| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/27/2010 01:42:29 AM · #326 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Add another to the "goofy list" of things people are angry about:
Because employers can no longer deduct perscription drug benefits for their retired workers, they will incur rather large tax increases. AT&T estimates it will cost them 1 billion dollars, 3M says 90 billion. I work for a comany with a large group of retired people getting benefits so I'm willing to bet I'll be seeing changes to my healthcare plan, which obama promised I can keep... |
So you don't like government handouts but you'd gladly accept corporate handouts? Maybe it's time you don't rely on your employer for affordable healthcare and go out and buy it on your own. At least when Limbaugh runs his mouth on this subject he's not a hypocrite. |
Resorting to name calling. Nice. Standard liberal strategy when backed into a corner, call a name, bring up rush/bush/palin...
Do you know what this handout was? It was to encourage companies to cover their retirees perscription drugs so it would not fall under medicare. It was a govt savings leading to less taxes and it was a win for companies. Yeah, I'm all for that. The change just made adds cost to the companies, who may in turn let the retirees fall back into medicare to avoid the loss, or make changes so I pay for it. Either way it's bad.
But thanks for bringing up a point i made earlier, taxing the rich comes back to screw us common folk.
And nice redirect. find any of that misinformation? |
|
|
|
03/27/2010 01:44:13 AM · #327 |
..
Message edited by author 2010-03-27 01:44:37. |
|
|
|
03/27/2010 01:45:12 AM · #328 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by Kelli:
I'll work on your list tomorrow, but leave you with this (number 1 on your list)....
Individual health insurance mandate started as a Republican idea |
Umm, okay. true or false, this bill mandates that people buy insurance. TRUE! How is it misinformation?
Who cares who came up with the idea? If my mom first came up with the idea I'd still tell her it was a bad idea. Besides, McCain is an idiot.
As for death panels, there was a provision in congresses bill that could be read as something close to what Palin said. Yeah, she was an idiot. But they changed the bill because of her. Yeah, they removed the death panels that were not really death panels. Do a google news search on death panels and sort by date. Only the libs talk about it now.
I look forward to you telling me how those other issues are just misinformation. |
Here is the problem. You think you own the conversation. We talk about only what you want to talk about or you wont have it.
There is NOWAY you will ever concede even a sliver of a point. So the entire conversation is pointless.
You are right that the only ones talking about it are non-repubs. It is the posterchild of how the republicans will lie to panic the general public. IMO if you lie to panic people into doing stupid things like the harassment going on now, I believe you are at least somewhat responsible for what they do. I'm sure the one party would like to never talk about it again. |
|
|
|
03/27/2010 01:48:11 AM · #329 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
And nice redirect. find any of that misinformation? |
Still waiting on you.
Lets start with what should be on the top of your list.
Death Panels clearly a myth
When you admit that its a lie and was maliciously told to scare people then we can move on to item 2. |
|
|
|
03/27/2010 01:52:15 AM · #330 |
Originally posted by Niten:
Here is the problem. You think you own the conversation. We talk about only what you want to talk about or you wont have it.
There is NOWAY you will ever concede even a sliver of a point. So the entire conversation is pointless. |
A couple people said there was misinformation being spread by the evil republicans and that is why people are mad. I asked to tell me what was misinformation. So far no one has found any.
If you show me that something I don't like in the bill is not really in the bill, I'll have no problem saying I was wrong. At one point I thought there were no cost controls, I was wrong, there are. At one point I thought some people would get free care, i was wrong. Other then medicaid, the people getting subsidies still pay at least 3% of their income if i'm reading it right. |
|
|
|
03/27/2010 01:56:05 AM · #331 |
Originally posted by Niten:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
And nice redirect. find any of that misinformation? |
Still waiting on you.
Lets start with what should be on the top of your list.
