Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 41

Hybrid View

  1. #1 Feds to design health insurance for the masses 
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Pierce County
    Posts
    2,081
    Quote Originally Posted by AssociatedPress
    WASHINGTON (AP) -- The federal government is taking on a crucial new role in the nation's health care, designing a basic benefits package for millions of privately insured Americans. A framework for the Obama administration was released Friday.

    The report by independent experts from the Institute of Medicine lays out guidelines for deciding what to include in the new "essential benefits package," and how to keep it affordable for small businesses and taxpayers, as well as scientifically up to date.
    And so the transition to socialism begins

    The GOP candidates need to speak out against this today while it is again in the news.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Best Bounty Hunter in the Forums fettpett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southwest Michigan (in Exile)
    Posts
    8,757
    what now libs? I thought Obamacare was all about making it cheaper but the Government wasn't going be all up in your business and making you take anything specific
    "Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings..." Patrick Henry
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    9,940
    Quote Originally Posted by fettpett View Post
    what now libs? I thought Obamacare was all about making it cheaper but the Government wasn't going be all up in your business and making you take anything specific
    They lied. (Of course)

    The fact that legislators are telling insurance companies what they can and cannot provide should be no surprise considering that, in order to pass the bill in 2010, Reid had to take coverage for abortion services out of it. While most people here believe that abortion is a grievous sin, look at the situation legally: abortion is a legal procedure. If Congress could exclude this legal procedure based on the opinions of a bunch of politicians, then the precedent has been set: Congress can exclude ANY legal procedure based on the opinions of a bunch of politicians. Hence the current situation of CONGRESS deciding what health care average Americans get instead of letting us buy the coverage we see fit.

    The LEFT should be up in arms about this. When insurance gets over-regulated at the state level by the government (as it did in Virginia in 2006), the first thing that goes are domestic partner benefits for gay couples. Even if the insurance company wants to offer them because it believes it can bring in lots of gay customers this way, it can't: the government hath spoken. The LEFT should be furious, but watch the 99%ers on Wall Street not mention this at all. After all, Obama their Savior is doing it.

    And as for the rest of us? Perhaps someone will try to shove down our throats the idea that taking the morphine shot and dying is better for society than us getting chemo, if we're older or less useful or something.

    (Sorry if I seem to be screaming. I HATE HATE HATE Obamacare with a passion and think it is the worst thing for not only medical care but medical privacy in this country.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    hmm, I can see why people would oppose this.

    How would you feel about a middle alternative, where the federal government can provide their own insurance policy something like medicare for people who want government health insurance, and let people with private insurance have whatever they are willing to pay for?

    After all, I agree with many people here that the government should not require people to purchase private health insurance (the mandate), and I can understand why people want to pick their own plans based on their own needs and budgets.

    This way, the government can provide a barebones package for people who don't want to buy private health insurance and people who do want it can purchase whatever they like.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Best Bounty Hunter in the Forums fettpett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southwest Michigan (in Exile)
    Posts
    8,757
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    hmm, I can see why people would oppose this.

    How would you feel about a middle alternative, where the federal government can provide their own insurance policy something like medicare for people who want government health insurance, and let people with private insurance have whatever they are willing to pay for?

    After all, I agree with many people here that the government should not require people to purchase private health insurance (the mandate), and I can understand why people want to pick their own plans based on their own needs and budgets.

    This way, the government can provide a barebones package for people who don't want to buy private health insurance and people who do want it can purchase whatever they like.
    you don't fucking get it. IT"S NOT THE GOVERNMENTS JOB TO PROVIDE HEALTH INSURANCE

    it's unaffordable
    "Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings..." Patrick Henry
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by fettpett View Post
    it's unaffordable
    No it isn't. We're paying for universal care, we're just not getting what we are paying for.

    I find it amusing when people who say that no one should be turned away from a hospital, or go on about the "charity once did this" routine, then are adamant that we can't afford to provide healthcare for all Americans. Which is it? Are we doing it, or can we not do it? Go down to your local housing project and tell me which one of those children you want to take off medicaid, which little asthmatic you want to snatch the rescue inhaler from. Pick one, now.

    Then go to the nursing home and tell me which one of those people should be cut off. Which one of them isn't worth the price of admission? Which one is simply waiting to die and consuming resources in the process? Pick a granny, now.

    You have a problem and you need to resolve it rather than continue in the BS cycle. That problem is that you are trying to justify your own greed and selfishness because you think it is consistent with your political philosophy. No, donating to your neighborhood church so that middle class kids can ride horses in the mountains at camp is not charity, it's deductible. Charity isn't putting a roof on some artifact of our cave dwelling ancestors. Charity is putting yourself in the place of the recipient.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by fettpett View Post
    you don't fucking get it. IT"S NOT THE GOVERNMENTS JOB TO PROVIDE HEALTH INSURANCE

    it's unaffordable
    If the government works for the people, then the people decide what the government's job is.

    Also it's not unaffordable, it's about priority. The wars on the middle east have cost us over a trillion dollars, with some estimates over 3 trillion.

    According to CBO estimates, the Bush tax cuts cost around $1.5 Trillion

    We're spending between 1-3 Trillion dollars on wars while cutting $1.5 Trillion dollars in taxes mostly for wealthy people, and then saying we don't have enough money to provide health insurance to regular working class people.

    There's also the bank bailouts but you get my point.

    When it comes to cutting taxes for wealthy people, bailing out banks or major corporations, or invading a couple of countries and fighting decade-long wars, there is no question whatsoever about the cost, but when it comes to providing much needed help to working class families, it's suddenly a problem.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    If an uninsured person grows ill, but it is not an immediate emergency, they will often avoid seeing a doctor because they cannot afford it out of pocket. If they grow more ill because of their lack of care, they end up in an emergency room where they must be treated, and if the illness is worse the treatment is usually more expensive (especially for things like surgeries).

    If they have no money, they still aren't going to pay the bill, so who does? Everyone else.

    It makes far more fiscal sense to pay less money to provide these people with affordable insurance so they can get proper treatment so everyone else doesn't have to pay for high-cost emergency care.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    If an uninsured person grows ill, but it is not an immediate emergency, they will often avoid seeing a doctor because they cannot afford it out of pocket. If they grow more ill because of their lack of care, they end up in an emergency room where they must be treated, and if the illness is worse the treatment is usually more expensive (especially for things like surgeries).

    If they have no money, they still aren't going to pay the bill, so who does? Everyone else.


    It makes far more fiscal sense to pay less money to provide these people with affordable insurance so they can get proper treatment so everyone else doesn't have to pay for high-cost emergency care.
    And this generates lots of people who have bad credit, which in turn becomes profit to places like Aaron Rents, pay as you go phone companies, third party utility guarantors, pawn shops, Amscot, and all kinds of slimy and predatory parallel businesses which cater to people who are ruined by hospital collection agencies.
    Last edited by Novaheart; 10-07-2011 at 10:34 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Senior Member Constitutionally Speaking's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    4,301
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    If the government works for the people, then the people decide what the government's job is.

    .
    Not unless they follow the PROPER procedures to CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION.

    We are NOT supposed to be a nation guided by popular whims but by LAWS.

    Of course those laws are to be responsive to the people, but not just by whim.
    I long for the days when our President actually liked our country.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •