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.
I habitually ignore people's attempts to change the subject.
Whatever. You also seem to be getting in the habit of failing to answer my questions when you reply to them. Maybe someone else can tell me where your qualifier came from since it's too hard for you to manage.
"the less care they give them, the more money they make"
Not to mention, true private sector companies should not have to be burdened
with providing health care to their employees. It interferes with their
ability to compete domestically and globally.
Ahh yes, the chattering about tort reform and lawyers and all that crap. No one buys it. Pirvate sector insurance largely failed; it's pointless to argue about why. We now have laws that go a long way to fixing its failures.
I'm gonna clue you in on a little secret about how private sector insurance works. Those companies exist to MAKE MONEY. Every decision they consider is designed to help them MAKE MONEY. They do not make money by paying claims. That is why pre-existing conditions and lifetime maximums were the norm.
Seriously, you need some new talking points.
Seriously, you need to get better educated on the real problems.
Every single business in business must make money or it would not exist. Insurance companies included. However, when government laws interfered prohibiting purchase of insurance across State lines they canceled the "competitive" necessity of general business rules. So, after tort reform, then all business, no matter what they produce, must be allowed to compete for business in all states.
If you don't think tort reform is critical to good business pricing, then tell that to the people who live in Texas and don't have to put up with crap lawyers, juries and stupidity of frivolous lawsuits. Tort reform makes a tremendous difference.
Pre-existing conditions can be handled separately without screwing up the entire health-care system. Geez! That should be state by state to begin with and never at the Federal level, as should all problem situations.
But this isn't the case with what we've called "New 'Rights'". In order for you to get the kind of routine medical treatment its advocates describe, somebody has to stop what he is doing and perform work for you-- the doctor who examines you, the clerk who sets up your appointment, the people who built the office or hospital where you get treatment.
If this routine medical treatment is to be called a "right" on par with our "Old Rights", doesn't that mean that you must be given it when needed? And doesn't it follow, then, that others must be compelled to do the normal things needed to treat you?
Uh-oh.
How does this compulsion upon those others (doctors, clerks etc.) fit in with THEIR rights? They "have" to treat you? What if their schedules are full-- do they have to bump another patient to make room for you? What if they were spending precious quality time with their families-- do they have to abandon their own kids, to fulfill your "right" to treatment that only they can give? Doesn't this fit the description of "involuntary servitude"?
This is an important difference between the rights envisioned by the country's founders, and the new "rights" advocated by more modern pundits. In order to secure your "old rights", people merely had to leave you alone... do nothing to bother you. in fact, they were required to. But these new so-called "rights", required that people go out of their way to actively contribute to you.
And that "requirement", in fact violates THEIR rights-- specifically, their right to liberty. They must be left free to live their lives as THEY chose-- free from compulsion to come and help you out. If they want to help you, that's fine-- often it's the decent and moral thing to do. But they cannot be forced to help you, no matter how much you need the help.
These new "rights", are in fact not rights at all. They are obligations upon others, imposed on them without their agreement or consent.
Beware of announcements that you have the "right" to this or that. Ask yourself if this "right", forces someone else to do something for you, that he didn't previously agree to. If it does, it's not a "right" possessed by you. It's an attempt by the announcer, to force others into servitude... an attempt, in fact, to violate the others' rights.
preamble (definition)- the introductory part of a statute or deed, stating its purpose, aims, and justification.
The Preamble to the United States Constitution,
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
domestic- of or relating to the running of a home or to family relations.
tranquility- the quality or state of being tranquil; calmness; peacefulness; quiet; serenity.
"to insure domestic tranquility"
- Is there domestic tranquility when an American has cancer but can't afford to see a doctor?
general- the general public.
welfare- the health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group.
"promote the general welfare"
-That means the government and all of us are to promote the health and happiness of the general public.
But it does not matter what the constitution says, because Fox news, Rush radio, and republican CEO politicians already told America's republicans "we do not have the right to healthcare." And now republicans are here to manipulate the constitution to suit what Fox news told them.
To further show the power of Fox news and republican CEO politicians,
Republicans claim to be followers of God and Jesus.
Would Jesus want to give everyone healthcare?
