargaining (a blatant ripoff imho) the way there was in plan d would end up being less. Something I have said before is that the status quo will probably remain until other big corporations realize they are getting screwed too with healthcare costs the way they are.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Probably less time than you would think, one possible way to do it would be to simply expand medicare.[/QUOTE]

expanding a system that spent 32 billion in improper payments and is running on IOUs isnt a good plan.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Because we like Koggit.

So conservatives would rather have people fall by the wayside because they can't get coverage.

What's the big deal about forced coverage? People without it drag not only themselves but their family down the tubes without it. Kids don't go to college, homes go into foreclosure, etc. Is this what conservatives really want for our country? Are you guys so selfish that you can't see that all Americans need to be able to financially survive serious health issues?

You guys act like the government is taking every single dollar out of your pocket. Why don't you look at Denmark or Sweden. Both countries have tax levels over 50%. Even with that high tax burden, the people are consistently rated at the top when it comes to happiness. Why? The people have little to no stress. You still have money to go out to eat, buy a bigger home, but there's no worry that a broken leg could end your life as you know it. You don't have to worry about getting cancer and getting your insurance cancelled. I guess, conservatives would rather have a small sliver of the rich be happy while the rest of us schlubs scrape along.[/QUOTE]


Forced coverage is exactly how Massachusetts works. Living costs are pretty high here too. I am a decently healthy 20-something and given the choice I would probably not get insurance for a year so I can buy a car (to get to work no less) or finish paying off a loan. It would be really nice if there was a cheap public option where you just have enough to get by on until you make more money (finish paying school loans, etc.) and can pay for private insurance.

I think forced insurance can save money in the long-run. If you have and pay for it you are going to use it so various conditions can be fixed before they compound or worsen (which then really costs a lot) but it is hard to pay sometimes when you are trying to make rent and school tuition. It is especially useless when you end up with an expensive condition and they give you the boot.

I have mixed feelings on it but I think a cheap public option would work nicely. I have no idea where to begin on thinking about the issue with people that have pre-existing conditions. The better we get an extending people's lives the more very difficult moral/cost dilemmas we are going to face.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']You can't honestly say you have gone through life worrying about losing everything because you broke your leg and had no health insurance. I went without health insurance for 7-8 years and that thought didn't cross my mind once.[/QUOTE]
Ignoring risk doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just means you're foolish.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Ignoring risk doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just means you're foolish.[/QUOTE]

Meteors could rocket in from space and kill all life on Earth.
 
Blah blah blah can we please stop treating this like some sort of political issue? It's for debate sure but it's an issue of governance wholly separate from politics... please please please don't politicize health care.

I think the car insurance analogy is almost apt in terms of liability, but not quite in terms of greater good

Mandating health insurance solves three problems, I'll save the one that's a proper auto insurance analogue for last: (i) With mandatory coverage, people who fall into the 'preexisting condition' pit do not become society's burden, (ii) With everyone having coverage people don't have reason to put off care they should get, which ultimately reduces how much we as a nation spend on total care, (iii) It prevents people from needing treatment they cannot possibly afford, which ultimately has a negative impact on all of America.

To elaborate on (iii) -- when a person cannot afford the required care they either don't get it and become a burden on society or they get it and don't pay for it, in which case they hurt our economy by going bankrupt (medical bills is #1 cause of bankruptcy in America), this is similar to the rationale of requiring liability auto insurance, it's so that when you need to pay (health care or to fix stuff you rammed into) you don't harm others by not being able to afford it (harming both taxpayers and the directly associated industry).



Again, as a disclaimer, I don't necessarily support the Obama/Dem proposal because the problem is still profit-driven HMOs...
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Meteors could rocket in from space and kill all life on Earth.[/QUOTE]
at least we would be done with your bad examples...
 
[quote name='Koggit'][...] do not become society's burden [...] a burden on society [...] [/QUOTE]

For better or worse, I don't see *any* way possible that every single American (or every single person currently living in America, depending on what passes) will be able to receive the health care they need without some of these individuals becoming a burden on society.

