MANDATORY health insurance

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
i watched some of the speech and some of the before and after commentary on fox news. 3 times in a row during commercials the FIRST commercial was that one where the woman is bitching about the canadian healthcare that the government is trying to force on us. "say NO to government run healthcare!" pretty much 3 anti-healthcare reform commericals first during 3 commerical breaks.

no, thats not biased at all.

we wouldnt want to take money out of the insurance companies and the politicians they pay off pockets would we? :no:
 
So, if an "illegal" (and really, are people somehow "illegal"?) needs medical care, we let him die on the street? I'd like a real answer from someone, please. Anyone.

yes, a non-US citizen entering the country anywhere other than a designated port of entry, and without being inspected at entry is breaking the law. hence the term "illegal." we call them EWIs - entered without inspection.

i guess if we have to pay for healthcare for people in jail and prison, whats the difference. yes, they shouldnt be here, but it's not the American way to let people "die in the street", although the insurance companies dont feel the same way, even towards our own citizens.

take the money we blow overseas and spend it on border security (and other things) instead. then we wont have an "illegal" problem.
 
I realise that's just a minor detail....

Details are for socialists! Hardcore gun toting, meat straight from the cow eating, homobashing, science denying, why can't everyone be like me Americans don't need details, and they are the real Americans.
 
yes, a non-US citizen entering the country anywhere other than a designated port of entry, and without being inspected at entry is breaking the law. hence the term "illegal." we call them EWIs - entered without inspection.

People are not "illegal." They do things that are illegal, but they are not illegal.

It's easier to think of them as not deserving proper treatment as humans if we can think of them as illegal.
 
i watched some of the speech and some of the before and after commentary on fox news. 3 times in a row during commercials the FIRST commercial was that one where the woman is bitching about the canadian healthcare that the government is trying to force on us. "say NO to government run healthcare!" pretty much 3 anti-healthcare reform commericals first during 3 commerical breaks.

no, thats not biased at all.

we wouldnt want to take money out of the insurance companies and the politicians they pay off pockets would we? :no:

We saw that. Full of misrepresentations of the truth.

It's actually conceivable that one individual specialist is booked up months ahead of time, but you know what? That woman would have had the right to check with as many specialists as she wanted to, in order to see if someone could have seen her sooner. We've actually run into something similar. My mom was seeing this cardiologist, but he was impossible to get into in a timely manner. We told her family doctor, and his exact words were "if you can't get in to see him when you need to, it doesn't matter how good he is, he's not helping you." So, he found her someone else, she was able to get in to see the second doctor within a few days, and everything was fine.

I rolled my eyes through that commercial last night. I wonder how many Americans thought it was completely accurate.
 
Probably the same number who think Obama's a socialist.

Honestly, it's no wonder. I've heard some crazy things about Canadian health care via American cable news, from commentators right through to actual politicians, the latter of whom are supposed to offer some degree of truth and accuracy, and when they tell such bold face lies, it's not difficult to imagine why many Americans are scared shitless of Canadian-style health care.
 
By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – The Census Bureau reports that the number of people lacking health insurance rose to 46.3 million in 2008.

That's up from 45.7 million in 2007, due to a continuing erosion of employer-provided insurance. Still, the level remained just below the peak of 47 million who were uninsured in 2006, because of the growth of government insurance programs such as Medicaid for the poor.

The nation's poverty rate increased to 13.2 percent, up from the 12.5 percent in 2007. That meant there were 39.8 million people living in poverty. It was the highest rate since 1997.

The statistics released Thursday cover the first full year of the current recession.

The median — or midpoint — household income declined slightly to $50,303.
 
People are not "illegal." They do things that are illegal, but they are not illegal.

It's easier to think of them as not deserving proper treatment as humans if we can think of them as illegal.

California is bankrupt, should the rest of the country follow? Forget health care for a moment. What has illegal immigration done to your education system, once the best in the nation? A 25% illiteracy rate for one, double what it was a generation ago.

Tell us about prop 187 as well and what happened.
 
This is partly a farse, and partly misunderstood.

I have BCBS Illinois, but live in TX, due to my employer's corporate office in Illinois.

