Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 45
  1. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    This is a contradiction.

    If you don't want the government involved, why should the government have to pay (via tax deductions) when you buy health insurance?
    Do you know what a "deduction" is genius? Its returning to me part of the money that I pay--MY money.

    Your little liberal mind might not be able to understand this well, but The government doesn't PAY me anything by taking less of MY money. Its mine to begin with.

    KAM
  2. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #22  
    I'm hoping that the whole reform will fizzle to very little or nothing at all. We should be focusing on what Americans are truly concerned about. Terrorism and the economy.

    Lets get back to basics and stimulate the economy by lowering taxes. JFK knew how to do that.

    And we shouldn't be trying terrorist combatants as if they're US citizens in our courts.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  3. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    My guess is that most Americans want to stay and "fix" healthcare. It's "the best nation in the world" after all.

    Level of service is an interesting question (quality is equal). Based on my experience so far I'd say it's the same. There are differences but for me it's been a "6 of one half dozen of another" type situation.

    For example. Say I need an elective surgery to fix a deviated septum or cosmetic work after a car crash. Here in St. Louis I would make an appointment with a surgeon for a consultation and could likely schedule the procedure for the following week, if not sooner (after checking with my health insurance provider first to see what is covered and what isn't and how much I might need to pay, blah, blah, blah). Back in Canada you would likely need to wait 1 to 3 months. That said, in the Canadian system all citizens and legal residents, regardless of age or income, are entitled to that service and will be treated equally during the whole process.

    Which system is better is largely a matter of opinion and/or values.

    In my experience American's generally feel that they have worked hard for their money and the benefits of that work should (as it pertains to covering the costs of healthcare) go to them directly....each person reaps the rewards they make for themselves. Canadian's put that same money into a "pot" and use it to cover everyone's needs. 2 different ideologies.
    Fair enough statement of your views.

    As far as the Best nation in the world--well I think that, but others argue against that, and constantly point to other nations as being superior in one way or the other. If I believed Canada was better for me--I would definitely move there. Canada is of course a very easy transfer, if nothing else for the lack of language barrier.

    KAM
  4. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Not sure I understand your option. Let's say someone is terminated from employment, and whether they have state continutation (less than 20 employees) or COBRA their coverage is about to run out and they have come down with cancer and are receiving treatments. Explain how your option would help them. On another example, say a self employed individual is looking for coverage and he had back surgery 6 months ago, how would your plan work for him?
    Well, keep in mind that with my system, individuals own their policies--so losing ones job wouldn't come into play (except for the ability to pay it).

    The truth is that, there is no good solution. My suggestion was a means of avoiding punishing someone with a Pre-existing condition universally, in order to make coverage for other things available. They could still get care for that condition, but at a lower percentage (meaning they would have a bigger share to pay).

    Let's say I had Skin Cancer, and want a policy. I get the same policy as anyone else for the same cost, EXCEPT, if I have to get more skin cancer treatments, I have a larger co-pay than I would otherwise--or that someone who doesn't have that particular pre-existing condition would pay. If I have a heart attack--then it is no different than anyone else for example.

    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    I agree with you on this, but I also don't believe Social Security is Constitutional and yet we have that, correct? Oh sure, the Supreme Court ruled it was Constitutional back in 1937 (Helvering v Davis), but if you have a chance read up on why. Here is one side of that story: Is Social Security Constitutional? by John Attarian But I figure if they can force you and I to contribute to Social Security, they can force us to buy health insurance.
    Social Security is a tax--nothing else. They tried to play both sides, and say it was "insurance" to the people, but argued that it wasn't. Its a tax, and the government has ZERO obligation to ever give you a dime in return.

    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    I agree about not needing more massive programs. That is why I like my plan as it keeps the government out, for the most part. Hard to keep the gov totally out (grrrrr).
    Yes, but it also doesn't mean we should give them free reign to take over the whole thing--backdoor or not.

    KAM
  5. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Sure let's leave health reform while Medicare is poised to take over entire federal budget in 20 years--as 77 million baby boomers hit the system. Let's forget about health reform as the number if uninsured rises.

    It's the health crisis is poised to harm more Americans than terrorism ever will.
    We need jobs now, zelgo. We already have the best healthcare system on the planet (with all its issues). Yes, it needs tweeking, and we can make changes over time. It doesn't need to be a 1 Trillion dollar pile of crap. I think it's going to go away, personally. Even some of the dems are starting to say that. Watch what happens.

    This isn't directed at you personally, but you may recall Clinton saying "It's the economy, stupid"?

    Humans actually have a prioritized list of needs. First you need food and water, then you need a roof, then you need protection from harm..... yes it's important, but down the road we can worry about healthcare. Maybe in Obama's third year after the economy has stabilized and Afghanistan and Iran issues have been seen to.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  6. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    If you're paying to a private insurance company, why should the government return that money to you via a tax deduction? Why does the government have to subsidize your healthcare costs?

