Angry Mob of Racist Extremists Beats Black Man at Town Hall Meeting

Status
Not open for further replies.
shel90 said:
No difference because prescription drugs and alcohol are legal and taxed. If are asking me where to find the money, that's the answer I can think of unless you have better ideas?
Click to expand...

Tax reefers is gonna help? For one, there's too much regulation in the health care industry and the govt wants to do more? When you start regulating more and more that means it will cost more and more just to stay on top of the regulating business. Whenever you add programs and expand existing ones it cost money going into the hundreds of billions of dollars more. Tell me, is expansion the answer when there is no money to support it? I'm for limit govt, not for an out-of-control one.
 
darkdog said:
I'm not totally closed to the idea of the state helping, but I think it should be the state governments, not the federal. The federal government doesn't have any constitutional authority to do so, much less placing a health insurance mandate on everyone.

I really do think private charitable giving should be emphasized more. Here's an example. There's a guy from my church that is severely disabled. He's a paraplegic and gets severe muscle cramps that produce intense pain. The only way to keep it under control is for him to receive massage therapy every day. It's a necessity for his survival. He's now on Medicare and they don't cover that. His family, while relatively rich, can't afford it because of all his other medical expenses so people from church volunteer and come do it. They've been doing it for almost 2 decades now and he's still alive.

Like I said, there will always be those who fall through the cracks and we should place more emphasis on private charity to take care of those. I much prefer helping with something like that or giving a part of my paycheck to a charity of my choosing over sending in my tax check. Taxes are necessary, of course, but I always feel like much of it is going to be wasted or even used for counterproductive activities.


Did they have trouble hiring new people after that? If so, they made a bad business move. If not, that's probably more an indication of market conditions at the time.
Click to expand...

No, it didnt cuz there were more than enough uneducated workers who needed a high paying job and the insurance company offered that. It was back in 1995 so I cant remember what the market conditions were like.
 
darkdog said:
I'm not totally closed to the idea of the state helping, but I think it should be the state governments, not the federal. The federal government doesn't have any constitutional authority to do so, much less placing a health insurance mandate on everyone.

I really do think private charitable giving should be emphasized more. Here's an example. There's a guy from my church that is severely disabled. He's a paraplegic and gets severe muscle cramps that produce intense pain. The only way to keep it under control is for him to receive massage therapy every day. It's a necessity for his survival. He's now on Medicare and they don't cover that. His family, while relatively rich, can't afford it because of all his other medical expenses so people from church volunteer and come do it. They've been doing it for almost 2 decades now and he's still alive.

Like I said, there will always be those who fall through the cracks and we should place more emphasis on private charity to take care of those. I much prefer helping with something like that or giving a part of my paycheck to a charity of my choosing over sending in my tax check. Taxes are necessary, of course, but I always feel like much of it is going to be wasted or even used for counterproductive activities.


Did they have trouble hiring new people after that? If so, they made a bad business move. If not, that's probably more an indication of market conditions at the time.
Click to expand...


And one of the sad thing about charities is that the number of charities go down in a recessiona and it goes down even further when the "rich" are taxed with higher taxes. Wait til the middle class get taxed, too.
Carolina Review | Moving Past Charity
 
shel90 said:
No, it didnt cuz there were more than enough uneducated workers who needed a high paying job and the insurance company offered that. It was back in 1995 so I cant remember what the market conditions were like.
Click to expand...
There you go. Doing that may have allowed the company to hire more employees who otherwise would have had a lower paying job or no job. Or perhaps it prevented them from having to lay people off or cut down on claim reimbursements or raise premiums. The market is an extraordinarily complex thing, the totality of which no one person or group of people can understand. That's why it's a bad idea to force all businesses to provide health benefits.

EDIT: Oh yeah, if they were high paying jobs, that means the workers probably could have afforded to buy at least catastrophic health insurance (assuming their state mandates allow for that.)
 
darkdog said:
There you go. Doing that may have allowed the company to hire more employees who otherwise would have had a lower paying job or no job. Or perhaps it prevented them from having to lay people off or cut down on claim reimbursements or raise premiums. The market is an extraordinarily complex thing, the totality of which no one person or group of people can understand. That's why it's a bad idea to force all businesses to provide health benefits.
Click to expand...