Death Panels clearly a myth
When you admit that its a lie and was maliciously told to scare people then we can move on to item 2. |
I NEVER said anything about death panels, people are not complaining about death panels. Palin was an idiot. She exagerated like they all do. Want to call it a lie, sure, she lied. Obama lied too when he said my premiums will go down 3000% and my company will give me a raise. Who cares? They took the non death panels out of the bill anyway! |
|
|
|
03/27/2010 03:44:40 AM · #332 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Add another to the "goofy list" of things people are angry about:
Because employers can no longer deduct perscription drug benefits for their retired workers, they will incur rather large tax increases. AT&T estimates it will cost them 1 billion dollars, 3M says 90 billion. I work for a comany with a large group of retired people getting benefits so I'm willing to bet I'll be seeing changes to my healthcare plan, which obama promised I can keep... |
So you don't like government handouts but you'd gladly accept corporate handouts? Maybe it's time you don't rely on your employer for affordable healthcare and go out and buy it on your own. At least when Limbaugh runs his mouth on this subject he's not a hypocrite. |
Resorting to name calling. Nice. Standard liberal strategy when backed into a corner, call a name, bring up rush/bush/palin...
Do you know what this handout was? It was to encourage companies to cover their retirees perscription drugs so it would not fall under medicare. It was a govt savings leading to less taxes and it was a win for companies. Yeah, I'm all for that. The change just made adds cost to the companies, who may in turn let the retirees fall back into medicare to avoid the loss, or make changes so I pay for it. Either way it's bad.
But thanks for bringing up a point i made earlier, taxing the rich comes back to screw us common folk.
And nice redirect. find any of that misinformation? |
Ah yes your list.
Mandating that people buy coverage?
Sure. I take it you've been calling your congressmen for years to repeal mandates on auto insurance, income tax, social security, etc?
Big govt handouts?
Sure. I guess you're angry because you already have your handouts, eh?
Taxes?
More Taxes sure and your point? Are you against paying any taxes? At least the dems try to fund what they spend.
Lies about reducing the deficit?
Source?
Govt dictating minimum coverage?
Sure. If you're going to mandate coverage this would seem logical. But hey this is just on the list to make it look longer, right?
Govt control?
Control of what?
Backroom deals?
Source?
Govt access to medical records?
Source? Curious, are you also angry about the govt collecting birth records, vote registrations, US census information, auto registration, business registration, etc, etc, etc?
Bribes?
Source?
No effort to reduce costs?
What costs?
No freedom to buy percription drugs over the border?
You mean go over to Canada where they have socialized medicine controlling drug prices? That freedom? Well yeah I wish we had more of that over here too, but you're against that remember?
No freedom to shop for insurance out of state?
I agree, but strange how this only became an issue during this past year...
Bigger govt?
So? You know if you broke this into "taller govt" and "wider govt" you could have made this list a little longer.
Thousands of new govt employees to enforce rules?
So you're against job creation too?
Whitehouse staff and congress left out of the bill?
Care to explain?
over 100 new govt agencies created
You know you could have just copy and pasted "Bigger govt?" Would have saved you some keystrokes. |
|
|
|
03/27/2010 08:07:55 AM · #333 |
It's interesting and not so much a myth but as a constant Healthcare fixing point, Tort Reform was continually being thrown into the mix. Now, while it certainly appealed to populists notions and clearly resonated with people sick of hearing about outlandish settlements it really proved to have little effect on consequence on cutting cost. It helped add to the noise (gave McCain something to rant about...for sure) and dominated the right wing airwaves...or at least wasted enough time to sound really important but again, had no teeth. I watch FOX enough to see the commentators toss around Tort Reform like a chew toy as one of their top three solutions to Healtcare reform.
But to a broader point that I assume we just don't agree on...
I've always been for seat belt laws, helmet laws (for motorcyclists), as they have been proven to save lives, cut down on insurance costs/payouts etc. So, insisting that everyone be insured is totally fine by me AND I don't view it in anyway some massive form of gov't control...communism...socialistic policy, Big Brother whatever. It's just freakin smart business. Everyone should be insured whether they know it or not. For years and years if I ever had an encounter with anyone uninsured I've always said..."not a great idea" and preached that they get at least some sort of Catastrophic Policy at the very least. That's not an exaggeration either. If someone told me they were uninsured...I would shake my head and say "bad move".
People are certainly free to be as stupid as the wish but when their bad decisions affect other people I don't mind if the government steps in. Is anybody against the fierce anti-smoking legislation that's been under way for over a decade, now? I'd hope not.
One more thing I think it's warped to view Healthcare as a handout...like it's welfare benefit. I mean, it's not candy, free cars, free rent...it's not like lazy people go and kill time at the Hospital or the Doctors office because it's more fun than work.
Originally posted by yanko:
No freedom to shop for insurance out of state?
I agree, but strange how this only became an issue during this past year... |
The whole subject of Health Care wasn't even on the Republican leaderships agenda, since Nixon. I don't recall Reagan, Bush I or Bush II doing anything to address skyrocketing costs and Reagan Reagan actually said, "[I]f you don't [stop Medicare] and I don't do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it once was like in America when men were free." Clinton tried and failed his first year in office but since then under Bush II... nothing so, even offering up half baked measures at this point seems so disingenuous especially after deregulating the country into the shitter. Now all they offer is more deregulation and tax cuts. If the American brain is designed like the Etch-A-Sketch (which I fear it is) I suppose that crap will still fly after proving to be disastrous policy in 2008.
Message edited by author 2010-03-27 08:57:38. |
|
|
|
03/27/2010 11:24:00 AM · #334 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Ah yes your list.
Mandating that people buy coverage?
Sure. I take it you've been calling your congressmen for years to repeal mandates on auto insurance, income tax, social security, etc?
Big govt handouts?
Sure. I guess you're angry because you already have your handouts, eh?
Taxes?
More Taxes sure and your point? Are you against paying any taxes? At least the dems try to fund what they spend.
Lies about reducing the deficit?
Source?
Govt dictating minimum coverage?
Sure. If you're going to mandate coverage this would seem logical. But hey this is just on the list to make it look longer, right?
Govt control?
Control of what?
Backroom deals?
Source?
Govt access to medical records?
Source? Curious, are you also angry about the govt collecting birth records, vote registrations, US census information, auto registration, business registration, etc, etc, etc?
Bribes?
Source?
No effort to reduce costs?
What costs?
No freedom to buy percription drugs over the border?
You mean go over to Canada where they have socialized medicine controlling drug prices? That freedom? Well yeah I wish we had more of that over here too, but you're against that remember?
No freedom to shop for insurance out of state?
I agree, but strange how this only became an issue during this past year...
Bigger govt?
So? You know if you broke this into "taller govt" and "wider govt" you could have made this list a little longer.
Thousands of new govt employees to enforce rules?
So you're against job creation too?
Whitehouse staff and congress left out of the bill?
Care to explain?
over 100 new govt agencies created
You know you could have just copy and pasted "Bigger govt?" Would have saved you some keystrokes. |
Wow, proud of yourself? Have you been reading this thread? Everything you mention has already been discussed, go back and read. Nothing on the list is misinforamtion.
We discussed car insurance, it's not mandatory. Handouts and taxes is the centerpiece of the bill, shocking, but people hate new taxes during a recession. I saw a piece on ABC news last night talking about how they double count money and use tricks to make it show like it reduces the deficit. Look it up, it's pretty good and simple. Minimum coverage, why can't I choose what i'm covered for like auto insurance? I'm not going to have kids or an abortion, I don't want to pay for coverage for either. Backrooms deals and bribes, you really haven't heard? Read this thread. Record access, keep in mind when obama is out in 2012 an evil republican will have you medical recoeds in their hand. On cost i was wrong, there are some cost controls but I don't think they will work (or they will drive insurers out of business). Cost control should be priority #1, not tax and share. Drugs are not cheaper in canada because of their soc med. Paul ryan proposed the out of state insurance years ago, dem congress snuffed it. When govt gets bigger our freedom and liberty get smaller, when bush was in charge everyone understood this? There was a post a ways back with a link about how they voted themselves out of the bill. Look it up on google if you need to.
However, speaking of misinformation, that commercial that keeps airing on tv every 10 min says we'll have the same care as congress. that is a straight lie. And by the way, you know who is paying for those ads? Pharma! They make a lot of money off this deal so they are pushing hard to keep it now.
I'm done wasting my time here. It's saturday and I have better things to do. |
|
|
|
03/27/2010 11:35:47 AM · #335 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
There was a post a ways back with a link about how they voted themselves out of the bill. Look it up on google if you need to. |
It's not what people are making it out to be, not even close. If you want a neutral take on the issue, try Politifact.com:
Health Bill Exemptions
R. |
|
|
|
03/27/2010 12:10:39 PM · #336 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
When govt gets bigger our freedom and liberty get smaller, when bush was in charge everyone understood this? |
Power Grab
Pushing the Envelope on Presidential Power
Bush, Cheney and the Nixon Principle
Do you remember when Cheney claimed that the Vice President wasn't a part of the Executive Branch and thus does not have to comply with any rules or orders applying to the executive branch. What a pearl!
I'm not sure what the Bush administration understood but they certainly screwed up the the country in a multitude of ways...in some ways unthinkable but your statement shows you have a pretty weak grip on reality...or humanity for that matter.
I never thought I'd hear someone invoke Bush's name in the frame of Freedom and Liberty. Yeah...those sure were the good ole day's.
A very funny read by Matt Taibbi...who's against the bill for a few reasons that I agree with but his sword cuts all ways on these issues.
Message edited by author 2010-03-27 12:37:12. |
|
|
|
03/27/2010 01:03:19 PM · #337 |
I was wondering recently, have the opposing parties in the US always been this vitriolic toward eachother. Then, I found this article which compares the health care debate to that of Medicare and Social Security before it. Maybe its just a matter of time.
History on Obama's Side in Health Care Legislation |
|
|
|
03/27/2010 02:00:43 PM · #338 |
| I'm currently reading "The Pillars of the Earth", which quite frankly while very interesting is EXTREMELY depressing. It shows that absolutely nothing has changed in the way men (generic not gender-related term) deal with each other. Treachery rules; if a man can cheat, he will; the clergy is just as bad if not worse; politics ALWAYS feeds to and from the rich and powerful. Nothing changes. |
|
|
|
03/27/2010 04:50:00 PM · #339 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
We discussed car insurance, it's not mandatory. |
If you want to drive yes it is.
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Handouts and taxes is the centerpiece of the bill, shocking, but people hate new taxes during a recession. |
So? In every presidency there's a group of people who hate the policies that get passed. For a change it's not the less fortunate.
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Minimum coverage, why can't I choose what i'm covered for like auto insurance? |
Wrong. Every single state in the union mandates minimum auto insurance coverage if you're a driver.
Originally posted by LoudDog:
I'm not going to have kids or an abortion, I don't want to pay for coverage for either. |
So none of your current taxes go to fund public schools? How did you arrange that?
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Backrooms deals and bribes, you really haven't heard? Read this thread. |
No I asked for sources. This thread nor do your posts qualify. Sorry.
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Record access, keep in mind when obama is out in 2012 an evil republican will have you medical recoeds in their hand. |
First off, I gave you several examples of records already being kept by the govt. Are you angry with those as well? Btw, what is the source of your information that the government and not hospitals will maintain those records?
Originally posted by LoudDog:
On cost i was wrong, there are some cost controls but I don't think they will work (or they will drive insurers out of business). Cost control should be priority #1, not tax and share. |
You admit that taxes are a top priority. Taxes go to fund this bill therefore reducing its' costs... so I ask again what costs are you referring to?
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Drugs are not cheaper in canada because of their soc med. |
Care to explain?
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Paul ryan proposed the out of state insurance years ago, dem congress snuffed it. |
Since you know about this what was the bill's name and what year was it proposed?
Originally posted by LoudDog:
When govt gets bigger our freedom and liberty get smaller, when bush was in charge everyone understood this? |
No people were upset because the village idiot was the POTUS.
Originally posted by LoudDog:
There was a post a ways back with a link about how they voted themselves out of the bill. Look it up on google if you need to. |
I didn't ask for a link. Let me be more clear. I asked you to explain how this matters? Everyone in congress already has govt healthcare, as well as the military and federal employees.
Originally posted by LoudDog:
However, speaking of misinformation, that commercial that keeps airing on tv every 10 min says we'll have the same care as congress. that is a straight lie. And by the way, you know who is paying for those ads? Pharma! They make a lot of money off this deal so they are pushing hard to keep it now. |
Haven't seen it but I'll take your word for it that it's a typical political ad. What I don't get is why do you care that Pharma is paying for it? Are you against a corporation's freedom of speech? or that people don't know who's funding it? If the latter how do you propose that be rectified since you also seem to be against govt control?
|
|
|
|
03/27/2010 08:29:56 PM · #340 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
We discussed car insurance, it's not mandatory. |
If you want to drive yes it is.
|
Auto insurance is a condition of driving. Health insurance will be a condition of living. See the difference?
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Handouts and taxes is the centerpiece of the bill, shocking, but people hate new taxes during a recession. |
So? In every presidency there's a group of people who hate the policies that get passed. For a change it's not the less fortunate. |
Not misinformation
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Minimum coverage, why can't I choose what i'm covered for like auto insurance? |
Wrong. Every single state in the union mandates minimum auto insurance coverage if you're a driver. |
In every state I can pay for glass coverage, liability, comprehensive, how much coverage goes to what, I can pick my deductable...
Originally posted by yanko:
[Originally posted by LoudDog:
I'm not going to have kids or an abortion, I don't want to pay for coverage for either. |
So none of your current taxes go to fund public schools? How did you arrange that? |
I don't want to pay for coverage for me to have kids or an abortion! I have no problem paying for schools so your kids can be smarter then you.
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Backrooms deals and bribes, you really haven't heard? Read this thread. |
No I asked for sources. This thread nor do your posts qualify. Sorry. |
Google search it, look for airports in detroit and medicaid in nebraska to start. Shouldn't be hard to find. Also check out Pharma's big bribe, AMA's and AARP.
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Record access, keep in mind when obama is out in 2012 an evil republican will have you medical recoeds in their hand. |
First off, I gave you several examples of records already being kept by the govt. Are you angry with those as well? Btw, what is the source of your information that the government and not hospitals will maintain those records? |
Healt records are a little more private then anything else they have. Google it if you want to learn more.
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
On cost i was wrong, there are some cost controls but I don't think they will work (or they will drive insurers out of business). Cost control should be priority #1, not tax and share. |
You admit that taxes are a top priority. Taxes go to fund this bill therefore reducing its' costs... so I ask again what costs are you referring to? |
Costs of healthcare.
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Drugs are not cheaper in canada because of their soc med. |
Care to explain? |
google it.
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Paul ryan proposed the out of state insurance years ago, dem congress snuffed it. |
Since you know about this what was the bill's name and what year was it proposed? |
Man you are lazy. Google it.
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
There was a post a ways back with a link about how they voted themselves out of the bill. Look it up on google if you need to. |
I didn't ask for a link. Let me be more clear. I asked you to explain how this matters? Everyone in congress already has govt healthcare, as well as the military and federal employees. |
Simple. If it was good, why did they exclude themselves? Why not lead by example and make themselves part of it?
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
However, speaking of misinformation, that commercial that keeps airing on tv every 10 min says we'll have the same care as congress. that is a straight lie. And by the way, you know who is paying for those ads? Pharma! They make a lot of money off this deal so they are pushing hard to keep it now. |
Haven't seen it but I'll take your word for it that it's a typical political ad. What I don't get is why do you care that Pharma is paying for it? Are you against a corporation's freedom of speech? or that people don't know who's funding it? If the latter how do you propose that be rectified since you also seem to be against govt control? |
Nope. I'm just saying that their bribe was big enough that they are so for this bill they are actually spending money pushing it! Most sane people know that Pharma is part of the problem. If they like the solution, how good can it be?
I know I said I was done, but I had a free moment waiting for guest to arrive...
Message edited by scalvert - Personal attacks removed. |
|
|
|
03/27/2010 09:34:52 PM · #341 |
Ok yanko and pawdrix I think this link might be helpful to you. It seemed kind of eery to me.
//www.empoweringparents.com/arguing-with-your-opinionated-child.php# |
|
|
|
03/27/2010 10:36:56 PM · #342 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
As for the terrorism comments, that is just sickening that you would stoop so low. Compare the majority of the citizens in the US to terrorist because a few yahoos acted stupidly? Really? That makes opponents of this bill look like people that shove bombs up their ass and kill innocent women and children? Really? the line is blurred? You are truly twisted. |
...and where exactly did this happen?
I do strive to keep abreast of such things and can honestly say that I do not recall anything of the sort happening. Yes there was an incident where a suicide bomber attempted to do what you allude to, but unless I am very much mistaken, the only casualty (except for injuries to the Crown Prince) in that instance was the bomber.
Ray |
 rayethier to  LoudDog... don't know if I missed it, but did you ever answer this one?... I really am curious.
Ray |
|
|
|
03/29/2010 11:19:44 PM · #343 |
|
|
|
03/30/2010 03:09:36 AM · #344 |
Originally posted by articled:
At issue is the insurance industry's practice of charging more for older customers, who are the costliest to insure. The new law restricts how much insurers can raise premium costs based on age alone.
Insurers typically charge six or seven times as much to older customers as to younger ones in states with no restrictions. The new law limits the ratio to 3-to-1, meaning a 50-year-old could be charged only three times as much as a 20-year-old. |
Sounds like the plan lessens the burden on the people who are more likely to need the insurance by spreading the costs more evenly then before. Besides, it's hard to shed a tear when my premiums skyrocket each year before this bill and I rarely use it. So where's my this is nice post? :P
Message edited by author 2010-03-30 03:11:55. |
|
|
|
03/30/2010 08:20:57 AM · #345 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by articled:
At issue is the insurance industry's practice of charging more for older customers, who are the costliest to insure. The new law restricts how much insurers can raise premium costs based on age alone.
Insurers typically charge six or seven times as much to older customers as to younger ones in states with no restrictions. The new law limits the ratio to 3-to-1, meaning a 50-year-old could be charged only three times as much as a 20-year-old. |
Sounds like the plan lessens the burden on the people who are more likely to need the insurance by spreading the costs more evenly then before. Besides, it's hard to shed a tear when my premiums skyrocket each year before this bill and I rarely use it. So where's my this is nice post? :P |
Well, I can see your point. I'm technically in the group that could benefit (50 coming up soon enough), however, is this really going to impact me when I pay for insurance benefits thru my employer? My employer may see an increase in cost overall, which in turn may still end up costing me more (this is theoretical until known for sure).
One thing I'd keep in mind is the earning potential of someone that's 50 versus someone starting out at 20...the 50 year-old should be earning substantially more. IMO it would kinda stink to be just starting out (20 year-old) and having a larger burden to shoulder.
Something else to consider is the new bill allows children up to age 26 to continue on their parents insurance...so while that's helpful, it sounds like it just got more expensive.
Yanko, regarding your "premiums skyrocketing" each year...do you think your premiums are going to go down now? Maybe they will if you're self-employed. ??? Mine have gone up nearly every year and I'm not holding my breath on seeing reduced rates, although I am concerned about having the same level of care available in the not so distant future with the increased demand on the same resources. |
|
|
|
03/30/2010 09:18:48 AM · #346 |
[quote=yanko]
So you don't like government handouts but you'd gladly accept corporate handouts?
I came to this discussion late but...... corporate handouts????? I don't know about the OP but when I worked for a corp the healthcare was part of my compensation, not a handout. I WORKED FOR THE BENEFITS. That's why the corp offered them, to attract employees. |
|
|
|
03/30/2010 01:00:33 PM · #347 |
Originally posted by FireBird:
[quote=yanko]
So you don't like government handouts but you'd gladly accept corporate handouts?
I came to this discussion late but...... corporate handouts????? I don't know about the OP but when I worked for a corp the healthcare was part of my compensation, not a handout. I WORKED FOR THE BENEFITS. That's why the corp offered them, to attract employees. |
I may be wrong in making this assumption, but I believe the point Yanko was trying to make in this instance is that corporations offer what is essentially a subsidized form of healthcare in that they either absorb part of the costs incurred or get a substantial reduction in rates due to the number of policies they acquire for their employees.
Given today's economy, they could quite possibly still attract a large number of potential employees even if they did away with providing such health care programs, and not necessarily incur heightened demands for salary renumeration... That in my opinion is the corporate handouts being alluded to in this instance.
Ray |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 06:54:13 AM · #348 |
Originally posted by yanko:
[Originally posted by LoudDog:
I'm not going to have kids or an abortion, I don't want to pay for coverage for either. |
So none of your current taxes go to fund public schools? How did you arrange that? |
I don't want to pay for coverage for me to have kids or an abortion! I have no problem paying for schools so your kids can be smarter then you.
***********ME**************** :)
The bill does NOT cover abortion. It never did. It states that private companies and continue to offer coverage, if they choose, as has been the case already. No tax money is going to abortion. This was a blatant misinformation to get people pissed off.
"Abortion: The bill tries to maintain a strict separation between taxpayer dollars and private premiums that would pay for abortion coverage. No health plan would be required to offer coverage for abortion. In plans that do cover abortion, policyholders would have to pay for it separately. States could ban most abortion coverage in plans offered through the exchange."
//www.jsonline.com/news/usandworld/88707437.html
I also found this part interesting:
"Health care experts and supporters of reform say expanding health care coverage is likely to reduce, not increase, abortions in the country. Massachusetts, which enacted what amounts to universal health care in 2006, saw a 1.5% drop in its abortion rate in the first two years of the new law, according to a study in the New England Journal of Medicine.
And according to the United Nations, industrialized countries that have universal health care, including Canada and Britain, have lower abortion rates than the U.S. "
ETA: Sorry the quotes are messed up. Never seem to do that right...
Message edited by author 2010-04-01 06:55:13.
|
|
|
|
04/01/2010 07:00:06 AM · #349 |
I thought this summed the issue up pretty well...
Video.
|
|
|
|
04/01/2010 10:01:03 AM · #350 |
Bottom line here is that this is a crappy bill that was shoved through against the will of the people. It will not result in the utopia where everyone will have access to health-care. More likely the opposite as employers will be forced to find ways to recoup the extra costs associated with this bill.. can you say 'work force reduction'. I can. I see it everyday under the current economy and heaping more expenses and uncertainty on employers will not make it conducive to hiring people. More people out of work equals more government handouts. The seemingly never ending extensions of unemployment benefits is nothing more than welfare anymore. At some point this nation will have to pay the piper. What good will it even do to have access to health-care if you don't have a job and can't afford to live. Oh I've got it... let's mandate that all employers have to hire people whether it makes good business sense or not. Then when all of the corporations are bankrupt the government can come in and take control like they have already done with the car companies (excluding Ford). It makes sense.. if the government can run health-care more efficiently than the private sector then they can run all industries more efficiently without all that profit motive at work... maybe then we can have social justice for all the unfortunate people who just don't have the will to provide for themselves.
Doesn't anyone realize that what is being done has little to do with health-care and everything to do with power. The dems are trying to create an underclass of people who are completely dependent on the government and who will be forced to vote for them in order to keep getting the handouts. I personally would rather die without health-insurance than to see this great country turn into a place where I cannot make my own decisions about what I want to do with my money. I would rather suffer an agonizing death because I can't afford to see a doctor than have my country and it's constitution gutted and 'Changed' such that it is considered unjustified that someone has more money than me. The United States I grew up in valued hard work and perseverance. It did not reward sloth and inability.
Indeed why do so many feel that health-care coverage is a right. Why?? regardless of whether you have the greatest health-care coverage in the world or none at all we are ALL most certainly going to die regardless. Why should it be a right to be able to get kidney and heart transplants and such?? I'd like to know the rationale. |
|