    Can we please stop the juvenile "your little liberal mind" silliness. If you want a real discussion of the issues, this name calling add nothing.
    Yes, I'm sure you've never made any unfriendly statement at all. Never, ever.

    However, the fact is--I think you are very limited in your thinking, and very dogmatic. But, you are right, it wasn't a friendly statement. I apologize for being less than friendly.

    However again--you are completely wrong. You've got it backwards--that is not the government's money. They are not subsidizing me--I'm paying THEM. Do you really not understand this?

    Let me say it again, so you can't miss it. That's my money--I earn it. Why should the government take what is mine and prevent me from being able to pay for my healthcare costs?

    My money does not belong to the government. If you don't understand this basic premise, it would explain a lot about your views.

    KAM
  7. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    That argument really isn't realistic. People don't leave the US just because another country may have a better system for something.

    People want to bring the best of the world to their home.

    That's why we should at least analyze how the different countries have tried to deal with the very same healthcare costs problem we have.

    Take the good and leave the bad.
    Yes, all my suggestions have been what I think is "good" and rejecting what I think is "bad."

    Why wouldn't someone leave the US for something better? You don't believe in American Superiority do you? Why shouldn't Americans do what people from dozens of other countries have done by moving here--seeking a better system to live under. Why is that unrealistic? Why can't Americans do what imimigrants have done for hundreds of years--move to a place that they prefer?

    There's nothing unique or special about the United States in your view right? It's just one in a brotherhood of nations, so why not go where they have what you want?

    KAM
  8. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Sure let's leave health reform while Medicare is poised to take over entire federal budget in 20 years--as 77 million baby boomers hit the system. Let's forget about health reform as the number if uninsured rises.
    Apparently you don't realize that all of this Big government healthcare will just accelerate that end.

    KAM
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    That sounds very close to what the current health reform package was headed towards...yet you spoke vehemently against it.

    The House version had national insurance exchanges. Tort reform had pilot project approval (although even the Bush White House's Report said malpractice activities only accounts for 1-2% of healthcare costs, so reform won't put much of a dent in costs as it hasn't in CA, Texas, and MI, where there has been tort reform.)

    Your post makes it seem that Republican opposition to the healthcare bill is purely political and not because of the contents of the bill itself...
    Wow...I have a feeling the Tort Reform you mentioned, what did you call it, a "pilot project", would get a real strong push from the dems. And I guess the penalties on businesses for not providing coverage would have been removed. There was also the abortion issue which should not be covered in any plan. Oh, there was also the public option in the house plan. I could continue to list the 100s of items included in there that aren't listed in my list but really don't have time. Did you even read my post? LOL I said nothing about a Government program and nothing about Federal taxes. Good grief. Nice try though!

    * This was not an aggressive post nor did I personally attack anyone.
    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
  10. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    I'm actually trying to have a level-headed discussion about healthcare. There's no need to get angry and think that I'm condemning everything you say.

    Go back and read my posts on this thread--I haven't said anything that's particularly partisan or inflammatory.
    What in that post makes you think that I'm angry, or that I accused you of being inflamatory?

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Your last two paragraphs don't really make sense in a discussion about healthcare reform. Because I say we should consider how other countries have dealt with their healthcare cost, I must must not think the US is special?
    Perhaps you aren't remembering this. You stated that it wasn't realistic. I'm explaining to you that it most certainly is--for people of a certain mindset. Now, I asked if those were your views, but if they aren't please feel free to correct me.

    I recall that you argued against American Exceptionalism, here in the past. Am I mistaken about that? Or, you can just answer this question. Is there something special about the United States that would eliminate the option of moving to a country that one likes better?

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Let's get over the emotion and use logic to discuss a problem facing all of us.
    How about you stop projecting your imagination on my emotional state? And if you engaged in logical exchange of ideas, nothing would make me happier. The fact is you spend much of your time here crafting distorted views of others and applying them to people. You're posts are often a slew of projected opinions, based on your own biased viewpoints. So, yes, I'd welcome a change there.

    KAM
  11. #31  
    And poor Nancy says she has not got the votes. Oh, well. Maybe she should listen to the people instead of her own agenda.
  12. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Sure, but, politically, no one will touch Medicare, let alone end it.

    Even when the crush of baby boomers come (all of whom have paid into Medicare their working lives), you will not be able to get rid of it.

    Just bringing up a political reality.
    That's true. What should happen is that Medicare Reform should be dealt with--on its own, not mired in all sorts of other issues, in order to produce "savings" that are unrealistic, which are then used to justify other expenditures (which is what Congress has been doing).

