Page 21 of 71 FirstFirst ... 11161718192021222324252631 ... LastLast
Results 401 to 420 of 1405
  1. #401  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    If you're walking through a hospital and seeing all these people.... doesn't that mean that they're getting treated - and without a single payer system?
    Sure. The hospital is just charging those without insurance nothing, then increasing the rates for everyone else to cover their losses....you know, so they can stay in business. Except for those hospitals that don't have enough paying patients, so those have to close. In our town, a county hospital that had been open for fifty years closes next month because they have lost so much money providing uncompensated care that they couldn't afford to pay their empoyees. But for some reason that doesn't seem to register with you. And my hospital lost 11 million dollars last year due to uncompensated care they couldn't make up, so they divested themselves of a number of services to the community that were largely unfunded.
  2. #402  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    So which is it? "Not have to sacrifice anything" i.e., "free", or just affordable?

    Cause if you're really saying that healthcare will be free, well heck, why didn't you just say so!
    Never said it was free. There is no free. There should be no "affordable". Taxes should pay for health care, just like in the rest of the world. And yes, if you want a broad selection of care, you should be able to buy it above and beyond Medicare, for example. But when someone gets sick, they shouldn't have to sacrifice their nest egg, their business or their home because of it.
  3. #403  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    Again wading in until you're over your head.

    Would you have preferred each mutated strain of H1N1 been listed as well?

    Paranoia is fear projected externally. Thanks for sharing.
    Dude, seriously. That's enough. Even the Obama administration doesn't want it called Swine Flu, for FEAR that it might cause people to associate it with pork, and hurt those who work in the hog industry. Ask Mr Vilsack. Enough with your act of superior mental abilities. It's getting old and is not doing much for your credibility.
  4. #404  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Never said it was free. There is no free. There should be no "affordable". Taxes should pay for health care, just like in the rest of the world. And yes, if you want a broad selection of care, you should be able to buy it above and beyond Medicare, for example. But when someone gets sick, they shouldn't have to sacrifice their nest egg, their business or their home because of it.
    Come on. Taxes can't even keep up with the national deficit, and you want to add universal healthcare to the mix? Seriously?
  5. #405  
    Quote Originally Posted by morrison0880 View Post
    Thank you. Pretty much reinforced exactly what I thought of Liberals. Be irresponsible with your life, ie not buying health coverage, and then expect to be bailed out when the worst happens to you. And why didn't you buy that coverage? Because "People should not have to sacrifice anything for decent affordable health care coverage." F'n classic.
    That person refused to buy insurance, and now that it backfired, and in a pretty big way with leukemia I must say, I am now responsible to pay for their irresponsibility, while also being responsible and paying for my own insurance, in case I get leukemia. But that's to be expected, because he or she couldn't "afford" to sacrifice a thing in their life in order to shore up the funds to buy insurance. I'm almost laughing at how typical this type of thinking is.
    So instead we let him die for being young and irresponsible? That's a great alternative. I'm not even close to laughing, at how typical your response is. It's sad that the same people who claim we have "the word's best health care" also can't see the hypocrisy of the fact that all other advanced countries can do what we aren't willing to.

    It sounds like one of the current proposals, which would force the irresponsible person to pay for insurance, would solve both problems.

    By the way, this is an interesting link: Healthcare Napkins All
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  6. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #406  
    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    I am a Canadian, I will say this up front, our health care system is not perfect. It is one hell of alot better then what you have right now. Yes, you can buy your health care. Yes you can make the choice about what coverage you get. Yes if you get sick the insurance company can cancel, and does. The mere fact a private insurance company can play god with you is absolutely amazing.
    Just suppose, Micael, you contract some horrible illness, it can be anything, just what gives the right to your insurance company to cancel your coverage? I assume that you pay your coverage on time an in full, whether it be monthly or in a single lump sum payment. Where does the company get off on cancelling your coverage?
    I am sure, your answer will be just go out and get a new insurance company. Why the hell should you have to. You have been a good client, buying up every thing the company has to offer, spending thousands of dollars, annually, for years with out a single claim. Again, what right do they have to play god?
    Universal health care is a big bad thing for you, for many reasons. I have seen posts here pointing at govt, to taking responsibility for yourself. The full gamut of reasons.

    Now many of you state, your capitalist society is the best in the world, that is another discussion, you also state that big govt should not get involved in alot of things, health care being one of them. Individualism is the rule of the day, stand up or pull yourelf up by your bootstraps. Ok, then why are your armed forces in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or anyone of another couple of dozen countries? Should they not being standing on their own two feet? Pulling themselves up by their bootstraps? Why is it that past President Bush, and at the time, a majority of Americans support intervening in those countries?

    This sort of thing confuses this poor boy from the great white north. On one hand you say NOOOOOOOOOOOO to big govt and health care and and and, yet many of the same people who are screaming no to universal health care were the same people who just had to go and help those poor Iraq's or Afghans, or Columbians, or or or.. As I said, I am confused, how can it be you will sacrifice your youth in some other country, but wont even offer the basics in health care for the same youth here at home?? Seems to be just a little hypocritical to me... But explain it, so this poor boy from the great white north can understand.
    Wow. I hope you feel better. You made a lot of accusations about me that aren't true. You've done a good job of painting me (with color even!) in just the right way so that you can then take me apart. And you pulled it all into one big package. Healthcare, Bush, Iraq, Columbia, how I feel, what I think, how wrong I am.....

    Tell you what, from now on I'm going to let you post my messages for me. You've got me figured out so well. It will save me a lot of effort, and you'll be able to win every argument you have with yourself.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  7. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #407  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Never said it was free. There is no free. There should be no "affordable". Taxes should pay for health care, just like in the rest of the world. And yes, if you want a broad selection of care, you should be able to buy it above and beyond Medicare, for example. But when someone gets sick, they shouldn't have to sacrifice their nest egg, their business or their home because of it.
    We're both saying the same thing, davidra. That people should have access to healthcare. But your way is for the goverment to control it all. My way is for the government to regulate parts of it, i.e., stopping with the cancelations, extending insurance regardless of prexisting conditions, well care for those who can't afford it. My only issue, in all this, has been the government "option". I see that as over the top and dangerous to the economy. And I think we're overlooking additional areas to cut costs, like tort reform and massive pharmaceutical costs.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  8. #408  
    Quote Originally Posted by Technologic 2 View Post
    For those, some reforms are needed (which gets me included in the statistic that ~80% are for healthcare reform). See my suggestions in post #1 of this thread to see how people who can't get covered could be covered.
    Oh yeah. Those. Really spectacular work, full of inconsistencies and misinformed thought processes. So the government should pay for people who can't pay and are seen in ER's, or even triaged? Think that's real efficient, do you? Thought about maybe primary care instead, you know, preventive medicine? Probably not. If you want to lower the cost of seeing non-emergent patients who show at ER's, have them not show up at ER's by providing them with primary care. That is cheaper. Any clinic at a hospital providing the kind of care you're talking about will not cost much less than being seen in an ER...but you wouldn't know that.

    With no group policies, and open purchasing insurance to everyone, including those without insurance and those who are not working, insurance companies would certainly go bankrupt. They do fine with employer based insurance. Know why? Employees are working. Working people are healthier than those who don't work, or who can't work because of illness (or pre-existing condition, which for some reason you think won't cost anything to take care of for two years. People can easily go bankrupt in a month, much less two years).

    Making insurance tax deductible doesn't really help when you're making minimum wage, now, does it? You constantly look at the wrong populations when expounding. Sad.

    Nobody seriously thinks tort reform will have any effect on costs, except for republicans who know nothing about health care....and if they do, they just say it because it gives them something to complain about. Fine. Do it.

    And as I stated when you first posted that wondrous plan, no medical schools I know are trying to limit the number of doctors. Most of them can barely afford to retain faculty to teach because of state budget issues in public schools. Guess what? It costs money to train doctors too, and tuition doesn't cover it.

    Yeah, "some" reforms are needed. Let's try it with some that will work and not make things worse.
  9. #409  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    Again wading in until you're over your head.

    Would you have preferred each mutated strain of H1N1 been listed as well?

    Paranoia is fear projected externally. Thanks for sharing.
    dunno about head wading, but a professional physician nowadays is trained to avoid unnecessary medical terminology when a perfectly acceptable colloquial term is appropriate for the situation.

    for example, it is preferable to just say someone is "sweating" instead of "diaphoresing" when speaking to patients. many doctors/nurses educated today are encouraged to reserve jargon/medical terminology for discussions that require their precision, and won't potentially be confused by them.
  10. #410  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    We're both saying the same thing, davidra. That people should have access to healthcare. But your way is for the goverment to control it all. My way is for the government to regulate parts of it, i.e., stopping with the cancelations, extending insurance regardless of prexisting conditions, well care for those who can't afford it. My only issue, in all this, has been the government "option". I see that as over the top and dangerous to the economy. And I think we're overlooking additional areas to cut costs, like tort reform and massive pharmaceutical costs.
    I understand exactly what you're saying, and it is more rational than much of what you say, or maybe it's the way you say it. But here's the deal: if you do that, whether there's a public option or not, insurance companies will go broke unless you control costs. And as you know, I (and most health economists) think tort reform will have little effect. The only people that do think it will do anything are politicians. Agree with you about pharmaceutical cost...but it's high tech expensive specialty care that is where the money is.

    My guess, in fact, is that private insurance companies will go broke even if you do try and control some costs. Their entire business model is based on decreasing risk, and not covering people at high risk. There are LOTS of people at high risk, and adding them will require subsidization by the government. And no matter what I think of private insurers, I sure don't favor subsidizing them with taxpayer money so they can pass along their profit to shareholders (yes, I know you work in a non-profit, and we both know that doesn't really make that much difference). I think that without a public option available as a back-up we are setting ourselves up for a disaster with no availability of care. And then there's the complexity of setting up such a complicated arrangement. There are tons of rational reasons, not political ones, for having a public option. But the yelling is political, not based in what's really best for health care.
  11. #411  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Oh yeah. Those. Really spectacular work, full of inconsistencies and misinformed thought processes. So the government should pay for people who can't pay and are seen in ER's, or even triaged? Think that's real efficient, do you? Thought about maybe primary care instead, you know, preventive medicine? Probably not. If you want to lower the cost of seeing non-emergent patients who show at ER's, have them not show up at ER's by providing them with primary care. That is cheaper. Any clinic at a hospital providing the kind of care you're talking about will not cost much less than being seen in an ER...but you wouldn't know that.

    With no group policies, and open purchasing insurance to everyone, including those without insurance and those who are not working, insurance companies would certainly go bankrupt. They do fine with employer based insurance. Know why? Employees are working. Working people are healthier than those who don't work, or who can't work because of illness (or pre-existing condition, which for some reason you think won't cost anything to take care of for two years. People can easily go bankrupt in a month, much less two years).

    Making insurance tax deductible doesn't really help when you're making minimum wage, now, does it? You constantly look at the wrong populations when expounding. Sad.

    Nobody seriously thinks tort reform will have any effect on costs, except for republicans who know nothing about health care....and if they do, they just say it because it gives them something to complain about. Fine. Do it.

    And as I stated when you first posted that wondrous plan, no medical schools I know are trying to limit the number of doctors. Most of them can barely afford to retain faculty to teach because of state budget issues in public schools. Guess what? It costs money to train doctors too, and tuition doesn't cover it.

    Yeah, "some" reforms are needed. Let's try it with some that will work and not make things worse.
    Excellent post. Not condescending at all, full of facts, likerepublicans know nothing about health care. Very well spoken devidra.
  12. #412  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Oh, they knew the risks and didn't buy coverage, and now they have leukemia. What would you like to do with them? You want to let them die in the street? No, you want them to go to a charity facility (which is where that moron Kantor would send them, and he had the lack o insight to say it in front of a camera which just pointed out what a ******bag he is) because it's unseemly to have a country that let's people die in the street. At least most countries feel that way. But somebody has to pay for that care, and guess who it is? It's you. Those hospital workers have to be paid, those tests need to be paid for, the chemotherapy has to be paid for. And it's all just passed along to you one way or another. This is just a very inefficient and irresponsible way to do it, as opposed to being transparent in terms of costs.

    People should not have to sacrifice anything for decent affordable health care coverage. What you have in your state means nothing to people in my state. Maybe I'll just tell them to move north. Why should you help pay for health care for people that can't afford it, through no fault of their own? Because we live in a country that hopefully is willing to provide for those who cannot afford health care. Again I'll suggest you take a look at the posts by Canadians on these health care threads. They are very pleased with their health care system, and they are also proud that they can help others. They also think we're morons for succumbing to scare tactics and manure. Hopefully we can prove them wrong.
    Still, by far my favorite post to date. "Hi, I'm a liberal. Please let me reinforcement the basic stereotype of leftist thinking." Awesome. You've made my week davidra.
  13. #413  
    Quote Originally Posted by morrison0880 View Post
    Still, by far my favorite post to date. "Hi, I'm a liberal. Please let me reinforcement the basic stereotype of leftist thinking." Awesome. You've made my week davidra.
    Then I'm happy for you. Maybe some time you might want to address the issues raised. Nah, probably not. You never come armed with anything but opinion and that's tiresome.
  14. #414  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Then I'm happy for you. Maybe some time you might want to address the issues raised. Nah, probably not. You never come armed with anything but opinion and that's tiresome.
    You're right. I don't post anything of substance, while your posts are riddled with objective facts and meaningful debate, as evidenced by your posts above. Seriously though, thanks for that. Even a liberal friend in our office shook his head at your words.
  15. #415  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    If you're walking through a hospital and seeing all these people.... doesn't that mean that they're getting treated - and without a single payer system?
    And who is paying for the uninsured? You and I, and it's unsustainable.

    We must have mandatory insurance and it's only fair to offer a non-profit gov't run Insurance option in that case.
  16. #416  
    Quote Originally Posted by morrison0880 View Post
    Come on. Taxes can't even keep up with the national deficit, and you want to add universal healthcare to the mix? Seriously?
    Hmmmmmm, spend tax money on unnecessary war in Iraq or on health care for Americans? That is a tough choice but I gotta lean towards health care.
  17. #417  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    So instead we let him die for being young and irresponsible? That's a great alternative. I'm not even close to laughing, at how typical your response is. It's sad that the same people who claim we have "the word's best health care" also can't see the hypocrisy of the fact that all other advanced countries can do what we aren't willing to.

    It sounds like one of the current proposals, which would force the irresponsible person to pay for insurance, would solve both problems.

    By the way, this is an interesting link: Healthcare Napkins All
    That was an interesting link. I really enjoyed reading that. I think I'll pass it along. Thanks.
  18. #418  
    Quote Originally Posted by morrison0880 View Post


    You're right. I don't post anything of substance, while your posts are riddled with objective facts and meaningful debate, as evidenced by your posts above. Seriously though, thanks for that. Even a liberal friend in our office shook his head at your words.
    Maybe you feel that way because you haven't bothered to read the threads you inserted yourself into from the beginning. There's a lot for you to learn. Give it a try.
  19. #419  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Hmmmmmm, spend tax money on unnecessary war in Iraq or on health care for Americans? That is a tough choice but I gotta lean towards health care.
    I am not using the war in Iraq as an example in any of my posts, nor have I expressed an opinion on the matter either way. If you want my opinion, I would say that it was a mistake, and our resources are being aimed at the wrong targets. Afghanistan, in my opinion, is much more justified, but again, I am not trying to use either as a support for my opinion on healthcare.
    Regardless if the war was occuring or not, I am against any gov't option in healthcare. Yes, there should be some sort of reform to keep costs down. What that reform is, I unfortunately cannot say, as I am not an economist. However, I am not, like davidra and 1thing want to portray me as, an *****. I do not brag about my education, because it is not necessary to back my opinions up, and I don't feel the need to make sure everyone knows I got my smarts. I want the gov't as far away from my life as possible. Their involvement with the banks and the auto industry is already too close for comfort. I was against the patriot act, which was passed much like this reform is trying to be passes. Using fear. Yes 1think, both sides use the same tactics. They just present them differently.
    daThomas, I am not for letting people die in the streets. What I am for is people taking responsibility for their own lives, instead of always going around with their hands out. Although davidra doesn't believe so, people DO need to sacrifice for the things they want in life, and healthcare is no different. Why do we have to pay for food? It is much more important to our daily lives than a doctor's visit, wouldn't you say? Yet we have to pay for it, which means sacrificing that money for a necessity instead of using it for something you would otherwise spend it on. It's a fact of life.
    Healthcare is expensive. Are some costs out of control? Yes they are. But do you really think the gov't coming in is going to make things better? What have they done to make you think they won't mess it up even more than it is now. The USPS, the war, the $10 trillion deficit. If they were a company, they would've been out of business long ago, or at the very least the guys in charge would be fired for stealing from the American public. So in the end, no, I am not in favor of giving my money to an inept governmental body so they can give it to someone who could've bought their own private health insurance, but didn't want to give up, to use 1think's example, their ipod, since that would cramp their lifestyle.
  20. #420  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Maybe you feel that way because you haven't bothered to read the threads you inserted yourself into from the beginning. There's a lot for you to learn. Give it a try.
    davidra, you're right, I already surrendered. I don't know what I was doing trying to join your conversation. I am just in your opinion a dumb individual who, because I'm against this plan, necessarily must have nothing intelligent to say. We're on the same page, don't worry. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go bang my stupid head into a wall while I eat my jello and try to learn my colors.

Posting Permissions