Deaf man asks at townhall if he will get shut out of Obamacare

Steel X

Well-Known Member
Um, ever heard of SSI?

Some of us get SSI as mediaid with that so...we are covered.

However, it is true that it is more expensive to educate a child who is deaf than it is with a hearing person so in other terms it is pretty much unfair to the deaf community who don't get as much respect as other communities do but I guess that's gonna take a long time to get all the respect it deserves.

Hearing aid batteries are expensive, hearing aids and cochlear implants are expensive, interceptors are expensive, and so on...and it always been that way for a long time even before when President Bush was in office, forcing us to increas taxes on hearing aid batteries so...*shrugs*

Life is cruel, I guess.

But of course...the government wouldn't be THAT cruel to leave people with disabilities out of this...there will be a way to fix this.
 

yizuman

Active Member
I'm copying this over to my thread that I started regarding this issue "eugenics anyone?"

I'm wanting to keep documentations on everything in one thread so it's all there to see.

Yiz
 

netrox

New Member
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.
 

deafskeptic

Active Member
Premium Member
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.
 

darkdog

New Member
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. 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.

There's little reason to trust him on this issue. Obama is trying to sell this as the only way to keep the deficit under control, but all logic, experience, and evidence says the exact opposite is true- it will only make an out of control deficit worse. The Congressional Budget Office backs this up. He couldn't make a more bald-face lie if he tried. He leaves me with little reason to believe him when he says "if you like what you have, you can keep it." Obama is on the record supporting a single-payer system, so I feel as if I'm being fed a Trojan horse.

Barack Obama on single payer in 2003 | Physicians for a National Health Program
 

inspirabull

New Member
Logic?

Logic doesn't exist in any of what is being talked about. We have a whole entire system of everything that is not paying for itself. We aren't paying it - so who is? When government spending went into pedal to the floor spending with the conservatives taxes did not go up. The pedal is still mashed to the floor and taxes have not gone up. We are headed towards tragedy and medical reform will simply end up being a way to gather taxes.
 

netrox

New Member
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.
Their reasoning is stupid.

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.

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.

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?!
 

darkdog

New Member
Their reasoning is stupid.
Nah. Barney Frank agrees with their reasoning.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3BS4C9el98[/ame]

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.

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.
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.


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.
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.

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?!
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.
 

yizuman

Active Member
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
 

kokonut

New Member
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.
Actually, if you listen carefully Barney gives a rare peek that, yes, a public plan will lead to a government takeover of health care. Even Pelosi is on the ball accusing the Insurance industry as the evil and bad guys, and they are the "villians." The govt is not interested in making a profit when it comes to health care nor are they interested in keeping a budget. They'll just keep printing money and provide cheap health care (with a big, big caveat behind it) that comes with limitations to it and something that the health insurance industry cannot compete. How can they if govt's bottom line is not to budget or see that a profit is turned? Pelosi lashes out against insurance companies | Politics | Reuters
 

kokonut

New Member
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.
Yes! Tort reform. Plus at the same time scrap mandates at the federal, state, and local levels. The problem and danger is to let govt decide what's best for you. That's the path it's going right now per Pelosi's charges and Frank's rare frankness in the video. That's not the only thing, just look around and you'll see why.
 

darkdog

New Member
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?
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.

Simply put, the resources will not be there. Our future unfunded liabilities are astounding and only growing the longer we wait. Here's a graphic from a recent USA Today story.


Leap in U.S. debt hits taxpayers with 12% more red ink - USATODAY.com

The bulk of that is from Medicare. If you want to read more about it, here's the Financial Report of the United States Government which is published by the Treasury Department and the GAO.

I am sorry to hear about your wife's health problems and I hope things work out. But please do not accuse me of wishing her to die. Such emotional manipulation is uncalled for.
 

inspirabull

New Member
I see a new tax on my check stubs

The original Medicare program came directly out of Social Security. Johnson set it up in his Great Society plan while he was giving away America's wealth to the defense contractors with both hands.
Now I see a new tax on my check stubs - I have paid almost a thousand dollars to Medicare already this year.
While it is one thing to say how we dislike government in our personal affairs it is another to actually wade in there and make any kind of improvements. Often though I have seen our government act as a regulatory agency with great success inspite of the screams and hollers of the right wingers. In fact the government is the only control on big business. The reasons for our current financial disaster is not because of government oversight but the grand stupidity of letting business have its way. Free markets my ass. Now it is time to wade into the businesses that are escalating costs and figure out who is raping us and slow it down to consensual sex. That is something only our government has the power to do.
 

deafskeptic

Active Member
Premium Member
Uh? What has this got to do with this topic?
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.
 
Last edited:

Foxrac

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
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
You have rights to speak out against existing US health care, regardless if it's right or wrong since it's your opinion like us did.
 

deafskeptic

Active Member
Premium Member
The choice of John Holdren as science advisor is enough to raise my eyebrows given that he co-authored the book The Population Bomb with author Paul R. Ehrlich. I am not a fan of Malthus though I did flirt with him briefly before questioning his ideas. Holdren bears watching. He seems to have supported this stuff in the past. I do not know if he currently supports it now.

He is not the first liberal (Sanger, a feminist and founder of Planned Parenthood comes to mind) of or as much as I am loathe to admit this, the last one.
 

C.C.Sinned

New Member
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.
i have no idea how it would play out. i was just posted a link to a debate thread where is was sorta being discussed.

I'm curious to know was is written in the plan. there is probably lots of hidden meanings, double talk and confusing legal babble that blows a lot of smoke to hide everything
 
Top