    You are correct--this massive burden has been hung around the neck of America so well, that we can't really fix the problem. Of course, that's the exact same plan that Congress and President Obama are feverishly trying to execute now as well.

    KAM
  13. #33  
    and taking it further, why should the government be involved in our every day lives? Can we please stop the juvenile "your little liberal mind" silliness.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    If you're paying to a private insurance company, why should the government return that money to you via a tax deduction? Why does the government have to subsidize your healthcare costs?

    Can we please stop the juvenile "your little liberal mind" silliness. If you want a real discussion of the issues, this name calling add nothing.
  14. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Medicare and Social Security have survive the courts, and everyone is required to pay. I doubt the current courts would turn back such precedents.

    If you say it is unconstitutional to make people pay for insurance, then Medicare and SS will be gutted--it won't happen because the courts know how popular these programs are.
    No--that's not how that works. These are TAXES.

    The New Dealers pulled off this massive scam. They sold everyone on the idea that Social security was "insurance" and a retirement plan, but it was really a tax.

    KAM
  15. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Can't we just talk about healthcare?
    You're very amusing, playing the part of the straightforward discussion participant.

    I am talking about healthcare by the way--and all the issues related to it.

    I know that you aren't able to really address certain points and want to hide behind some veneer of logic, but my memory isn't that short.

    But feel free to ignore any portion of any post I make that you believe isn't relevant to you.

    KAM
  16. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    The big problem with including tort reform in a healthcare reform package is that tort reform, alone, is so controversial that it could blow the whole thing up again.

    Democrats don't support major tort reform because lawyers are the main contributor to the party (please don't turn this into a value judgement--it's just a fact I'm stating). It will be very difficult to get the bipartisan support you seem to be clamoring for without Democratic support.

    Thus, the "pilots" were a way to get a Democratic Congress to consider tort reform.
    Geez, I at least commend you for your honesty. So, you admit that if democrats were opposed to something, it was left out regardless of the other side? Nice way to work with both sides. But you again point out why we need term limits. If politicians weren't concerned with having a lifetime job and very nice benefits, they might do what is RIGHT for the country rather than their re-election.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    The penalties on businesses were a way to be assured that everyone is covered (your second wish). The public option was basically dropped long ago.
    But I don't believe it is an employers responsibility to provide health coverage! I know you don't understand that. You apparently believe when someone starts a business they do so to provide health coverage. I don't believe this and therefore I disagree with that as part of any bill...and...why it is not listed in my idea. As for the public option, they may have changed what they called it, but it was in the House Bill....go back and read it.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Your points are echoed in the current health reform bills--yet you never said that you liked those points in the bills. You wanted to get rid of the whole thing.
    No they weren't. You can say the plan proposed was like mine, but that would just be an incorrect statement. Note, I did not call it a lie....rather....an incorrect statement. I have called no one a liar (nor been aggressive or attacked anyone).
    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
  17. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    The problem is Medicare Reform must include reducing services--services that are redundant and don't improve outcomes. The elderly perceive ANY reduction in Medicare as a threat (note the elderly attendance at the Town Halls--THEY were the real challenge to the Congressmen, not the people yelling, "**** Death Panels!").

    Even the mild Medicare cuts the current plans consider caused pushback from the elderly.
    Yes, when in 1995 (I believe) when the Republicans attempted to make some reforms in Medicare--in the form of slowing the rate of Increase (not decreasing actual dollars spent, the Democrats and their media allies engaged in a "fear mongering" campaign. They talked about SLASHING medicare and such. When in fact--what they were proposing was much more modest than what Democrats are now.

    So, a smaller cut is "slashing" while much larger cuts are perfectly acceptable to Democrats. So, how do you feel about this "fear mongering" today?

    KAM
  18. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Sure they are taxes. Either way, the Courts have upheld them. They're not going away. Mandatory insurance is basically a tax too.
    No it is not. You would like to make that argument perhaps, but it isn't a valid one.

    KAM
  19. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    I'm sorry, I didn't realize that the bipartisan approach to healthcare you are calling for is open only to conservatives.

    Deja vu?
    Who's stopping you? Quit with your 'poor victim' ploy and talk about the issue as much as you want.

    KAM
  20. #40  
    The democrats have always whined about being the poor victim and making everyone believe that they are the only ones that help the poor victim. Helping the poor victim? Raise their taxes! What a way.

    Look at poor Nancy: FOXNews.com - Photo Op-inion: How Can Dems Turn Things Around?

    Where are her tears? FOXNews.com - Pelosi: Not Enough Votes to Pass Senate Health Bill in House

    and poor Harry. When will these people listen to those who put them in office?

    I made phone calls to both of my senators today expressing exactly that question.
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions