Page 46 of 71 FirstFirst ... 36414243444546474849505156 ... LastLast
Results 901 to 920 of 1405
  1. #901  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    People are already guaranteed access to health care in this country. You can't be turned away from any hospital based on your ability to pay. We already cover that.

    Don't mix that up with health insurance coverage.

    You seem to be ignoring my point that we're missing the boat with this plan, i.e., we're driving costs up for everyone, as opposed to reducing health care costs. Rather than arguing about how we can pay for the plan, we should be starting fresh with a different approach.
    For some reason you seem to lack the understanding that someone, like you, has to pay for all those emergency room visits. This is not Wonderland. And when those people are discharged without insurance, they can't get followup because nobody will see them. Their condition will deteriorate, and they will be back in the hospital again, and between times they'll clog up the ER with non-emergent problems because they have no primary care provider. You think this is a health care system for 30-55 million Americans without insurance?

    It's really unfortunate that you just can't see that many people ARE only concerned about people having health insurance coverage. You continually come up with some kind of absurd rationale to back up your posts that have no data or basis in reality....like the only reason democrats want health care reform is because they want to cram a public option down everyone's throat. Give me a break. That may be your justification, but that's a lot of bull. In fact, as I've said many times, show me a way to provide for everyone who is uninsured without a public option, and I'd be all for it. I just know it's impossible. If our costs were as low as Germany or Italy, it might work...because it does there. Private companies compete with a public option and they do just fine. But you want a CT scanner on every corner so you don't have to drive very far, and we will not control costs with that attitude.

    It's literally amazing how wrong you can be, and so consistently as well.
  2. #902  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    I disagree....I see it far too often people unable to get health insurance or, if they can get it, pre-existing conditions aren't covered. I'm not talking about folks on group plans, I'm talking people who are applying for individual coverage. How would you get these folks covered if you don't force insurance companies to accept them regardless of their health? I have had many clients who could afford the coverage, but simply couldn't get it. In SC they could then go on the state "pool", but in SC that plan sucks and is extremely expensive.

    The thought of requiring people to get health coverage really doesn't sit well with me, but I don't know how you guarantee someone the access without requiring everyone. I'm open to ideas on that...thoughts?
    And as for you....congrats for actually seeing the issue the way most providers do. Let me give you a hint...most people are not happy about having to do this. But it's the only way to get done what needs to be done, and it's a brave person that is willing to actually go against their world view when necessary. I never thought I'd say this, but I agree with you 100%.
  3. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #903  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    For some reason you seem to lack the understanding that someone, like you, has to pay for all those emergency room visits. This is not Wonderland.
    You assume incorrectly, as usual.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  4. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #904  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post


    I know. Those other industrialized nations (ALL of them) are crazy.
    Your words, not mine.

    (btw, some of those crazy nations are trying to reintroduce competitive private insurance)
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  5. #905  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Your words, not mine.

    (btw, some of those crazy nations are trying to reintroduce competitive private insurance)
    What private insurance CEO in the US could get by on a mere $80K a year. He spends that much just on haircuts and plugs.
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  6. #906  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Then I take it you're for penalizing, maybe even criminalizing people who do things that affect our health care costs, such as; smoking, drinking, obesity, risky sports, eating bad foods, etc. Steep fines and jailtime oughta do em...
    Criminalizing people for "smoking, drinking, obesity, risky sports, eating bad foods, etc.".....how did you take that from my statement. First, I have no problem charging people more for smoking, obesity, and risky sports since those can be measured or at least proven and besides, we already do in many types of insurance plans. Not sure how you ask someone on an application if they eat bad foods (seems complicated) or get a real answer on drinking (well, some applications do ask that now, so actually can do that one). However, no problem on charging extra for certain issues.....no need to go overboard and hit these people with fines and jailtime, kind of silly really.

    Now, not sure how you do the fines for not enrolling in some plan....no f*#@ing idea on that. Wish I had the answer for that.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  7. #907  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    And as for you....congrats for actually seeing the issue the way most providers do. Let me give you a hint...most people are not happy about having to do this. But it's the only way to get done what needs to be done, and it's a brave person that is willing to actually go against their world view when necessary. I never thought I'd say this, but I agree with you 100%.
    Yikes....that does worry me that you agree with me However, please note, I am NOT an advocate of universal coverage and I believe that is your plan. That, in my opinion, is not needed and will just cause worse problems than we have now. Anyway, glad we at least could come to some agreement, but it does scare me....yikes.

    Plus....I'm still a backer of this being done by the States and not the Federal Government. The current "pooled" plan in SC could be improved and folks could be supplemented who couldn't afford it. I personally would have no problem paying an extra 5 cents per gallon at the pump or an extra penny of sales tax to help people with coverage. Yes, if you are making $200k you should be able to afford all the premium (they wouldn't need to be on a state plan if pre-ex are waived for insurance companies), but someone making $10k simply can't and should be helped. But if EVERYONE pays via a sales tax and at the pump at least it doesn't force the successful people in our country to be the one holding the bill.

    If we take care of these people....get them covered....then hopefully that translates into improved rates for the folks currently on and happy with their group or individual plan. This can be done WITHOUT Obama ripping the system totally up.
    Last edited by clemgrad85; 11/09/2009 at 02:38 PM.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  8. #908  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Your words, not mine.

    (btw, some of those crazy nations are trying to reintroduce competitive private insurance)
    Regulated to the point they are legally not allowed to make profits.

    Again I'll point out that the U.S. is the only industrialized nation which allows health insurance companies to profit off of illness.
  9. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #909  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Regulated to the point they are legally not allowed to make profits.

    Again I'll point out that the U.S. is the only industrialized nation which allows health insurance companies to profit off of illness.
    That's actually wrong. Insurance companies don't profit from illness. On the contrary, it's when people are well that they profit.

    So, the U.S. is the only industrialized nation which allows health insurance companies to profit off of people's well being.
  10. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #910  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    You're jumping back and forth here. It's just fiction can't we discuss fiction. Sure discuss any religious writings you want as fiction. Just as long as you're actually teaching concepts of literature. My 7th grade teacher taught poetry with the Rolling Stones "Mother's Little Helper".
    Sorry to be jumping so far back, but I was away for a bit.

    Let's remember this correctly--you said that discussing "magic stories" was robbing your of your education. Whether you believe Religion is fiction or not isn't the point you made--you likened "fiction" to a waste. So, you are in fact the one "jumping."

    You are also are incorrect--because YOU think religion is fiction doesn't mean Religion should be characterized as such by schools. That's fairly typical--you who are so offended that someone might present a view that you don't believe, are more than willing to have public institutions push your views on others. What place does a school have in declaring what is or isn't a valid belief? None, but that's what you insist they do, but declaring it fiction. If YOU want to believe it is fiction, that's your choice. LEARNING about what various Religions believe is not proclaiming the truth, but an objective study of legitimate cultural elements.

    Religion is not literature--YOU likened it to that, so I questioned you on it. Religion is just like any other cultural study, but again--some seem dedicated to making special (negative) exceptions for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    And yes, science works towards being fact honestly, as opposed to the creationists.

    Now you can't say creationism is not a scientific theory being put up as equal to Evolution, because it was. See Kansas School Board above.
    Well, first if you think that science and honesty are inherently connected, you are very wrong. Science is as much about politics (dishonesty) as anything.
    Second--I do not say Creationism isn't scientific theory, but if someone wants to pursue it using science they are welcome to it, and a bunch of paranoid secularists need not throw a hissy fit about it. So much for open-mindedness huh? Creationism as science isn't my thing, and I'm not here to defend it--rather to point out what I see as flaws in anti-Religious people's arguments.

    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Ok, enough of your singing the praises of Obama nonsense. Please research that and you will find that was a civics class in which several presidents were sung about including W Bush. So please stop characterizing it in the manner you are as it's absolutely disingenuous and soils your other points.
    In other words--don't mention it--its too creepy to justify. Sure, no problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Catholic school. Nuns and all.
    One really can't complain about Religious teaching at a Religious school.

    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Again, these are discussed in the proper context. Not related as creationism was to be taught as an alternative to science. I think you see the difference.
    I do see the difference, but I am not sure you aren't blurring that. I don't believe Public schools should teach Creationism as science, but I don't think they should be required to declare it as "fiction" and treat it as a literature course either. Religion is a belief--amongst many other types of beliefs and it shouldn't be a taboo subject as a bunch of extreme secularists (not accusing you necessarily) demand it be, which in effect promotes THEIR belief (which is a dedicated atheism--not incidential atheism).

    I won't go into it, but I see a difference in someone who has a lack of belief in a religion, vs someone who has an belief in anti-Religion.

    KAM
  11. #911  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    That's actually wrong. Insurance companies don't profit from illness. On the contrary, it's when people are well that they profit.

    So, the U.S. is the only industrialized nation which allows health insurance companies to profit off of people's well being.
    Excellent point! Soup for you!
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  12. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #912  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Costs cannot be reduced if everyone is not required to carry coverage.
    And a major flaw in your position is that the Government has no right to tell me I must carry insurance coverage at all. Congratulations for supporting unlimited government. I hope you can cheer as loud when some other administration is in and using that same justification to harm you.

    Oh wait...are you going to say that already happened--over the last 8 years? That's what an indoctrinated Obamite would say.

    KAM
  13. #913  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    I do see the difference, but I am not sure you aren't blurring that. I don't believe Public schools should teach Creationism as science, but I don't think they should be required to declare it as "fiction" and treat it as a literature course either. Religion is a belief--amongst many other types of beliefs and it shouldn't be a taboo subject as a bunch of extreme secularists (not accusing you necessarily) demand it be, which in effect promotes THEIR belief (which is a dedicated atheism--not incidential atheism).

    I won't go into it, but I see a difference in someone who has a lack of belief in a religion, vs someone who has an belief in anti-Religion.

    KAM
    If we taught religion as as non-fiction then which one should we teach as they all contradict science and each other in some form or way. There for a contradiction would lead to burden of proof. Can you prove that YOUR religion is correct over someone else's? Science is based on theory and the proof there of.

    Now in your defense we could say that what Einstein said about time travel is fiction as well as the burden of proof is still at large and we cannot travel even close to 186,000 miles per second. But hey when we do, maybe we can go back in time and answer the "which religion is non-fiction" question



    Anyway, back to healthcare. I honestly still do not believe that taxinf people or throwing money at a problem will fix it. An idea will. So lets start coming up with those....
  14. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #914  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    ....like the only reason democrats want health care reform is because they want to cram a public option down everyone's throat. Give me a break. That may be your justification, but that's a lot of bull.
    That would be a great point, except of course they ARE craming the public option down everyone's throat. From what I read, the claims that "you can keep your plan if you like" isn't really true, in that the new government plan is designed to funnel you into it at every turn. Technically you may under some circumstances be able to keep your current plan, but that moving forward it probably isn't very likely.

    IF this is true (and who can really tell, given the shenanegens going on constantly with middle of the night business), then one must ask if that is "bull" or not. Does it really matter what I believe their motivation is, if the result is the same?

    KAM
  15. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #915  
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobdude View Post
    If we taught religion as as non-fiction then which one should we teach as they all contradict science and each other in some form or way. There for a contradiction would lead to burden of proof. Can you prove that YOUR religion is correct over someone else's? Science is based on theory and the proof there of.

    Now in your defense we could say that what Einstein said about time travel is fiction as well as the burden of proof is still at large and we cannot travel even close to 186,000 miles per second. But hey when we do, maybe we can go back in time and answer the "which religion is non-fiction" question
    I'm not sure I agree with your claims. However, I've not made any demand or desire that my religion be taught as truthful or that anyone accept it as such. I am not attempting to prove my religion is "correct."

    Schools are teaching ABOUT religions, just like they teach about other cultural beliefs. Does one need to PROVE that other non-religious cultural practices are "correct" or not? No, there is a false distinction being drawn here, and when studied as an academic subject, there is no difference.

    Additionally--I will mention this (although you seem to understand this already), Science is not fact. Most of science is NOT fact, but theory, and that's not talking down science (I make my living with science in one form or another), but rather stating the truth. Science is ever-evolving, and though some adhere to it with a Religious fervor (and if you want to talk crazy--deal with that contradiction), but it isn't. Science isn't constant, and may include a lot of facts, but is not the same as fact.

    Now if you are a objectivist...well, I'm sorry, but they might make that mistake.

    Quote Originally Posted by scoobdude View Post
    Anyway, back to healthcare. I honestly still do not believe that taxinf people or throwing money at a problem will fix it. An idea will. So lets start coming up with those....
    Well, in fact, attempts to do what you just stated are in fact, failing, and only continuing by racking up unsustainable debt. So, this type of plan has already proven to be a failure in terms of economics, despite people pretending they are getting a free lunch. They aren't and sooner or later that will catch up to us, and then this will all seem trivial.

    KAM
  16. #916  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    That's actually wrong. Insurance companies don't profit from illness. On the contrary, it's when people are well that they profit.

    So, the U.S. is the only industrialized nation which allows health insurance companies to profit off of people's well being.
    How about; 'The U.S. is the only industrialized nation which allows health insurance companies to profit off of peoples need to be insured?

    But really, if they aren't making money, they aren't going to do business.

    So people suffer from the insurance companies need to profit.

    That's where this is so unique. They deserve to make money, that's why they started the company.

    But who regulates them so they don't take advantage of people being stuck between a rock and a hard spot?

    Where I live, there is only one electrical company that provides power to all. That's PGE. They could charge $400 per month to power a basic 1000 sq ft home if there wasn't some sort of regulator. It would easily be a similar issue - which may be okay. But it's regulated so common folk can have electricity to their homes.
    Just call me Berd.
  17. #917  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Additionally--I will mention this (although you seem to understand this already), Science is not fact. Most of science is NOT fact, but theory, and that's not talking down science (I make my living with science in one form or another), but rather stating the truth. Science is ever-evolving, and though some adhere to it with a Religious fervor (and if you want to talk crazy--deal with that contradiction), but it isn't. Science isn't constant, and may include a lot of facts, but is not the same as fact.
    Science is, above all, a means of acquiring knowledge using scientific methodology (and, yes, I know I used the word in the definition...sue me). Teaching religion as literature, or as a comparative religion-based social studies course can certainly be taught in schools, as long as its done in a non-proselytizing manner.....kind of like you would teach any sort of fiction or fairy tale.

    However, teaching religion (and it's step-child, intelligent design) in science class defies the evidence-based methodology that students need to be taught in science, and is simply bad science.

    People use the argument that "science is not fact", as if that invalidates it. Science, by its very nature, is an exploratory field and doesn't claim to know everything...but it has a specific method of clarifying what it doesn't know, when faced with new evidence. It doesn't simply ignore evidence and claim divine intervention.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  18. #918  
    Let me address a big misconception first: Universities are not limiting the number of Med students admitted; the universities get there accreditation for the programs and that has the stipulation on how many students they are allowed to admit, so technically it is the AMA making those determinations.

    As far as the reform as a whole; it is misguided to make those with wealth and privilege feel better about themselves because they are helping those in need. You will not have a successful reform with the public option plan included. In my experience the most difficult and inefficient insurance system around is the Medicare system and its sister Medicaid. The public option is the mirror of these programs based on documentation of the last draft of the bill. The other problem with the public option is it will passively force companies to stop offering insurance all together, and I will explain; it will be impossible for a company to defend to the board of directors why they are spending 16%(an average) per employee for healthcare benefits when they can pay the 8% employee payroll tax and know there employees can just sign up for a cheap public plan. Inevitably this would force the majority of Americans to the cheaper public option. This would put the Government in control of the majority of Americans healthcare and then the medicare/medicaid problems will become even greater.

    I have been in healthcare managment for years and have seen the good, the bad, and the ugly with our current system. It is not perfect, it is not horrible, and it is not without need of an overhaul, but when control of our Healthcare leaves the hands of the american people and is run sole by the Government we will lose the freedom of choice we have now. We are giving up so much freedom lately, i.e: limits on what type of fat can be used in some restaurants, laws to prohibit smoking in private businesses, even types of clothing that can be worn in public. We should look very closely before we give up total control of our own Health.
  19. #919  
    Quote Originally Posted by RoscoePColtrane View Post
    ....clip...We are giving up so much freedom lately, i.e: limits on what type of fat can be used in some restaurants, laws to prohibit smoking in private businesses, even types of clothing that can be worn in public. We should look very closely before we give up total control of our own Health.
    The type of Fat used in restaurants?
    Loosing the freedom to smoke around people who want to breathe air?
    Just call me Berd.
  20. #920  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Please explain exactly how these are the same.
    to you these are not the same. Based on simple conservative belief systems, ie catholic church, contraception is against gods will. sex should be only used to procreate. Much of the religious right, in the US, Canada, hell around the world, believe this. Much of the antiabortionist rhetoric is from the same right wing religious zealots. What i find hilarious, many of these same people would have anyone from doctors to the actual woman receiving the abortion should be put to death. A few people have died as a result of this extremist set of views.

    Whether you want to say they are the same or not is of no consequence, many of the right wing antiabortionist are against govt control, health care, etc etc, but insist on controlling the "rank and file of America". The holier than thou attitude is just plain stupid. Personally, I find the whole thing abhorrent, not abortion, the fact that a few very vocal, very powerful people can and do control the majority. NO I do not believe abortion should be used as birth control. But to say a 12 year old girl who is raped can not have an abortion is stupid.

    To the person who commented on the mental stress caused
    to a woman many years after the abortion, while I can not say personally that i have experienced this, male here, I have four sisters, one of whom was raped, who had to experience an abortion, to this day she is pretty messed up, between the rape and the abortion who can say. yes there will be issues, I do know, if she had the child as a result of the rape, my little sister would have been far more messed up then she is now. In talks with her, she is sad about the child, but repeatedly says she would have hated that child inside, as the child would have been the personification of the man who raped her at 14.

    My sister received extensive mental health care, the good doctors, said from their experience, she is doing extremely well. Hate to have seen what would have been the result if she had not had free health care to get the help she needed. Frankly she is pretty messed up.

    To those that believe that abortion should not be allowed under any circumstances, give your head a shake, place yourself in the shoes of a young girl, or hell the shoes of any woman, who for a myriad of reasons needs an abortion. I have even heard some of those fine religious right people in both our fine countries, say that even if the woman will die, she should not have an abortion. I know I know that is few and far between, but none the less, a statement made by the same people.

    just my two cents worth.

Posting Permissions