Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-07-2013, 04:59 PM
 
Location: Oklahoma
577 posts, read 512,631 times
Reputation: 470

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale Cooper View Post
If they have the notion it's the government's job to save them, yes, and the sooner, the better.
I understand your frustration with the healthcare issues Dale, but is that really something you want seeing everytime you leave the house?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-07-2013, 05:01 PM
 
Location: NE Ohio
30,419 posts, read 20,315,673 times
Reputation: 8958
Quote:
Originally Posted by ctk0p7 View Post
The problem with that is that those who don't contribute will benefit from those that do not. The ACA is not a free program for those that sign up. I want people that don't have insurance and that are currently using hospital ER's for their health care on my taxpayer dime to sign up for ACA insurance and start paying like I do. The way I see it, the ACA is forcing people to be more responsible for their healthcare. I know too many people that can afford to get insurance, but don't and use the ER like it's their person free healthcare. For those that don't like the ACA because it's the "government" mandating it, well so be it. If you can opt out individually and you have a wreck or accident, then that in my mind is just another person I'm paying for to get treated at a hospital.
I think we need a food program. No one needs to go hungry. I think everyone should have Food Insurance. Everyone MUST buy it, in order for it to work. Therefore, it MUST be mandated by government.

With Food Insurance, if you ever run out of food (natural disaster, unemployment) you can get free food.

Oh, wait. Forget all that. We already have it. It's called Food Stamps. We all pay for it through our taxes, which are higher because of it.

Where does this stop?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2013, 05:02 PM
 
Location: San Francisco
8,982 posts, read 10,465,672 times
Reputation: 5752
Quote:
Originally Posted by ctk0p7 View Post
I understand your frustration with the healthcare issues Dale, but is that really something you want seeing everytime you leave the house?
At least she's honest about wanting poor sick people to drop dead. Most cons are unwilling to admit that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2013, 05:08 PM
 
45,584 posts, read 27,203,264 times
Reputation: 23898
I think before you come up with a plan - the problems need to be identified.

I don't think that we needed to overhaul the entire system to fix the problems.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2013, 05:11 PM
 
59,112 posts, read 27,330,758 times
Reputation: 14285
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient View Post
I hear a lot of passionate opposition to the plan, but I hear nothing about alternative proposals. That goes for this forum as well as the Republicans.

Do you really favor a status quo where you quickly lose access to healthcare if your employer fires you; where 50 million remain uninsured who we all pay top dollar for when they end up in the ER given no preventative care; where insurance companies can drop your coverage when you need it most; where costs have already been skyrocketing for a long time; and where we lead the advanced world in cost per capita and get mediocre quality of life results in return?

I'm open to something else, but I don't think "just go back to the way it was" is sustainable. So...what is that "something else?"

The problem is that this is not the kind of a market where each participant can just bear the full cost of their consumption by themselves; by its very nature, costs need to somehow be shared between the healthy and the sick. That is the essence of the insurance concept. You need some sort of a comprehensive solution, because everyone is in the healthcare market, whether they like it or not.

If Republicans offered a clear, comprehensive solution that addressed cost, quality, and coverage, I could perhaps get behind it. It seems that all they are implying is "we don't care who has health insurance; every man, woman, and child for him/herself. All we care is that there is no Obamacare."
"So if not Obamacare, then what instead?"

How about the fed stay out of our doctors offices and hospital rooms.

Isn't one of the lefts favorite slogans for the gov't to stay out of our bedrooms?

Why should health care insurance be any different.

85% of all Americans have health insurance through their employer. The really [poor should be able to get Medicaid. Oh wait they can already.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2013, 05:15 PM
 
3,406 posts, read 3,451,565 times
Reputation: 1686
Insurance plans is the wrong way to do it.

2 plans i would be ok with

1. Single payer with a national sales tax that only covers preventitive and generic drugs. Run it as a independant agency that is self funded. ( like post office) open books for total costs and a national renewal vote every 4-8 yrs. umbrella hospital coverage to be sold by insurance companies.

2. Keep things the way they were before ACA but lower the income limits on medicaid to cover those who cant afford their own health care plan.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2013, 05:18 PM
 
Location: Oklahoma
577 posts, read 512,631 times
Reputation: 470
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
"So if not Obamacare, then what instead?"

How about the fed stay out of our doctors offices and hospital rooms.

Isn't one of the lefts favorite slogans for the gov't to stay out of our bedrooms?

Why should health care insurance be any different.

85% of all Americans have health insurance through their employer. The really [poor should be able to get Medicaid. Oh wait they can already.
Well that is a problem for both parties getting involved in what goes on between a patient and doctor. There are many states requiring medically unneeded ultrasounds for women getting abortions. I think the ACA is addressing those that make too much to be on medicaid but don't have insurance through their employers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2013, 05:25 PM
 
Location: Barrington
63,919 posts, read 46,758,281 times
Reputation: 20674
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk View Post
There is ONLY one purpose for any country to exist, which to defend the individual rights and freedoms from encroachment, or from compulsion by any group or majority or minority.
Seems the rest of the developed world sooner or later determined that healthcare was a basic human right worthy of incorporation into their constitution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2013, 05:25 PM
 
Location: San Francisco
8,982 posts, read 10,465,672 times
Reputation: 5752
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
85% of all Americans have health insurance through their employer.
Wrong. Only 46% of Americans have health insurance through their employer.

Quote:
The really [poor should be able to get Medicaid. Oh wait they can already.
Medicaid, along with military benefits and Medicare, covers an additional 25% of Americans. This leaves 17% uninsured. That's 53 million people. And you think that's an insignificant number?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2013, 05:27 PM
 
Location: San Francisco
8,982 posts, read 10,465,672 times
Reputation: 5752
Quote:
Originally Posted by ctk0p7 View Post
Well that is a problem for both parties getting involved in what goes on between a patient and doctor. There are many states requiring medically unneeded ultrasounds for women getting abortions. I think the ACA is addressing those that make too much to be on medicaid but don't have insurance through their employers.
Only in states that are allowing it.

Without Medicaid Expansion, Over 40 Percent Of The Poorest Americans Won't Get Any Health Insurance | ThinkProgress

21 states have refused to allow the Medicaid expansion. Guess what they all have in common.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:20 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top