In some aspects my plan is much better than most of those living in TX, but in other ways it's very limited compared to a plan I would purchase in TX.

The not being able to buy from state to state is mainly set up by the insurance companies themselves. Go "free market"!

Why? Take podiatry for example: podiatry in TX is defined by any procedure from the forefoot to an inch above the ankle, Georgia is up to right under the knee, and Ohio is just the forefoot the ankle isn't included. (now these may not be exact by state) But the point being is that regulations differ from state to state so in order for the insurance companies not to be screwed they worked collectively and compromised on regulations not allowing some policies to be sold state to state.

Thanks, at least I got one response to a question.

BVS, if insurance companies have "set up" the current system, if you and everyone else really want to punish insurance companies... make them ALL compete against each other. Let's do away with government protected monopolies. As a consumer, if Burger King had a monopoly in your state would you rather be given the second choice of eating a government hamburger at your local middle school or have the market opened up to private competitors like Wendy's and McDonalds?

Your podiatry example about differing regulations is very interesting but it shouldn't be a barrier to selling health insurance or taking your insurance with you if you move to another state. After all, insurance coverage is accepted by providers across state lines if you need treatment while on vacation.
 
Thanks, at least I got one response to a question.

BVS, if insurance companies have "set up" the current system, if you and everyone else really want to punish insurance companies... make them ALL compete against each other. Let's do away with government protected monopolies. As a consumer, if Burger King had a monopoly in your state would you rather be given the second choice of eating a government hamburger at your local middle school or have the market opened up to private competitors like Wendy's and McDonalds?



because the competition for profit and the drive to meet Wall Street expectations doesn't make for good health care.
 
Thanks, at least I got one response to a question.
Right. It sucks when your questions go unanswered.

BVS, if insurance companies have "set up" the current system, if you and everyone else really want to punish insurance companies... make them ALL compete against each other. Let's do away with government protected monopolies. As a consumer, if Burger King had a monopoly in your state would you rather be given the second choice of eating a government hamburger at your local middle school or have the market opened up to private competitors like Wendy's and McDonalds?
It's not about punishing insurance companies. It's about finding a system where greed doesn't dictate who stays or gets healthy, period. My life is not like a fucking hamburger. I don't care if greed dictates hamburgers, I can find an alternative.

Your podiatry example about differing regulations is very interesting but it shouldn't be a barrier to selling health insurance or taking your insurance with you if you move to another state. After all, insurance coverage is accepted by providers across state lines if you need treatment while on vacation.

If your policy is designed in Ohio where a bunionectomy is repaired by a one screw procedure and your insurance company will reimburse per procedure, but then you go into Texas where they are allowed to use plates, the Ohio insurance company just screwed itself because they plan on a bunionectory costing x amount of dollars and not 3x amount of dollars.
 
Comparisons of show-throwing journalists to jackass congressmen and health care to fast food sandwiches.

We've just about run out of ideas on this planet, haven't we?
 
because the competition for profit and the drive to meet Wall Street expectations doesn't make for good health care.

Oh please with the empty sloganeering. Profit is not a bad word. The competition for profit works just fine to deliver food, housing, clothing and other essentials does it not? The competition for profit drives the innovations in care, technology and drugs that lengthen and improve our quality of life. It is the competition for profit that attracts doctors, surgeons and other professionals from around the world to practice in this country.

And why oh why, if our for-profit system does such a woeful job of providing health care, does the president emphasize and stress every time he speaks that "under my plan, if you like your insurance, like your doctor... you can keep them"? Because the vast majority of Americans, while recognizing problems exist, while worried about rising costs, are quite happy with the care they receive. That's why.

Finally, please explain to me how our economy would benefit from health insurance companies joining the failed banks and bankrupt car companies in the federal bailout soup line.
 

Amillia Taylor was born in Florida on October 24, 2006, after just 21 weeks and six days in the womb. She celebrated her second birthday last year.

Doctors believed she was a week older and so gave her intensive care, but later admitted she would not have received treatment if they had known her true age.

Her birth also coincided with the debate in Britain over whether the abortion limit should be reduced.

So, a baby born in the US just one day older survived, but even in the US, held up as a shining example of medical treatment, doctors would not have treated this baby had they not mistaken its gestational age.

Not exactly an example that proves anything.
 
Oh please with the empty sloganeering. Profit is not a bad word. The competition for profit works just fine to deliver food, housing, clothing and other essentials does it not? The competition for profit drives the innovations in care, technology and drugs that lengthen and improve our quality of life. It is the competition for profit that attracts doctors, surgeons and other professionals from around the world to practice in this country.


as if "free market" isn't a empty slogan. no, profit is not a bad word, it's just a bad motivation for health care. as we've discussed in here, at length, profit is just fine for Lasik or breast augmentation, not so much for inelastic demand for things like chemotherapy. further, the "profit-incentive" is precisely what causes some doctors to overschedule themselves so they can get X amount of procedures done in a day, whereas care would be better if said doctors were salaried.

like many conservatives, you've made "profit" your own personal jesus.







Finally, please explain to me how our economy would benefit from health insurance companies joining the failed banks and bankrupt car companies in the federal bailout soup line.


erm, what? kind of a jump here.
 
The competition for profit works just fine to deliver food, housing, clothing and other essentials does it not?

It doesn't work well for everything - education, for instance.

Finally, please explain to me how our economy would benefit from health insurance companies joining the failed banks and bankrupt car companies in the federal bailout soup line.

Nine figure salaries earned by health insurance CEOs can't be a good thing either.
 
California is bankrupt, should the rest of the country follow?

if you're asserting a causal relationship between california's undocumented population and the state's bankruptcy, i'd like to see the supporting data you're drawing from. while i've seen impressive numbers bandied about ($10 billion or so "spent" on the undocumented population), that number itself is smaller than the state's budget shortfalls. moreover, that number does not take into account the taxes paid by undocumented immigrants, nor what they produce in economic activity through their labor ( at least, i've never seen it described as a net total). can we say for sure that they are not paying for themselves, at least in part? maybe we can, but i'm unaware of the analysis.
 
Because the vast majority of Americans, while recognizing problems exist, while worried about rising costs, are quite happy with the care they receive. That's why.

Complete and utter bullshit...

If you surveyed the "vast majority of Americans" about the health care they get, OUTSIDE of the "universal/ government" healthcare debate and they would have complaints a mile long each. That's the funniest part of this whole thing, those people that bitch to me day in and day out are now defending the "thieves that don't care one way or another".
 
Comparisons of show-throwing journalists to jackass congressmen and health care to fast food sandwiches.

We've just about run out of ideas on this planet, haven't we?

No, pretty soon we will kill eachother over.....


















Ready?
























WATER! Hahahahaha! Not like we don't have enough of that on this planet. :lmao:
 
Complete and utter bullshit...

If you surveyed the "vast majority of Americans" about the health care they get, OUTSIDE of the "universal/ government" healthcare debate and they would have complaints a mile long each. That's the funniest part of this whole thing, those people that bitch to me day in and day out are now defending the "thieves that don't care one way or another".

Gallup's annual healthcare trends:
December 4, 2008

among all Americans, 83% say the quality of healthcare they receive is either "excellent" or "good." Only 16% say it's either "only fair" or "poor."

gl9_2_0cc0uioevzbsobtw.gif


83% rate their personal heathcare as excellent or good. And again and again we have the president assuring Americans that "under my plan you will not be required to give up your current coverage." which would seem an odd thing to say if, as you say, people couldn't wait to free themselves of it.

Don't confuse "complaints a mile long" with clamoring for a government takeover of the system. And don't expect anymore responses from me if you're going to ridicule my answers or label them "utter bullshit" without something other than anecdotal evidence to support yourself.
 
Because the vast majority of Americans, while recognizing problems exist, while worried about rising costs, are quite happy with the care they receive. That's why.

This was just a quick google search for the first poll that I could find taken pre-2009. This doesn't say "vast majority happy" to me.

Poll: The Politics Of Health Care - CBS News

And I'm sure if you dig a little deeper you would find more and more resentment. The problem is, 09, Democrat in office and all of a sudden everyone loves their insurance company that caused them so much heartache the year before. Plus you add a bunch of lies, and some empty phrases like "free market" "less government" and you get the current batch of protestors that have to be told exactly what to say by the talking heads.
 
