| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/04/2009 12:39:30 AM · #226 |
Here the paradox we face with healthcare today IMO. But before I get into it, for the record, I believe everyone should have the right to healthcare but insurance is not a right, again IMO. So here we go!
Something has to be done. People should not be getting it free but at the same time people should not be loosing their homes, retirement, and/or savings to get the medical treatment they need.
If a person has no insurance and in need of critical care, do everything possible to save that person and worry about the bill later. If the person is an US citizen they could come up with a way to bill them monthly or pay it back with taxes they maybe owed back at tax time. If the person is a non-US citizen then bill their country of origin health department for the bill. If they don't pay-up then subtract it from what our county owes their country.
I don't see how the government insurance would work seeing that medicaid, medicare, social security, and the post office (all government run) are in shambles and close to going bankrupt. I don't know if I could trust the same government to run my health insurance.
I don't see how tens of millions can be covered, get the same care, in the same timely manner as most of us do with our current healthcare for less money. Something tells me we will pay more for less and some of our personal decisions will be taken away. Again my opinion!
And finally it's like this. A decision has to be made, a tough one. Do we cover everyone with poor quality or do we cover most with good quality. As the saying goes, "if a life boat only holds twelve and there are three in the water. Do you leave the three and save twelve or do you pickup the three and risk loosing all fifteen".
just my 2 cents
Message edited by author 2009-08-04 00:40:57. |
|
|
|
08/04/2009 04:06:55 AM · #227 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by AJHopp:
I think the following quote from Ronald Reagan sums up my feelings on the matter: "Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them." |
Amazing how you forget that Reagan presided in the biggest increase in government spending (and deficits) in history ... broke the law to sell arms to Iran to raise money for Nicaraguan death squads, yes there's a real model of responsible government for you ...
Look there's one thing virtually everyone agrees on -- our "health care system" is a big mess. Who has been in charge of it for the past 30--40 years? Yep, private enterprise. Why would you hand over the keys to your yacht to the captain of the Titanic? |
Absolutely not...as long as we can accurately point out that the federal government can be labeled the Titanic on your analogy. Medicare, medicaid, social security, welfare, cash for clunkers, this ridiculous stimulus plan that hit a record mark in terms of national deficit, and the list goes on and on and on and on and on...the government has proven ten thousands time over that they cannot accurately and efficiently administer any sort of program. I think Scott may be onto some pretty strong ideas, but O will never go for it. He still has dreams of magic money trees growing on the WH lawn that will surely thrive and solve all or woes.
Originally posted by SDW:
If a person has no insurance and in need of critical care, do everything possible to save that person and worry about the bill later. If the person is an US citizen they could come up with a way to bill them monthly or pay it back with taxes they maybe owed back at tax time. If the person is a non-US citizen then bill their country of origin health department for the bill. If they don't pay-up then subtract it from what our county owes their country. |
I like it. I am sure that all of you arguing for this stupid reform to pass will disagree. I expect that because it is actually an idea that makes sense. I bet many of you will see it as unfair because it would actually require that you cover your own damn bill. Surely the 'rich' must owe you something because they figured out how to make money. Sheesh. |
|
|
|
08/04/2009 04:14:08 AM · #228 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
...stay out of my pockets, please. |
Our pockets are already being emptied with the highest healthcare expenses in the world. I'd rather take my chances with the farmer than stay in the henhouse with the foxes. |
My pockets are being emptied by a new government that thinks everything should be at the expense of those who have made a conscious choice to make money. I pay my taxes, AND I pay MY healthcare. So, by your rationale here, I should expect the government healthcare plan to take effect, be able to drop the expense of my own healthcare plan, AND expect to see my taxes decrease because we will all be saving so much money. Sure.
The problem is that the government perpetuates a flawed system. Why wouldn't O seek to impose mandated limits on malpractice suits? That would be a step in the right direction, wouldn't it? You can't solve it all by simply adding more governmental funds. We can already expect to see some ridiculous increases based on this ridiculous deficit that your savior has created. How much more? |
|
|
|
08/04/2009 04:47:29 AM · #229 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
...stay out of my pockets, please. |
Our pockets are already being emptied with the highest healthcare expenses in the world. I'd rather take my chances with the farmer than stay in the henhouse with the foxes. |
My pockets are being emptied by a new government that thinks everything should be at the expense of those who have made a conscious choice to make money. I pay my taxes, AND I pay MY healthcare. So, by your rationale here, I should expect the government healthcare plan to take effect, be able to drop the expense of my own healthcare plan, AND expect to see my taxes decrease because we will all be saving so much money. Sure.