If you can guarantee a way for this not to happen, then I'll gladly vote for whatever plan you can come up with.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']For better or worse, I don't see *any* way possible that every single American (or every single person currently living in America, depending on what passes) will be able to receive the health care they need without some of these individuals becoming a burden on society.

If you can guarantee a way for this not to happen, then I'll gladly vote for whatever plan you can come up with.[/QUOTE]

did you read my whole post? do you somehow disagree that these people are already a burden on society? you can't avoid it. they're not gonna die when they need treatment they can't afford -- they're gonna get it then file bankruptcy, fucking up our economy, you still foot their medical bill (though not directly through taxes) and your financial situation sucks because (1) they filed bankruptcy (2) they're on welfare for the rest of their life because they can't get treatment that makes them able-bodied and work-ready.

uuhg.. my post before this one was good, reread it, i will not repeat myself :\
 
But you claimed that Mandating Health Insurance would solve the problem of individals being a burden on society due to their medical situations. I want to see your solution for that so I can vote for it.
 
with all due respect: grow up. in any humane system sick people will get care they can't afford (as they do now and as they will in the dem proposal, as they do in every developed country in the world), and nothing is free. somebody must pay for it. fact of life, it's childish to expect any less. best we can do, which is absolutely not done in the current system, is minimize the negative effect of that unpleasant fact.
 
So your post above, about eliminating the "burdens on society", was bunk? Dang, and here I thought you had the perfect solution.

Yes, we'll have burdens on society with whatever plan we end up using (short of some kind of kill-all-the-sick-people plan, which I do oppose). You tried to make the current Democratic proposal out to be some kind of super-plan that would eliminate these "burdens on society". All I ask is you be fair and acknowledge that these individuals will still be there, we'll just be shifting the burdens around.
 
no, we'll be drastically reducing the burden


i dont even know why i'm arguing with you, this is not fun and i don't really care whether their proposal passes or not
 
>"no, we'll be drastically reducing the burden"

That's one possibility. Another possibility is that we'll be creating a larger burden by putting everyone's (or, at the very least, a large part of Americans) health care costs onto our already crazily in-debt Federal Government.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Another possibility is that we'll be creating a larger burden by putting everyone's (or, at the very least, a large part of Americans) health care costs onto our already crazily in-debt Federal Government.[/QUOTE]

The only way that could happen is if there were literally no cost restraints put into the plan, as it stands right now being for the status quo is for being for higher costs and a higher deficit.
 
This all comes back to whether you'd rather pay a little extra so everyone can benefit. Like I said, Denmark and Sweden have very high tax rates but their people are happy because they don't have the stresses that we do.

That being said, I understand the other point of view. If taxes are raised for health care, where does it stop? It all comes from living in a humongous country at the tail end of it's golden age. We're stuck with the crappy proposition of paying super high taxes just to provide basic services and to pay off the interest on our sky high debt or fall into obscurity as a nation.
 
I have a question for people who are opposed to this.

Do you get mad at a woman if she has to call the police because her husband is beating her? I mean she is using your tax dollars. Then the guy is going to have to go to court. That's going to cost some more of your tax dollars. Oh, he's in jail now..Guess who's paying for that?

You don't get mad? Then why would you get mad if your tax dollars paid for a woman to check and see if the lump in her breast is cancer or not?
 
[quote name='HowStern']I have a question for people who are opposed to this.

Do you get mad at a woman if she has to call the police because her husband is beating her? I mean she is using your tax dollars. Then the guy is going to have to go to court. That's going to cost some more of your tax dollars. Oh, he's in jail now..Guess who's paying for that?

You don't get mad? Then why would you get mad if your tax dollars paid for a woman to check and see if the lump in her breast is cancer or not?[/QUOTE]

I'm for this but I think I can venture an answer. The rational answer is that conservatives don't trust the government to do anything. They would much rather have a private company take care of everything and people pay for their own health care. The rationale is that you can always go the hospital even if you can't afford it.

The liberal answer is that these guys are greedy fucks that don't care if people die for preventable diseases. It's their money and you can pry it from their cold dead hands.

The answer lies somewhere between but I lean toward the latter. Greed is good. Government programs that reward lazy (i.e. poor/minority) people for doing nothing will never work in their opinion. They'll point to the welfare mothers as yet another example of bad government in action.
 
Yeah but not having health care has nothing to do with laziness. There are people who work 2 jobs but can not afford it (me..., luckily I live in MA where we have a healthcare system like the one Obama wants to implement nationally). Or maybe can afford some basic coverage but then get screwed by the slimy insurance co. in the way Msut's links described.

We are at a high when it comes to unemployment and it has zero to do with laziness.

Conservatives have no good argument for this one.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.c7aaeb7940626693fa418a1eab2291f6.81&show_article=1

lol. overweight people live longer then us in shape people[/QUOTE]

You misread. Chubbier than should be people live longer than thinner than should be people, Not in-shape people.

Did you read the whole article?
But Kuriyama warned he was not recommending people eat as much as they want.
"It's better that thin people try to gain normal weight, but we doubt it's good for people of normal physique to put on more fat," he said.
The study divided people into four weight classes at age 40 according to their body mass index, or BMI, calculated by dividing a person's weight in kilograms by their squared height in metres.
The normal range is 18.5 to 25, with thinness defined as under 18.5. A BMI of 25 to 30 was classed as slightly overweight and an index above 30 as obese.
Click to expand...


This is elementary. When you are too skinny your body starts burning up important tissues for energy. Tissues from your heart, lungs, and other organs.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']No, because when the doctor measures someone's waist and tells them they need to lose weight, they get mad, file a complaint against the doctor, then go to McDonald's for a Big Mac and Large fries.[/QUOTE]


Yeah i tried that at home with the wife and she grabbed an ice cream and told me to shut up... joking.

In reality though I think its partially that, but also the quality of food the people in poverty are eating. Its not filling, and its pure sugar infused junk. McDonald's is specifically targeting these individuals on a daily basis. The income to health issue is huge and cant be fixed alone with free health care... I think this is a very interesting side of this entire US obesity/health/death rate issue.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='HowStern']I have a question for people who are opposed to this.

Do you get mad at a woman if she has to call the police because her husband is beating her? I mean she is using your tax dollars. Then the guy is going to have to go to court. That's going to cost some more of your tax dollars. Oh, he's in jail now..Guess who's paying for that?

You don't get mad? Then why would you get mad if your tax dollars paid for a woman to check and see if the lump in her breast is cancer or not?[/QUOTE]

Of course nobody in their right mind would get mad. The issue from my argument is its not going to fix things for people. How many times have you heard of an argument turning to murder, or a house fire burning people to death, or someone drowning, all before the police, or fire department could get there? Or the 911 operators putting you on hold as the budget does not allow for more workers.... so people still go without the care.

This will happen with medical insurance if its set up by the government. It goes on, on a daily basis with every other government run entity. It even goes on in private run entities (i.e. hospitals too busy to accept, or large waits in the ER/waiting rooms).

People are still going without no matter what way you slice it.

To think that people are going to ditch McDonald and start eating right because they have free health care is not going to happen. I don't always eat right myself and I have health insurance. My cholesterol etc are all good, but c'mon.

I am not really against or for any one proposal at this point, its a confusing mess. Both sides are argued to death, but nothing clear and clean cut is going to happen one morning. This is not a light switch.
 
[quote name='HowStern']Yeah but not having health care has nothing to do with laziness. There are people who work 2 jobs but can not afford it (me..., luckily I live in MA where we have a healthcare system like the one Obama wants to implement nationally). Or maybe can afford some basic coverage but then get screwed by the slimy insurance co. in the way Msut's links described.

We are at a high when it comes to unemployment and it has zero to do with laziness.

Conservatives have no good argument for this one.[/QUOTE]

They never really have arguments so much as they are marketing schemes.

Their arguments against reform (aside from blatant lies/ignorance) are that people might actually get healthcare.

We live in a country where 50% of bankruptcies are due to medical costs about 75% of those people were insured before their illness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top