And again and again we have the president assuring Americans that "under my plan you will not be required to give up your current coverage." which would seem an odd thing to say if, as you say, people couldn't wait to free themselves of it.
Where did I say "couldn't wait to free themselves of it"?

Why would the president keep saying that? Think about it. We like choice, it just makes sense. When you have the talking heads of the uninformed telling you it's going to be an overnight takeover, then certain things bare repeating.


Don't confuse "complaints a mile long" with clamoring for a government takeover of the system.
See what I mean?

And don't expect anymore responses from me if you're going to ridicule my answers or label them "utter bullshit" without something other than anecdotal evidence to support yourself.
Pre-election McCain/Obama it would have been ridiculous to hear someone say "majority are happy" with their coverage. Even doctors mock the insurance companies, but they know it's a double edged sword for them.

For the relatively healthy, the current system works pretty damn well. For those that don't fit into that category it's a nightmare, anyone who has ever witnessed or been there saying something like "the majority are happy" couldn't be done with a straight face.
 
as if "free market" isn't a empty slogan. no, profit is not a bad word, it's just a bad motivation for health care. as we've discussed in here, at length, profit is just fine for Lasik or breast augmentation, not so much for inelastic demand for things like chemotherapy.
Of course it is our for-profit, greedy system that developed most of these expensive chemotherapy drugs and expensive machines that go "Ping!" Now you might argue how we would be better off without them but I wouldn't.

further, the "profit-incentive" is precisely what causes some doctors to overschedule themselves so they can get X amount of procedures done in a day, whereas care would be better if said doctors were salaried.
No, wouldn't have anything to do with Medicare payment cuts. Why do you think so many doctors are refusing to accept new Medicare patients?
like many conservatives, you've made "profit" your own personal jesus.
Not true and somewhat offensive.
 
Of course it is our for-profit, greedy system that developed most of these expensive chemotherapy drugs and expensive machines that go "Ping!" Now you might argue how we would be better off without them but I wouldn't.
Once again, this doesn't tell the whole story. There's government grants and a lot of research done in the university system, in fact I would say more of the life saving breakthroughs happen here than big pharma, etc...

Plus you cannot deny that greed and for profit is always a good thing in healthcare, when you have had known cases of pharma companies shelving certain discoveries because they were "too good". Why put a pill out on the market that you only have to take once a month, when you get paid more if they take it daily?

No, wouldn't have anything to do with Medicare payment cuts. Why do you think so many doctors are refusing to accept new Medicare patients?

Well it's actually a combination of sorts. In fact I don't know many doctors that deny medicare patients, medicaid yes, but medicaire no. Even though medicare pays less on the dollar it's much easier to collect from them then most insurance companies, and their guidelines are very cut and dry, you know going in if you'll get reimbursed, not true with most private insurance companies.
 
California is bankrupt, should the rest of the country follow? Forget health care for a moment. What has illegal immigration done to your education system, once the best in the nation? A 25% illiteracy rate for one, double what it was a generation ago.

Tell us about prop 187 as well and what happened.

California is not bankrupt solely due to illegal immigration. Ask that dumbfuck Republican governor to explain what the hell happened. If you're going to claim that illegal immigration bankrupted us, you'll have to cough up some proof.

Ditto for education here.


Prop 187? Thrown out as unconstitutional.

Next?
 
California is not bankrupt solely due to illegal immigration. Ask that dumbfuck Republican governor to explain what the hell happened. If you're going to claim that illegal immigration bankrupted us, you'll have to cough up some proof.

hi, martha. i made a similar comment. still waiting on a response. :hug:

if you're asserting a causal relationship between california's undocumented population and the state's bankruptcy, i'd like to see the supporting data you're drawing from. while i've seen impressive numbers bandied about ($10 billion or so "spent" on the undocumented population), that number itself is smaller than the state's budget shortfalls. moreover, that number does not take into account the taxes paid by undocumented immigrants, nor what they produce in economic activity through their labor ( at least, i've never seen it described as a net total). can we say for sure that they are not paying for themselves, at least in part? maybe we can, but i'm unaware of the analysis.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom