kokonut
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2006
- Messages
- 16,007
- Reaction score
- 1
Logic just doesn't exist among those people.
If you don't want a socialized care, you HAVE EVERY RIGHT to not take it. It's that simple. Where in the whole world do you think that being on Obamacare will take away your right to have medical care?!?
"Does that include me? If medical decisions are being made by the government; not by my doctors, my parents, or me, I would be determined to be too expensive to receive the services I need to be able to navigate my way in the world."
Um, perhaps before he asks that stupid question, many private insurances refuse to insure people who have diseases and refuse to pay medical services because they think it's not necessary. Why should a government-run health insurance be different? They have every right to decide what they consider is necessary or not necessary.
So, either, you want health care for ALL Americans or make millions of people suffer without insurance. You can ALWAYS opt out of the service, remember that.
Many insurances would refuse to insure me because my diabetes is a pre-existing condition so I'd certainly want something to to help pick up my health costs.
I would hope the op never comes down with a serious and a chronic disease.
Rather than impugning the logic of the plurality who oppose the House bill, you may want to try to understand their reasoning. The government has a luxury private insurers do not- the ability to fund themselves by taking money from the public at the point of a gun. That puts the private companies at a competitive disadvantage which could drive them out of business. Furthermore, if you get your health insurance through your company and your company switches to the public option because it's cheaper, then you're out. Also, language contained in the bill would make it illegal to sell private insurance that does not conform to a government-set standard. Who knows what that standard will be.Logic just doesn't exist among those people.
Rather than impugning the logic of the plurality who oppose the House bill, you may want to try to understand their reasoning. The government has a luxury private insurers do not- the ability to fund themselves by taking money from the public at the point of a gun. That puts the private companies at a competitive disadvantage which could drive them out of business.
Nah. Barney Frank agrees with their reasoning.Their reasoning is stupid.
Yes, I oppose them. "Oh my gosh! darkdog hates old people and wants them to die in the streets!!!" No, I have two good reasons.What about Medicare/Medicaid? It's a public funded insurance... do you oppose to them too? We pay a little more for them but it's WORTH every penny because we have saved millions of people from dying.
Of course. The insurance companies profit off the healthy and the sick profit off the insurance companies. The insurance companies have to perform a balancing act where they need their premiums to be high enough to cover the medical care for their sick customers but low enough to attract and retain healthy customers while competing with other insurance companies.You DO PAY for other people when you pay private insurance too. What do you think insurance is all about? It's about pooling and investing.
You're debating in the realm of morality and I'm debating in the realm of policy. I do care which is why I give a portion of my income to private causes. However, given the massive problems that Medicare, Medicaid, the Indian Health Service, and the VA Hospitals are suffering, I oppose adding another ill-considered boondoggle on top of it, especially since we can already expect high taxes and inflation just to pay off the current spending binge, not to mention the looming entitlement insolvency hanging over our heads. There are ways to make medical care more affordable, including tort reform and connecting the end consumers more directly with the costs.And I read that 60% of bankruptcies happen because of medical bills. And you're so concerned about our taxes being raised to help them?!
Nah. Barney Frank agrees with their reasoning.
YouTube - Single Payer Action Confronts Barney Frank
I don't have time to transcribe it. Basically, he says that he supports single-payer, but given the political realities, the only way to achieve it is to start with the public insurance option.
Yes, I oppose them. "Oh my gosh! darkdog hates old people and wants them to die in the streets!!!" No, I have two good reasons.
1. It's unconstitutional. The powers of Congress are limited and enumerated in Article I Section 8. Nowhere are such programs justified.
2. It's going bankrupt. It is on an unsustainable course and it's going to put more and more pressure on the deficit. Sooner or later, we'll all have to deal with it. It has other problems too, like underpaying providers.
If such programs are good ideas, the states should do them. Besides that actually being constitutional, there are several advantages to it. States, being more local in nature, are more able to know the needs of their people and effectively address them. Also, if a state mismanages its entitlement programs and they go bankrupt, at least the damage is minimized and other states can learn what not to do. If it's a success, the other states can model it. However, if the federal government mismanages its entitlement programs, we're all screwed. Gosh, it's almost as if those old dead white guys knew what they were talking about when they penned the Constitution.
Of course. The insurance companies profit off the healthy and the sick profit off the insurance companies. The insurance companies have to perform a balancing act where they need their premiums to be high enough to cover the medical care for their sick customers but low enough to attract and retain healthy customers while competing with other insurance companies.
A government program doesn't need to perform that balancing act. They can make their premiums lower than all private insurance companies and not have to worry about having enough money from premiums to cover the medical bills because they can take extra money out of the public in the form of taxes. If I'm on the government plan and you're not, I'm enjoying extra low premiums and you're paying for it. You don't get any choice in the matter. Try not paying your taxes and see what happens (hint: it involves men with guns and lawful authority). That puts private companies at a competitive disadvantage which could put them out of business. Hence, for those 80% or so who say they're happy with their current coverage, the promise of keeping what they have if they like it is empty.
You're debating in the realm of morality and I'm debating in the realm of policy. I do care which is why I give a portion of my income to private causes. However, given the massive problems that Medicare, Medicaid, the Indian Health Service, and the VA Hospitals are suffering, I oppose adding another ill-considered boondoggle on top of it, especially since we can already expect high taxes and inflation just to pay off the current spending binge, not to mention the looming entitlement insolvency hanging over our heads. There are ways to make medical care more affordable, including tort reform and connecting the end consumers more directly with the costs.
Nah. Barney Frank agrees with their reasoning.
YouTube - Single Payer Action Confronts Barney Frank
You're debating in the realm of morality and I'm debating in the realm of policy. I do care which is why I give a portion of my income to private causes. However, given the massive problems that Medicare, Medicaid, the Indian Health Service, and the VA Hospitals are suffering, I oppose adding another ill-considered boondoggle on top of it, especially since we can already expect high taxes and inflation just to pay off the current spending binge, not to mention the looming entitlement insolvency hanging over our heads. There are ways to make medical care more affordable, including tort reform and connecting the end consumers more directly with the costs.
Of course not. I said nothing of the sort. I would be for gradually weening ourselves off Medicare, continuing benefits for those already on it, and allowing the states take over. The sooner we do something about it, the less painful it will be. If we wait too long, we will very likely face a situation at some point where we would be forced to drop people such as your lovely wife cold turkey. What you described is exactly the scenario I'm trying to avoid.In other words, you want my wife to croak without her medicare/medicaid program that she's dependent on to pay for her dialysis as well as her medications?
read this thread: eugenics anyone?
Uh? What has this got to do with this topic?
In other words, you want my wife to croak without her medicare/medicaid program that she's dependent on to pay for her dialysis as well as her medications?
With private health insurance premiums skyrocketing (one employer offered me a health coverage of 60 something dollars a week. Money I don't have and can't afford)
Got a box big enough for my wife and pay for her funeral expenses?
Yiz
I have since then googled the subject and many of the blogs and sites concerning this charge seems fairly far right and I have yet to see any substantial evidence that this is an agenda to sneak in some eugenics practices. I haven't seen any neutral sites (ie.. CNN - Fox is not exactly netural) being concerned about this. Show me the health care bill and I may take this more seriously. I want to read the contents of the bill - not some right winger's accusations.