Page 24 of 37 FirstFirst ... 14192021222324252627282934 ... LastLast
Results 461 to 480 of 726
  1. #461  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    What it boils down to is that I think everyone in the country should have access to safe, affordable care. Nothing more, nothing less. But if they figure out a way to do it that actually covers people and actually provides affordable care, I'm all for it.
    ....if all this were true you would OPPOSE OBAMACARE, for it seeks to nor accomplishes ANY of your objectives.
    -- VZW Pre+ -- Uberk/Gov fixed @ 1ghz -- QPST gps mod -- stock battery (?mugen 3800?) --
  2.    #462  
    Quote Originally Posted by jhodnettejr View Post
    ....if all this were true you would OPPOSE OBAMACARE, for it seeks to nor accomplishes ANY of your objectives.
    Well, if your alternative is really as you state it, a single payor plan, then I'm with you 100%. Somehow I don't really think that's what you favor; just a guess.

    And if you're not, please by all means, enlighten us with your plan "accomplishing these objectives".
  3.    #463  
    Quote Originally Posted by jhodnettejr View Post
    ...and obamacare will only make it harder for them....admittedly so, the point of obamacare is NOT to lower insurance rates or increase access to private coverage or increase access to healthcare itself....again, why the charade, let's just go all the way to universal, single payer...thats the end game anyway....obamacare will make insurance costs rise, more companies will not offer group coverage, and more people fall into the government insurance program....
    Seems to me that whether or not insurance companies stay in the game is up to them. There are several nice postings in this thread pointing out that insurance companies have never been constructed for health insurance, which is why their overhead is 25%. If they actually were as efficient as Medicare, they could compete. They might even be able to maintain their record profits. If they bow out, that's not Obama's fault. They just aren't up to the competition. The private sector has been given an opportunity to be involved in health care financing. If they refuse to participate, so be it.
  4. #464  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Well, if your alternative is really as you state it, a single payor plan, then I'm with you 100%. Somehow I don't really think that's what you favor; just a guess.

    And if you're not, please by all means, enlighten us with your plan "accomplishing these objectives".
    i favor consumers paying for their own healthcare, not buying "insurance." i favor ZERO health insurance, and a pay-go, free market. like when my grandfather used to barter in exchange for his providing medical services. throw in tort reform too.
    -- VZW Pre+ -- Uberk/Gov fixed @ 1ghz -- QPST gps mod -- stock battery (?mugen 3800?) --
  5. #465  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Seems to me that whether or not insurance companies stay in the game is up to them. There are several nice postings in this thread pointing out that insurance companies have never been constructed for health insurance, which is why their overhead is 25%. If they actually were as efficient as Medicare, they could compete. They might even be able to maintain their record profits. If they bow out, that's not Obama's fault. They just aren't up to the competition. The private sector has been given an opportunity to be involved in health care financing. If they refuse to participate, so be it.
    insurance companies should be in the business of providing insurance not funding "healthcare financing."

    and i can't believe you used "efficient" and "medicare" in the same sentence... lmao
    -- VZW Pre+ -- Uberk/Gov fixed @ 1ghz -- QPST gps mod -- stock battery (?mugen 3800?) --
  6.    #466  
    Quote Originally Posted by jhodnettejr View Post
    i favor consumers paying for their own healthcare, not buying "insurance." i favor ZERO health insurance, and a pay-go, free market. like when my grandfather used to barter in exchange for his providing medical services. throw in tort reform too.

    Well, at least we agree about not having health insurance. Good luck with your bartering for health care. Believe me, that won't work out too well.
  7.    #467  
    Quote Originally Posted by jhodnettejr View Post
    insurance companies should be in the business of providing insurance not funding "healthcare financing."

    and i can't believe you used "efficient" and "medicare" in the same sentence... lmao
    Medicare's overhead is less than 5%. Private insurers are around 25%. As someone who bills both private insurers and Medicare, I can tell you that from my standpoint, there is little difference in efficiency. And the VA is more efficient than either. If you want some references on any of these, please feel free to read this very thread. Do you actually have any first-hand knowledge about these things, or are you just spouting rhetoric?
  8. #468  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Well, at least we agree about not having health insurance. Good luck with your bartering for health care. Believe me, that won't work out too well.
    obviously, you can't barter for everything. my point was that when people couldn't afford my grandfather's services, he would accept almost anything as "payment," and if they truly had nothing to offer, it was free. he always hated that insurance companies got into the mix, cause it put insurance companies in the middle of doctors and patients....
    -- VZW Pre+ -- Uberk/Gov fixed @ 1ghz -- QPST gps mod -- stock battery (?mugen 3800?) --
  9. #469  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Medicare's overhead is less than 5%. Private insurers are around 25%. As someone who bills both private insurers and Medicare, I can tell you that from my standpoint, there is little difference in efficiency. And the VA is more efficient than either. If you want some references on any of these, please feel free to read this very thread. Do you actually have any first-hand knowledge about these things, or are you just spouting rhetoric?
    well...i guess since i'm not a dr then i can't debate this topic, otherwise i'm spouting rhetoric.....horsepoo....
    -- VZW Pre+ -- Uberk/Gov fixed @ 1ghz -- QPST gps mod -- stock battery (?mugen 3800?) --
  10. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #470  
    Quote Originally Posted by jhodnettejr View Post
    i favor consumers paying for their own healthcare, not buying "insurance." i favor ZERO health insurance, and a pay-go, free market. like when my grandfather used to barter in exchange for his providing medical services. throw in tort reform too.
    what about insurance for the high costs incidents? barter for those too?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  11. #471  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    what about insurance for the high costs incidents? barter for those too?
    ...you can't barter for a $100,000 surgery....catastrophic incident insurance should be available for people to buy in a free, open market. but we don't have that, we have "healthcare financing" plans.

    problem is that helathcare costs are currently not at a natural free market level, they are at an inflated level because consumers dont pay for it, someone else does and they have a motive that is at odds 100% with the motives of the consumer
    -- VZW Pre+ -- Uberk/Gov fixed @ 1ghz -- QPST gps mod -- stock battery (?mugen 3800?) --
  12. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #472  
    I think I'd like your grandfather very much, jhodnettejr. Thanks for the fresh and right on target perspective.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  13. #473  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I think I'd like your grandfather very much, jhodnettejr. Thanks for the fresh and right on target perspective.
    ..we were a different country then...people didn't pawn off caring to the government, they did it themselves....
    -- VZW Pre+ -- Uberk/Gov fixed @ 1ghz -- QPST gps mod -- stock battery (?mugen 3800?) --
  14. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #474  
    Quote Originally Posted by jhodnettejr View Post
    ..we were a different country then...people didn't pawn off caring to the government, they did it themselves....
    Those people are still around. The state of the current government masks them. If you rolled some of these regs back, you'd see them.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  15.    #475  
    Awww. You two are so sweet! Of course, you're forgetting that prior to Medicare, in 1960, over a third of all elderly were below the poverty level. By 1970 it was down to a quarter. By 2000 it was at 10%. While Social Security had something to do with this, Social Security was already in place in 1960. The majority of the improvement had a lot to do with the fact that the elderly no longer had to pay for rapidly increasing health care costs. About 30% of the elderly had health insurance before Medicare. Tell me, how comfortable would you be relying on the kindness of someone for providing you lifesaving care? Think you'd be a little more optimistic if you could actually count on getting care? Yeah, the good old days were really good...if you were rich and young. The lack of understanding about what Medicare is and what it does, and how effective it is, is massive. Have either of you ever heard of the Kerr-Mills act? I'm guessing not until you Google it. But you righties go ahead and long for the good old days. It's too bad you can't actually return to them and let the rest of us move ahead.
  16. #476  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I don't think you're really in favor of "killing" children, you just act like you don't much care what happens to them.
    Oh....well that certainly is different, lol.


    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    The republican health care plans, as I just posted earlier in this thread, were an embarrassment, covered nobody and cost more than the democratic plan. Don't give anyone this carp about how the republicans could have come up with something. They never have, and they never would.
    As has been said many times before, the CBO used what the democrats fed them to use, and most of what the democrats said would be done in the future (like lower Medicare reimbursements) just ain't gonna happen. If the Republican's plans had less savings it was because they didn't submit a plan that blows smoke up certain folk's

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    And just to demonstrate even more that you don't pay attention, how many times have I said that it didn't make any difference to me HOW this was accomplished, whether it was public or private or a combination? Why do you keep forgetting that? Of course, the problem is that the private sector will never be able to do that, as best I can tell, so what will be will be. But if they figure out a way to do it that actually covers people and actually provides affordable care, I'm all for it.
    You are the typical liberal, you say you don't care if healthcare is provided by public or private, but I certainly don't hear you discuss how it could work without BIG government running it. If you've explained how it could work without BIG government running our health care system then I will apologize for having missed it. All I hear you espouse is how it should work like Medicare. Of course, forget that Medicare is running out of money and is putting us further and further into debt. After all, you're a liberal, I know you don't care about us just borrowing and printing more money.


    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Really, do you actually read what you write and think about it before you post it?
    Yes....yes I do....and not only do I believe it, but my friends are all on the same page as me. When I tell them what people like you say in here, most of the time they simply can't believe it. Of course, I must admit, the folks I tend to hang out with have generally been succesful and are tired of footing the bill for everyone. Some of them are even physicians! Oh...and yes....I did think about that last statement and fully back it!
    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. #477  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Hey, whatever you do, keep stereotyping about people that apparently you know nothing about, because those are not the working people I see without insurance. Did it cross your mind that it may be more than they can afford? Have you ever tried to buy non-group insurance for a family? It's more than $13 a week, regardless of what Clem Kadidilhopper says.
    Um....yes.....their portion was going to be $13 per week, the employer was paying the difference and you are right, the total premium was much higher. This is but one example of people deferring paying premiums while affording other "more important" things. Of course, in 2014 this ER will likely just tell their employees to get their coverage elsewhere since they can't be turned down.
    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
  18. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #478  
    Keep it friendly... these thinly veiled insults fall under our Trolling and Baiting guidelines. Simply debate with ideas, and leave the vitriol for the lab.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  19.    #479  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post

    As has been said many times before, the CBO used what the democrats fed them to use, and most of what the democrats said would be done in the future (like lower Medicare reimbursements) just ain't gonna happen. If the Republican's plans had less savings it was because they didn't submit a plan that blows smoke up certain folk's



    You are the typical liberal, you say you don't care if healthcare is provided by public or private, but I certainly don't hear you discuss how it could work without BIG government running it. If you've explained how it could work without BIG government running our health care system then I will apologize for having missed it. All I hear you espouse is how it should work like Medicare. Of course, forget that Medicare is running out of money and is putting us further and further into debt. After all, you're a liberal, I know you don't care about us just borrowing and printing more money.

    Regardless of the fact that it costs more, the truth is that the republican plan increased coverage by 3 million. The democratic plan by 30 million. That is not in question. Even if it didn't cost much....it didn't DO anything. Like all republican "health care plans".

    You're the one who favors the private insurance industry. You tell me how they can provide adequate, affordable safe care for everyone, and I'll gladly go along with it. The truth is that you are NOT in favor of safe, adequate health care for all. Right? Go ahead, just come out and say it. You don't really care if people have health care or not, and you make that clear every time you post. Why don't you ask your "friends" that question? My guess is they really don't care either. Hopefully most people do care.
  20.    #480  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Um....yes.....their portion was going to be $13 per week, the employer was paying the difference and you are right, the total premium was much higher. This is but one example of people deferring paying premiums while affording other "more important" things. Of course, in 2014 this ER will likely just tell their employees to get their coverage elsewhere since they can't be turned down.
    It's very interesting that the natural extension of your own arguments are the following:
    1. No more employee-sponsored health care insurance
    2. Provide care for all so that people will be able to afford "more important things"...like food and shelter....by not having to buy health insurance.

    You must be coming around.

Posting Permissions