And this will also raise the cost of services or products, inlcuding food, made for consumers in all income brackets.
 
Simple fact, the U.S. does not have that much money to even run the program successfully. Neither does Britain or any other country to have "full health coverage" for all individuals. It always come down to rationing health care.
 
I think Tom Daschle gives a pretty good explanation of why government-run health care resonates more in Europe than it does here. In his book, "Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-care Crisis", he praises the Europeans for being less into medical advances and technology than we are. He also says seniors need to be more accepting of their conditions and doctors need to operate less like solo practitioners.

That may be all well and good for Europeans, but for me, it's "Thanks but no thanks". Let's do this in a way so as to keep our innovation and individualism.
 
When a Democrat Senator refuses to get rid of her insurance and replace it with Obamacare, and tries to explain why Congress is exempt from Obamacare.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wml0vrIwG8]YouTube - Tsongas health care forum attracts overflow crowd[/ame]

CONSTITUENT: My question to you, Congresswoman Tsongas, is that if this is such a great plan, why did you opt out of it when you took the vote [loud applause, standing ovation]?
TSONGAS: People often say why don’t the American people have what those of us in Congress have. [Audience erupts] Let me explain what I have. Let me explain what I have. What I have is a tremendous array — you know, last year when I went to a discussion — what I have is a tremendous array of choices. And I made a choice based on what I was willing to pay for and what made sense in terms of coverage for me and my family. [Audience shouts out: "We want choice! We want choice!] This is essentially what we are creating for the American people. We are creating greater choice.
[Smattering of applause overwhelmed by boos.]
Click to expand...

Greater choice? Pshaw! The ObamaCare bill clearly states on how it forces and conforms private insurers by dictating them on what they must do in order to qualify under state “exchanges." This simply reduces choice. And over time will almost certainly wipe out some of the existing private insurance plans. It's really about undercutting private insurers forcing them to go under by govt standards and requirements. That means some 83 million Americans will lose their insurance in the first ten years. Thanks to the rules in ObamaCare, people will find out that they will have not have a choice at all. And the only option left would be to take the public option.
 
kokonut said:
When a Democrat Senator refuses to get rid of her insurance and replace it with Obamacare, and tries to explain why Congress is exempt from Obamacare.

YouTube - Tsongas health care forum attracts overflow crowd



Greater choice? Pshaw! The ObamaCare bill clearly states on how it forces and conforms private insurers by dictating them on what they must do in order to qualify under state “exchanges." This simply reduces choice. And over time will almost certainly wipe out some of the existing private insurance plans. It's really about undercutting private insurers forcing them to go under by govt standards and requirements. That means some 83 million Americans will lose their insurance in the first ten years. Thanks to the rules in ObamaCare, people will find out that they will have not have a choice at all. And the only option left would be to take the public option.
Click to expand...

No, I don't find any of your post is true, except for bullshit from right wing.

Obama already made address on state about health care reform and you are just don't understand about what health care reform looks like that and more complicated to say.

Medicaid, Medicare and VA hospital are from government.
 
Foxrac said:
...Medicaid, Medicare and VA hospital are from government.
Click to expand...
Yes, they are, and they aren't as good as private insurance.

Hubby and I use the VA hospital, so I speak from experience. Most of the staff at VA hospitals are wonderful people, and the services, once you get them, are usually very good. The problem is, you are at their mercy as far as making appointments and being able to see specialists. And then, we still have to pay for the services and meds. It is not free.

We veterans earned our medical services, and we pay the Tricare insurance premiums, the co-pays, and the taxes that support the system. Medical care for veterans was supposed to be one of our "benefits" for our military service.

The VA system covers a very select population, unlike Obamacare which will have to cover a very large, diverse population.

Should civilians who didn't earn Obamacare expect better benefits than those who earned and paid for them?

If you want to make a case for Obamacare, I suggest you don't include VA medical services as a support for your argument. It will backfire on you.
 
kokonut said:
When a Democrat Senator refuses to get rid of her insurance and replace it with Obamacare, and tries to explain why Congress is exempt from Obamacare.

YouTube - Tsongas health care forum attracts overflow crowd



Greater choice? Pshaw! The ObamaCare bill clearly states on how it forces and conforms private insurers by dictating them on what they must do in order to qualify under state “exchanges." This simply reduces choice. And over time will almost certainly wipe out some of the existing private insurance plans. It's really about undercutting private insurers forcing them to go under by govt standards and requirements. That means some 83 million Americans will lose their insurance in the first ten years. Thanks to the rules in ObamaCare, people will find out that they will have not have a choice at all. And the only option left would be to take the public option.
Click to expand...

I don't get why the people compare Obama with Hitler who killed people. :scratch:
 
Reba said:
Yes, they are, and they aren't as good as private insurance.

Hubby and I use the VA hospital, so I speak from experience. Most of the staff at VA hospitals are wonderful people, and the services, once you get them, are usually very good. The problem is, you are at their mercy as far as making appointments and being able to see specialists. And then, we still have to pay for the services and meds. It is not free.

We veterans earned our medical services, and we pay the Tricare insurance premiums, the co-pays, and the taxes that support the system. Medical care for veterans was supposed to be one of our "benefits" for our military service.

The VA system covers a very select population, unlike Obamacare which will have to cover a very large, diverse population.

Should civilians who didn't earn Obamacare expect better benefits than those who earned and paid for them?

If you want to make a case for Obamacare, I suggest you don't include VA medical services as a support for your argument. It will backfire on you.
Click to expand...
My brother's a vet and he complains about VA hospitals. He says those people who want government-run health care should just look at the VA system. We all remember the Walter Reed scandal a few years back. Imagine that for everyone. Not pretty.
 
President Obama: Don't buy health reform 'rumors'

President Barack Obama is warning Americans not to believe “rumors” that the health reform initiative he’s pushing will lead to a government-run health care system or push Medicare recipients to die rather than running up a hefty tab for medical services.


"Let me start by dispelling the outlandish rumors that reform will promote euthanasia, or cut Medicaid, or bring about a government takeover of health care. That's simply not true," Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address released Saturday morning.


"This isn’t about putting government in charge of your health insurance; it’s about putting you in charge of your health insurance. Under the reforms we seek, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan,” Obama insisted.


Obama’s message about rumermongering dovetailed with an effort that the White House launched on the Internet this week to collect and refute what Obama aides said was misinformation being spread about Democratic health reform proposals. The call to e-mail such allegedly misleading messages to the White House has been criticized by Republicans and the American Civil Liberties Union as part of what could be viewed as an effort to keep tabs on Obama’s political opponents.


In his address, Obama was vague about who was behind what he suggested was an organized effort to demonize the White House-backed health reform plans. He suggested the efforts were originating in the capital — though the most dramatic resistance to his proposals has been taking place elsewhere.


“As we draw close to finalizing — and passing — real health insurance reform, the defenders of the status quo and political point-scorers in Washington are growing fiercer in their opposition,” the president said. “In recent days and weeks, some have been using misleading information to defeat what they know is the best chance of reform we have ever had. That is why it is important, especially now, as senators and representatives head home and meet with their constituents, for you, the American people, to have all the facts.”


Many Democratic House members holding town hall meetings in their districts have been met by large, sometimes rowdy crowds. In a series of instances, shouting matches have broken out. At other events, some opponents have carried signs that depict Obama as Hitler or suggest his plan amounts to Naziism. Some conservative groups who are encouraging members to attend the sessions have denounced the extreme and disruptive tactics. However, the heated confrontations have proved irresistible fodder for television news broadcasts.


Obama introduced his pitch for health reform legislation by touting better-than-expected unemployment numbers out Friday which showed a loss of 247,000 jobs in July — about 50,000 less than predicted — and the unemployment rate of 9.4 percent, well short of the 10 percent some expected.


“This month’s jobs numbers are a sign that we’ve begun to put the brakes on this recession and that the worst may be behind us,” the president said. “But we must do more than rescue our economy from this immediate crisis; we must rebuild it stronger than before. We must lay a new foundation for future growth and prosperity, and a key pillar of a new foundation is health insurance reform — reform that we are now closer to achieving than ever before.”


Obama’s high-profile linkage of the economy with health care was curious because the White House has been de-emphasizing the economic and budgetary arguments for health reform in recent weeks after polls showed those talking points weren’t resonating with the American people. But officials apparently concluded that the rays of hope in the unemployment figures were such good news they had to have a spot in the president’s weekly address.

President Obama: Don't buy health reform 'rumors' - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com
 
Americans will die unnecessarily until Congress reforms health care

By Rob Shumer | Friday, July 31, 2009

Discussion about health-care reform is getting more heated and more complicated. Debates rage about how much it will cost, if it will be effective, how it will affect the quality of care, and what it will mean for insurance companies and consumers/users. While all these issues are of importance, what is missing in the discussion is the simple fact that people are dying unnecessarily because of lack of a universal-health-care system.

According to "Dying for Coverage, New State Reports" (from Families USA, March-April 2008), "In 2002, the Institute of Medicine released a groundbreaking report, Care without Coverage: Too Little, Too Late, which estimated that 18,000 adults nationwide died in 2000 because they did not have health insurance. Subsequently, The Urban Institute estimated that 22,000 adults died in 2006 because they did not have health insurance. To find out what this means for people across the nation, Families USA has generated the first-ever state-level estimates of the number of deaths due to lack of health insurance. In Minnesota an estimated 1,100 people between the ages of 25-64 died from 2000-2006 because they didn't have health care. Across the US, the numbers who die from lack of health care is twice that of people who die from homicides."

There is worse news. Uninsured Americans are sicker, uninsured adults are 25 percent more likely to die prematurely, and Americans between 55 and 64 are at much greater risk of premature death than their insured counterparts.This makes lack of health insurance the third leading cause of death for the near-elderly, following heart disease and cancer.

The issue isn't cost, quality ...
Read those numbers again. The issue of health-care reform isn't about cost, or quality of care, or survival of the insurance industry. It is about life and death. Anyone who thinks differently simply is ignoring the facts. And when it comes to issues of life and death, ignorance is something we cannot afford.

Our representatives in Congress, in both the House and Senate, need to realize the gravity of their responsibility. While they cavalierly decide to put off the vote on reform until after their August vacation/recess, people will surely die because of their inaction. Members of Congress — who enjoy their own benefits of health coverage provided by the general public — thumb their noses at those Americans who struggle every day with the lack of appropriate health care. Yes, some will surely die unnecessarily during their hiatus.

It is time to inform those members of Congress who refuse to engage seriously in reforming health care in America and refuse to consider a reasonable public option with universal coverage that their actions, or lack thereof, absolutely result in the deaths of American citizens. Shame on them.

We need to understand that there are members of Congress who don't care whether people live or die. And we must take a stand that they should be removed or reminded of their moral obligation to protect the life of all citizens of our country. Congress should not delay. I pray they act before others die needlessly.

MinnPost - Americans will die unnecessarily until Congress reforms health care


And the example of 12 years old boy have to die because their parents can´t afford private dental treatment.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7018057.stm

 
Liebling:-))) said:
I don't get why the people compare Obama with Hitler who killed people. :scratch:
Click to expand...
Maybe because they see Obama's "health" plan to be similar to Hitler's plan of eugenics, to do away with handicapped and elderly people. That is, killing people.
 
Liebling:-))) said:
I don't get why the people compare Obama with Hitler who killed people. :scratch:
Click to expand...
It's a tradition among nut jobs on both sides to compare people they disagree with to Hitler. I can guarantee they're only a fringe among the health care protesters.

I've been to two protests this year. There were a few signs I disagreed with (mostly about the birth certificate), but there were zero Hitler signs.
 
darkdog said:
It's a tradition among nut jobs on both sides to compare people they disagree with to Hitler. I can guarantee they're only a fringe among the health care protesters.

I've been to two protests this year. There were a few signs I disagreed with (mostly about the birth certificate), but there were zero Hitler signs.
Click to expand...

I disagree some of Obama´s policital but I know there´re no comparison between him and Hitler.

10 reasons why Obama isn't Hitler - Alan Nothnagle - Open Salon



 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top