MANDATORY health insurance - Page 39 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-21-2009, 07:49 PM   #571
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 10:20 PM
But what about the pot-smoking? HUH??????
__________________

__________________
martha is offline  
Old 08-22-2009, 02:31 AM   #572
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 01:20 AM
Quote:
You should make your money and pay for your own healthcare. Not to be given health care from your tax money.
I think this calls for melon posting that supply side Jesus cartoon...
__________________

__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 08-22-2009, 07:48 AM   #573
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 01:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
I think this calls for melon posting that supply side Jesus cartoon...
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 08-22-2009, 01:12 PM   #574
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 459
Local Time: 06:20 AM
Someone posted about the NHS A&E having a four hour wait. The four hour waiting time is from entry to the A&E to discharge or admittance. People are not waiting 4 hours to get treated. To give an personal anecdote, last week at 5 a side 'soccer' my friend hurt his knee pretty badly, so I took him to the local NHS A&E, this at 7pm on a weeknight, he was triaged immediately upon entry to the A&E, seen by a Doctor within 15 minutes, given painkillers, taken for an scan on his leg within an hour (the Doctor apologised for the wait) admitted overnight. Seen by a Specialist the next morning, and is booked for an operation next week. The Specialist wanted to wait a week for the swelling to subside before operating or he would have had the operation within two days.

There are some horror stories about the NHS, but the service has drastically improved since 1997.
__________________
popshopper is offline  
Old 08-22-2009, 08:57 PM   #575
Paper Gods
Forum Administrator
 
KhanadaRhodes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: a vampire in the limousine
Posts: 60,609
Local Time: 12:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by popshopper View Post
Someone posted about the NHS A&E having a four hour wait. The four hour waiting time is from entry to the A&E to discharge or admittance.
thank you. it's nice when all the facts are actually presented instead of giving some out of context. four hours from the time you walk in till you walk out isn't really that bad. i've waited nearly that long to be seen in the past, just from me walking in until they finally actually start to look at me.
__________________
KhanadaRhodes is offline  
Old 08-23-2009, 01:51 AM   #576
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 01:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
This is a useless road to go down, as loathing goes both ways.


but that makes it doubly important.

why do we hate each other?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-23-2009, 06:58 PM   #577
Self-righteous bullshitter
 
BoMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Soviet Canuckistan — Socialist paradise
Posts: 16,667
Local Time: 02:20 AM
^ Because we're one but we're not the same?
__________________

BoMac is offline  
Old 08-23-2009, 11:35 PM   #578
Blue Crack Supplier
 
coolian2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hamilton (No longer STD capital of NZ)
Posts: 42,920
Local Time: 07:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoMac View Post
^ Because we're one but we're not the same?
__________________
coolian2 is offline  
Old 08-23-2009, 11:53 PM   #579
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 11:20 PM
On Death Panels
They exist already:

YouTube - The Death Panels Are Real
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 08-24-2009, 08:39 AM   #580
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 12:20 AM
Hard evidence...
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 08-24-2009, 10:37 AM   #581
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,994
Local Time: 01:20 AM
YouTube - i are cute kitten
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 08-24-2009, 01:09 PM   #582
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,994
Local Time: 01:20 AM
time.com

Monday, Aug. 24, 2009
How Abortion Could Imperil Health-Care Reform

By Michael Scherer / WASHINGTON

The Commander in Chief has, of late, become something of a fact-checker-in-chief. In town halls, interviews and meetings with interest groups, President Barack Obama repeatedly harps on what he calls "myths" and "fabrications" about health reform.

The list runs from "death panels," which have not been proposed by Congress, to illegal immigrants, who will not get coverage under current proposals, even though 55% of Americans believe otherwise, according to one recent poll. The President also routinely mentions the issue of abortion. "You've heard that this is all going to mean government funding of abortion," Obama said recently in a call to religious leaders. "Not true."

But this last statement, while technically correct, does not tell the whole story. The health-care reform proposed by House Democrats, if enacted, would in fact mark a significant change in the federal government's role in the financing of abortions. "It would be a dramatic shift," says Rep. Bart Stupak, a Michigan Democrat who has vowed to oppose the bill because of its impact on abortion. Stupak says dozens of House Democrats may join him in opposing a final health-care compromise unless the abortion language is changed, presenting a clear challenge to Democratic vote counters that could imperil a party-line vote.

To understand the change, one must first look at the strictly hands-off role the federal government has historically taken toward abortion services. Since 1976, Congress has mandated through the so-called Hyde Amendment that no federal funds will be used for abortion, effectively preventing Medicaid dollars from being used for the procedure, except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the mother is at risk. Private health plans offered to government employees, including members of Congress, have also been barred from offering abortion coverage, as has the military.

The health reform bill proposed by House Democrats does not actually override those restrictions. But it does find a way for the federal government to expand the coverage of abortion services through a government-run program, the so-called "public option," without specifically spending what it defines as federal dollars on abortion. Instead, the only money the "public" insurance option could spend on abortion that does not involve rape, incest or the life of the mother would be money collected from members dues; or, in the words of supporters like Elizabeth Shipp, of NARAL-Pro-Choice America, the plan "could only use private funds to pay for abortion services."

The member dues, or premiums, to pay for expanded abortion coverage would be segregated from the federal tax dollars by keeping the money in separate internal accounts. The problem is that all those who sign up for the public option would have to pay into the account for abortion coverage, an amount "not less than $1 per month," according to the legislation. So in effect, anyone who wanted to sign up for the public option, a federally funded and administered program, would find themselves paying for abortion coverage. "You are spreading the cost of the procedure over a public plan," explains Stupak. Under the legislation, the executive branch would have to make a determination that abortion is a basic medical service for the service to be provided, something that the Obama Administration is expected to do.

Meanwhile private insurance companies, which could receive taxpayer subsidies to cover low-income individuals, would continue to choose for themselves whether or not to offer abortion coverage. But if they did offer abortion, they would also need to segregate the funds to pay for the procedure, to insure that direct taxpayer subsidies are not involved. And no consumer would be forced to choose a health plan that covered abortion. By using a new federally managed marketplace for purchasing health insurance, a so-called exchange, uninsured consumers would be able to choose not to join the "public plan" in favor of a plan that does not cover abortion services. Opponents of abortion, including Stupak, want language that would prohibit any private insurance company that accepts federal funds from offering to any policyholders abortions other than those already eligible under Medicaid.

Nonetheless, the new system differs markedly from the old federal policy of not involving the government in abortion services unless issues of rape, incest or the life of the mother are at play. "It does represent a policy shift in favor of the abortion rights community that it would not have received under George W. Bush's Administration," explains Glen Halva-Neubauer, a political scientist at Furman University, who has studied the politics of abortion.

For supporters of abortion, the House bill offers a neat compromise, which they describe as a continuation of the status-quo, allowing the federal role in health care to expand, without significantly changing the offerings in the private marketplace. "[American consumers] get to choose which plan they want," says Shipp, of NARAL. "They get to choose a plan without abortion."

But for opponents of abortion, including a number of House Democrats, the proposal represents a major reversal of a decades-old policy of keeping the federal government out of the abortion business. In a recent letter to members of Congress, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops called the House proposal a "radical change" built around the "illusion" that public funds can be segregated from private funds in a government-run plan, or in private plans that accept federal subsidies. "Funds paid into these plans are fungible, and federal taxpayer funds will subsidize the operating budget and provider networks that expand access to abortion," writes Cardinal Justin Rigali, in a August 11 letter to members of Congress.

For Stupak, the pro-life Democrat, the battle over abortion in health reform is certain to continue when Congress returns from recess. "We are going to do everything we can to stop the rule, or the bill, from coming to the floor," Stupak said, adding that he may have as many as 39 Democratic members of Congress join him in the effort. It remains unclear how the Senate will deal with the abortion issue. There is also no consensus within the Democratic party about whether or not a public option should be included in final health reform legislation.

In the meantime, Stupak says that Obama's statements during recent public events signal one of two things: either he does not fully understand the current House bill, which Stupak maintains has the effect of publicly funding abortion, or "if he is aware of it, and he is making these statements, then he is misleading people."
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 08-24-2009, 02:03 PM   #583
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 01:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
On Death Panels
They exist already:

YouTube - The Death Panels Are Real
Indeed they do. But you seem to be okay with them as long as they're not government-run.

Unless you want to suggest that private insurers never deny coverage for desired medical treatment.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 08-24-2009, 04:16 PM   #584
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 11:20 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
Indeed they do. But you seem to be okay with them as long as they're not government-run.

Unless you want to suggest that private insurers never deny coverage for desired medical treatment.
No, no, I see it as becoming worse under Obama's plan.

It also appears that he's becoming more and more disingenuous as the days roll on.

<>
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 08-24-2009, 04:21 PM   #585
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 12:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
No, no, I see it as becoming worse under Obama's plan.
But you guys love private insurance companies right now, you must defend.


Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
It also appears that he's becoming more and more disingenuous as the days roll on.

<>
What does this have to do with healthcare or Sean's post?
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com