The problem is that the government perpetuates a flawed system. Why wouldn't O seek to impose mandated limits on malpractice suits? That would be a step in the right direction, wouldn't it? You can't solve it all by simply adding more governmental funds. We can already expect to see some ridiculous increases based on this ridiculous deficit that your savior has created. How much more? |
I have to agree with you  ericwoo. Just like the 'cash for clunkers program' so will go government healthcare. I know some are saying the 'cash for clunkers program' is a huge success. Far from it! They ran out of money in a week, are not paying the dealerships on time, and scraping perfectly good parts that could be salvaged to help fix other cars that people don't want to turn in for $4500. Now the are going to add more debt to this program. It's a false since of sales. What happens when the program stops and people stop buying as many cars because the program is terminated. You will see an inflated sales spike caused by a government handout then a fast drop in sales. Does anyone remember when MSN and Microsoft were giving people $400 towards a computer if they signed up with there internet for 2 years? Well most of the companies that participated in the program lost a lot of money because they only paid about 1/3 of the money to the participating companies. You know - red tape. If that happens in the auto industry ... more bailouts??? we will have to see.
What about the people that have a good car that don't have a car payment, but gets lured into buying a new one with this program. Then finds themselves not able to make the payments. Don't say it can't happen, look at what happen with sub-prime.
Just like the cars program we will find that the government will not have enough funds to pay for a government run healthcare system. They will try to tax the wealthy to pay for it but it will not work. They could take all their money and would not have enough. So more debt. And when the healthcare system runs out of money it wont be like the 'cars' program. They will cut services and let some go.
We will have doctors retiring because they can't make enough money to cover overhead and make a living. This will create longer waits.
I was talking to my doctor last Thursday, very nice and a good doctor. We talked about this subject. He told me it cost him over $200K to become a doctor, he pays close to $90K a year in malpractice insurance and works an average of 14 to 16 hours a day and then on call a couple a weeks out of the month. He said if they don't cap lawsuits then most doctors are not going to be able to make a living with those premiums. Which in some states can run as high as $150K a year.
I asked him what was he planing on doing if this healthcare bill is voted in. He laughed and said, "I think I'll open up a pawn shop".
We need reform but it needs to stay in the free market.
my opinion.
Message edited by author 2009-08-04 05:06:58. |
|
|
|
08/04/2009 05:01:16 AM · #230 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by AJHopp:
I think the following quote from Ronald Reagan sums up my feelings on the matter: "Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them." Why in the hell would anybody want the Government running our health care? Just look at Medicare and Medicaid! At the rate Obama and friends are spending money (OUR money), we'll be lucky to bring home half of our pay check before it's all said and done.
Our health care system is not perfect, but there is no need to socialize and destroy it. If it was so damn bad, then why would doctors come from all over the world to practice in the U.S.? Why do people come from all over the world to receive treatment? Who has more advanced technology and more of it? If you had a choice between a top hospital in the U.S. and one in Cuba or another country, where would you choose to go?
Yes, improvements can be made, but I would prefer to be the one in charge, and I would rather it not be crammed down my throat by a certain deadline. There are other solutions out there, but Obama doesn't want to hear any of it. Have you noticed that everything has to be done RIGHT NOW or the world will fall apart? Why is that??
Thank you, Kevin Kitchens, for a link to the petition. I signed it several weeks ago and contacted my Congressman. Thank you, as well, for choosing my username in the recent challenge. I loved it! :) |
Amazing how the evidence of superior government run healthcare in other countries has no influence over people with this opinion. Mind-boggling. |
I asked a question regarding your hospital of choice. You never answered. Name a country that has more superior care than the United States. What is mind boggling is why people want to rely on the government for everything... |
|
|
|
08/04/2009 05:15:30 AM · #231 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by AJHopp:
I think the following quote from Ronald Reagan sums up my feelings on the matter: "Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them." |
Amazing how you forget that Reagan presided in the biggest increase in government spending (and deficits) in history ... broke the law to sell arms to Iran to raise money for Nicaraguan death squads, yes there's a real model of responsible government for you ...
Look there's one thing virtually everyone agrees on -- our "health care system" is a big mess. Who has been in charge of it for the past 30--40 years? Yep, private enterprise. Why would you hand over the keys to your yacht to the captain of the Titanic? |
Typical. Take a quote and turn it into a history lesson (your version) that has nothing to do with the subject matter. I never said anything regarding Reagan. I said I liked the quote. Bozo the Clown could have said it...
As far as handing the keys of my yacht to the captain of the Titanic... I see Obama as the captain of the Titanic (United States) and he's sinking it fast.... :)
|
|
|
|
08/04/2009 05:23:52 AM · #232 |
I am so sick and tired of people who trash and demonize the United States, Capitalism, and private industry. You all have it so damn bad. Since there's so many excellent models of government run, socialized health care out there, why don't you follow the yellow brick and live in one of those countries for a while? No need to socialize here when there's already plenty of countries who already share your view. And take Obama with you............................
Message edited by author 2009-08-04 05:38:46. |
|
|
|
08/04/2009 08:39:14 AM · #233 |
Originally posted by SDW:
... I don't see how the government insurance would work seeing that medicaid, medicare, social security, and the post office (all government run) are in shambles and close to going bankrupt. I don't know if I could trust the same government to run my health insurance.
I don't see how tens of millions can be covered, get the same care, in the same timely manner as most of us do with our current healthcare for less money. Something tells me we will pay more for less and some of our personal decisions will be taken away. Again my opinion! ... |
Absolutely on the mark Scott!  |
|
|
|
08/04/2009 09:17:24 AM · #234 |
Originally posted by AJHopp:
Name a country that has more superior care than the United States. |
France, Italy, San Marino, Andorra, Malta, Singapore, Spain, Oman, Austria, Japan, Norway, Portugal, Monaco, Greece, Iceland, Luxembourg, Netherland, United Kingdom, Ireland, Switzerland, Belgium, Colombia, Sweden, Cyprus, Germany, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Israel, Morocco, Canada, Finland, Australia, Chile, Denmark, Dominica, and. Costa Rica.
Now guess how many of those are entirely free market, private systems whose profit depends entirely on providing as little healthcare as possible? That's right: zero. We are at the mercy of the very same system of greed that gave us hedge funds, nicotine-enhanced cigarettes, insanely overpriced defense hardware, the auto industry and 21% credit card interest rates. Health insurance is Big Business, in every sense of the word, and they'll say anything to keep the status quo. Nationalism is great... rah, rah, woohoo... America is the best at everything!!!," but in this case we are only the best at giving our money to insurance companies. |
|
|
|
08/04/2009 09:27:39 AM · #235 |
Originally posted by SDW:
... I don't see how the government insurance would work seeing that medicaid, medicare, social security, and the post office (all government run) are in shambles and close to going bankrupt. I don't know if I could trust the same government to run my health insurance. |
This isn't medicare, medicaid, social security or the post office (which, incidentally, if left to free market forces certainly wouldn't be charging less than 50 cents to ship a letter across the continent). You trust the same government to protect your food and defend your country, but you draw the line when it tries to save you money on insurance premiums? Horrors!
Message edited by author 2009-08-04 09:28:12. |
|
|
|
08/04/2009 09:31:08 AM · #236 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
... Health insurance is Big Business... |
RE: Insurance Companies.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I spent the worst year of my life working for an insurance company, and I had the dubious duty of attending management meetings twice a week, where the CEO once screamed,
"WE'RE IN THE BUSINESS OF MAKING MONEY, NOT GIVING IT AWAY!"
He was just being honest, in a typically violent and threatening way, but at least he was honest.
|
|
|
|
08/04/2009 10:01:14 AM · #237 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
You trust the same government to protect your food and defend your country, but you draw the line when it tries to save you money on insurance premiums? Horrors! |
I wish they were just trying to save us money on premiums! |
|
|
|
08/04/2009 10:35:46 AM · #238 |
|
|
|
08/04/2009 11:38:53 AM · #239 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by SDW:
... I don't see how the government insurance would work seeing that medicaid, medicare, social security, and the post office (all government run) are in shambles and close to going bankrupt. I don't know if I could trust the same government to run my health insurance. |
This isn't medicare, medicaid, social security or the post office (which, incidentally, if left to free market forces certainly wouldn't be charging less than 50 cents to ship a letter across the continent). You trust the same government to protect your food and defend your country, but you draw the line when it tries to save you money on insurance premiums? Horrors! |
It amazes me that you think the government is actually wanting to save you money. Your little utopia must be great! You can post links and pretend figures all day long, but you blatantly refuse to see that the numbers make no sense. It is smoke and mirrors, and there is no other way to see it. If you work and pay taxes, you will pay more...period. Failing government programs coupled with a record setting (and growing) deficit can only mean that we are all about to get screwed. And, speaking of the post office, maybe if they were charging 50 cents to ship a letter, they wouldn't be throwing darts to see which communities across the country will now lose their post offices. We've seen ridiculous price increases, looking at their increases v. national inflation, over the past few years, and they still can't turn it around. When you add the cost of a stamp to the amount of money your taxes add to the postal service, how much do you really think it is costing you to send a letter. I'd rather spend the 50 cents, drop the monopolistic postal service practices, and turn it over to a private entity. I'd pay a little more for mailing a letter if I could pay a little less in annual taxes. Great example.
Message edited by author 2009-08-04 11:41:23. |
|
|
|
08/04/2009 11:51:14 AM · #240 |
Originally posted by SDW:
As the saying goes, "if a life boat only holds twelve and there are three in the water. Do you leave the three and save twelve or do you pickup the three and risk loosing all fifteen". |
What if your lifeboat seating twelve actually has nine people plus their luggage, do you jettison the suitcases to save the people in the water? |
|
|
|
08/04/2009 11:55:28 AM · #241 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by SDW:
As the saying goes, "if a life boat only holds twelve and there are three in the water. Do you leave the three and save twelve or do you pickup the three and risk loosing all fifteen". |
What if your lifeboat seating twelve actually has nine people plus their luggage, do you jettison the suitcases to save the people in the water? |
We counted. All seats are full of people without luggage. Now, what do we do? |
|
|
|
08/04/2009 12:13:32 PM · #242 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by SDW:
As the saying goes, "if a life boat only holds twelve and there are three in the water. Do you leave the three and save twelve or do you pickup the three and risk loosing all fifteen". |
What if your lifeboat seating twelve actually has nine people plus their luggage, do you jettison the suitcases to save the people in the water? |
We counted. All seats are full of people without luggage. Now, what do we do? |
We should send it to congress to work out a solution. I'm sure it will involve tax increases to fund a bigger liferaft, or maybe drain the ocean to make it safer, or put in a bridge so no one needs a boat anymore and 30 million to save a wetland mouse habitat. |
|
|
|
08/04/2009 12:39:35 PM · #243 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
It amazes me that you think the government is actually wanting to save you money. Your little utopia must be great! You can post links and pretend figures all day long, but you blatantly refuse to see that the numbers make no sense. It is smoke and mirrors, and there is no other way to see it. |
You're ignoring the plain fact that countries all over the world already do this, and it costs much less.
Originally posted by ericwoo:
When you add the cost of a stamp to the amount of money your taxes add to the postal service, how much do you really think it is costing you to send a letter. I'd rather spend the 50 cents, drop the monopolistic postal service practices, and turn it over to a private entity. I'd pay a little more for mailing a letter if I could pay a little less in annual taxes. Great example. |
Indeed... some people are so used to the old model and resistant to change that they go nuts at any mention of any rate hike, no matter the rising cost of gas or what a private alternative might cost. Irony: two weeks ago, The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee unanimously approved a bill that would reverse a 2006 postal reform law that requires the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) to “pre-fund” retiree healthcare benefits, a practice that drains $5 billion a year from USPS coffers. The bill... would allow USPS to pay for retiree health benefits out of its Retiree Health Benefit Fund—as it did before Congress imposed the pre-funding requirement—instead from its operating budget. The bill, which is expected to save USPS more than $2 billion per year, authorizes such payments through Fiscal Year (FY) 2011. No other federal agency is required to pre-fund retiree health care benefits. The Postal Service lost $2.8 billion in FY 2008. |
|
|
|
08/04/2009 12:50:26 PM · #244 |
The USPS has a requirement which no private carrier has -- the are obligated to deliver to every valid US address for the same charge. Want to send a postcard to your friend in the boondocks? USPS will do it for the same price as sending one to City Hall, while UPS or FedEx are free to say $20 or nothing ...
Why is it that way? Because Ben Franklin and the Founding Fathers knew that a representative democracy could only work if everyone had access to the means of communication. Same reason we have mandatory public education -- an uneducated populace is suited for serfdom but not citizenship ... and paying for public education returns a benefit worth far more than the dollars we spend on schools. |
|
|
|
08/04/2009 02:03:15 PM · #245 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
and paying for public education returns a benefit worth far more than the dollars we spend on schools. |
*cough! choke* Sorry, I just spewed. Please continue. |
|
|
|
08/04/2009 02:09:50 PM · #246 |
| You prefer hordes of uneducated pre-teens roaming the streets? |
|
|
|
08/04/2009 02:16:53 PM · #247 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
You prefer hordes of uneducated pre-teens roaming the streets? |
No, I'm actually tired of that. |
|
|
|
08/04/2009 02:35:41 PM · #248 |
Sorry, General - if you are in favor of government run healthcare, I am just astonished that you would bring up our public education system in this discussion.
FWIW, I am encouraged by most of the discourse in this thread. It's a complex problem that, like many that we currently face, will never be solved by people backing into their partisan corners and holding the line. I believe the only workable solution is one that has plenty of middle ground. Good luck with that, though. :) |
|
|
|
08/04/2009 02:50:07 PM · #249 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
The bill, which is expected to save USPS more than $2 billion per year, authorizes such payments through Fiscal Year (FY) 2011. No other federal agency is required to pre-fund retiree health care benefits. The Postal Service lost $2.8 billion in FY 2008. |
WOW!!! What are we going to do with all that money we save? I am assuming that you see it as a good thing when a government run agency chops is losses to just under $1 billion dollars?!? This is exactly the ignorance I am speaking against. No matter what they do, they will continue to lose money. It is an inefficient system designed with a comedy of errors. It makes no sense to charge the same amount no matter what. It never has, it never will.
Originally posted by GeneralIE:
...and paying for public education returns a benefit worth far more than the dollars we spend on schools. |
AND...since you want to bring up the greatness and wealth of our public education system...how much lower do we rank across the globe in education than we do in healthcare? Apples to Cucumbers? Maybe, but another fine example of government wastes and inefficiencies.
Originally posted by scalvert:
You're ignoring the plain fact that countries all over the world already do this, and it costs much less. |
Yeah, it costs much less to you and me because we ain't there. Even after looking at all the socialized models, I do not see one that our governments, especially with the democratic party in control, is capable of implementing and saving me money. This party is all about spending and letting the next generation worry about repayment. Our government is not capable of running a healthcare system that will not bankrupt the country. That is my opinion. They have shown time and again, and across all party lines, that inefficiency is the rule. Make the other government handout systems work efficiently, and I'll hop on board.
Message edited by author 2009-08-04 14:50:30. |
|
|
|
08/04/2009 02:51:42 PM · #250 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by SDW:
As the saying goes, "if a life boat only holds twelve and there are three in the water. Do you leave the three and save twelve or do you pickup the three and risk loosing all fifteen". |
What if your lifeboat seating twelve actually has nine people plus their luggage, do you jettison the suitcases to save the people in the water? |
We counted. All seats are full of people without luggage. Now, what do we do? |
We should send it to congress to work out a solution. I'm sure it will involve tax increases to fund a bigger liferaft, or maybe drain the ocean to make it safer, or put in a bridge so no one needs a boat anymore and 30 million to save a wetland mouse habitat. |
Sounds like a government plan to me. |
|