Answer: Jesus healed the sick, and Jesus gave to the poor, of course Jesus would want to give everyone healthcare.
And today's republicans follow the words of Fox news and republican CEO's (more than they follow the word of Jesus.)
Seriously, you need to get better educated on the real problems.
Every single business in business must make money or it would not exist. Insurance companies included. However, when government laws interfered prohibiting purchase of insurance across State lines they canceled the "competitive" necessity of general business rules. So, after tort reform, then all business, no matter what they produce, must be allowed to compete for business in all states.
If you don't think tort reform is critical to good business pricing, then tell that to the people who live in Texas and don't have to put up with crap lawyers, juries and stupidity of frivolous lawsuits. Tort reform makes a tremendous difference.
Pre-existing conditions can be handled separately without screwing up the entire health-care system. Geez! That should be state by state to begin with and never at the Federal level, as should all problem situations.
Tort reform in Texas hasn't reduced the cost of medical care. What it has done is made it so that you can't get just compensation for serious harm done to you. Tort reform is really a way to protect the big guy from the little guy, and absolve the big guy from any responsibility whatsoever. A doctor can make a mistake and cause you to lose your eyesight, or cause brain damage to you, or cause you to lose a limb, or cause death, and the maximum compensation you can get is $250k. That's absurd. The legislators arbitrarily set a cap on legal damages.
His son and daughter in law Bill and Kelly Putnam were visiting his father when the nurses at Signature Pointe Nursing home tried to give medications to Caldwell through his feeding tube. When the medicine did not go down the right way, the nurses tried the old fashioned method of "if it doesn't go, force it." After three tries it did not go. Finally Caldwell began to struggle and thrash. The medicine had gone into his lungs instead of going into his stomach. Caldwell drowned on medicine in front of his family.
When Putnam decided he was going to sue over his father's death, he found the hard truth about Tort Reform. No lawyer would take the case. It was not that it was not a strong case. It was a strong case. Simply put, because of Tort Reform lawyers can no longer take those types of cases because they are no longer economically viable for the lawyers."
If our founding fathers saw a woman about to give birth, and she was in major pain and not having a normal delivery, and she had no money to pay a doctor, would our founding fathers say "this woman has no money so she does not deserve to see a doctor"?
If our founding fathers saw a honest man who worked hard his whole life, but his house with all his money in it just burned down, and he had no money. And then a tree fell on this man and broke his leg and cut his leg very badly, would our founding fathers say "this man has no money and he deserves no healthcare"?
Not only do today's republicans use the constitution for manipulation and phony displays of patriotism, they have also lost touch with what it means to be honorable men, and what it means to be honorable women (honorable people do not let their fellow citizens die, no matter what the COST.)
I agree with you that people who are decent human beings should help those people. I also don't believe that threatening people with force or violence in order to do so is being a decent human being. If there is someone injured on the side of the road and nobody is helping, I agree that is terrible. I also think it's terrible if I took out a gun and said "You all need to help this man or else!" It's not moral to force others to do anything against their will, even if the result is good.
So in those situations, the moral thing would be to help them yourself as much as possible, ask others to assist you, and find a doctor that will voluntarily care for their medical issues. If the doctor refuses you could say they are an awful human being, but that doesn't give anyone the right to overpower them and FORCE them to help. In my experience, most doctors are very willing to make personal sacrifices for patients, so I think people are a bit too cynical when they think nobody will do anything if they aren't forced to do it.
Woo-hoo, sell insurance across state lines. That's a great idea. I wonder why it's always nutty conservatives who are pushing it.
Let's debunk that chestnut, shall we? You know what would happen? States (specifically, red states) would race to the bottom of the regulatory structure. Some states would probably eliminate all insurance regulations. And then all the insurance companies would MOVE to those states to take advantage of the situation. That is why you see most credit cards based only in certain states (i.e., South Dakota and Delaware).
Quote:
Pre-existing conditions can be handled separately
Uh-huh. "Separately."
Lucky for us, it's already being "handled." We ignore pre-existing conditions and everything's covered. That's the way it should have always been.
If health care isn't a right, why is it required by law that prisoners get treatment? Couldn't we just let them go without treatment and die?
Because they are locked up and not able to run to a doctor or hospital??? Good grief!
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.
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.
