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 01-25-2007, 06:00 AM
 
133 posts, read 564,613 times
Reputation: 94

Advertisements

Is he so far removed from the real world that he actually thinks that someone that can't afford to send their children to the doctor and is possibly is living hand to mouth would benefit from a tax break? If you don't make enough money to pay taxes...what good is that going to do you? And, even if they did make just barely enough to "get a tax break", but can't afford health insurance, waiting 6-9 months for a tax break is hysterical. Does he really think that when you are in that kind of life situation that you are able to think past food on the table or rent for this month to "yes, but I will get a tax break in April!"??? How can someone in survival mode use the promise of a tax break to pay for an emergency room visit? He just doesn't get it and never has. He is the worst!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-25-2007, 06:18 AM
 
6,760 posts, read 10,183,620 times
Reputation: 2992
Quote:
Originally Posted by lbsing View Post
How can someone in survival mode use the promise of a tax break to pay for an emergency room visit?
ER's cannot refuse treatment. Someone in survival mode will not be refused treatment for being broke.

I would really love to hear some liberal plans for health care solutions that aren't just as much of a joke as the ideas that Bush has. We are heading for socialized health care, which means the quality of care will deteriorate. People will lose their right to choose who they see for what kind of care.


Its always funny to watch armchair presidents. Nothing but criticism for Bush and any idea he comes up with. Most haters are already dead set on disagreeing with him before he talks, increasing their own sounds of ignorance. Also, none of the armchair presidents have anything more than vague ideas that they can quote from MSNBC about what the best solution is for a given situation. Its really comical to watch.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2007, 08:59 AM
 
Location: Springfield, Missouri
2,814 posts, read 11,893,647 times
Reputation: 2000001281
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnbound2day View Post
ER's cannot refuse treatment. Someone in survival mode will not be refused treatment for being broke.

I would really love to hear some liberal plans for health care solutions that aren't just as much of a joke as the ideas that Bush has. We are heading for socialized health care, which means the quality of care will deteriorate. People will lose their right to choose who they see for what kind of care.


Its always funny to watch armchair presidents. Nothing but criticism for Bush and any idea he comes up with. Most haters are already dead set on disagreeing with him before he talks, increasing their own sounds of ignorance. Also, none of the armchair presidents have anything more than vague ideas that they can quote from MSNBC about what the best solution is for a given situation. Its really comical to watch.
When 40 million Americans or more have NO health care because they can't afford it, what do you suggest we do then??
As for showing up at emergency rooms, you're technically right...you can show up and be given mandatory care by the hospital. But if you're one of those 40 million or more Americans (a citizen), you'll be pursued aggressively until death by collection agencies for bills billed to you at full price. (FULL PRICE). When I was hospitalized for severe pneumonia in May of 06 for 4.5 days, the bill came to just under $20,000. If I'd not been covered by Blue Cross Blue Shield, that would have been what I was demanded of to pay. However, BCBS whacked the bill down to $9,536 and paid that. That shows you how bloated expenses are in this country. It's a scam. If you are uninsured, you'll never be free from the debt and your credit bureau file will be bulging with the collection debts and it will prevent you from getting jobs to pay your debt. Now if you're an illegal alien and you come in pregnant and about to give birth, simply show up, pop out the anchor baby, you'll get it all done free as well as anchoring yourself now in the country. What a deal !!!! Those costs then are applied to the rest of us who are here legally. Some system!
I support private healthcare for the most part, but the sad fact is that a huge number of Americans can't afford it. If you can't afford it, no tax break for it is going to make the least bit of difference as it's not there to claim as a tax break in the first place..logic logic logic...
What we need is a minimal national system that gives basic coverage. Don't you think the 1 trillion $ spent in Iraq could have paid for most of that coverage for 40 million Americans?
It's not that America can't do it correctly or afford to do it, it's that we misuse our resources and uck fup our priorities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2007, 09:31 AM
 
11,564 posts, read 17,496,164 times
Reputation: 17201
Health care - This is the problem, COSTS. People may say hey the money on the war in Iraq can be paid for health care for all. Let me tell you, the cost of the War in Iraq, or against terrorism, or whatever you want to call it, is a MERE PITTANCE compared to the cost that the government ALREADY spends on health care.

The U.S. government already spends $800 or $900 billion a year on medicare, medicaid, various other programs. This is about 1/3 to 1/2 of it's total budget. Suprise to most of you I am sure, do you guys know that? Half of what you pay in taxes already goes to health care. The cost of the war on Iraq by most popular accounts is about $300 billion (not or nowhere near $1 trillion). A sizable sum for sure but guys this will pay for health care for all uninsured for, what - 2 months?

Now the answer for some here is to simply throw money at it and the government will solve all problems. The government doesn't have the money, and the cost of the war in Iraq is immaterial in this equation. So do you people want your tax increased 300% to pay for medical care for all? Is the solution to tax the rich to such a degree that our tax structure encourages a socialist economy (income redistribution-then what happens when there are no longer any rich)? Do we want that doctor that operates on you to make the same salary as a postal worker? Do you want to wait six months to get an ingrown tonail removed?

This is the problem that the president and our government have to tackle. You can hate him all you want, but I don't think anyone here has an easy solution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2007, 10:17 AM
 
Location: Springfield, Missouri
2,814 posts, read 11,893,647 times
Reputation: 2000001281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714 View Post
Health care - This is the problem, COSTS. People may say hey the money on the war in Iraq can be paid for health care for all. Let me tell you, the cost of the War in Iraq, or against terrorism, or whatever you want to call it, is a MERE PITTANCE compared to the cost that the government ALREADY spends on health care.

The U.S. government already spends $800 or $900 billion a year on medicare, medicaid, various other programs. This is about 1/3 to 1/2 of it's total budget. Suprise to most of you I am sure, do you guys know that? Half of what you pay in taxes already goes to health care. The cost of the war on Iraq by most popular accounts is about $300 billion (not or nowhere near $1 trillion). A sizable sum for sure but guys this will pay for health care for all uninsured for, what - 2 months?

Now the answer for some here is to simply throw money at it and the government will solve all problems. The government doesn't have the money, and the cost of the war in Iraq is immaterial in this equation. So do you people want your tax increased 300% to pay for medical care for all? Is the solution to tax the rich to such a degree that our tax structure encourages a socialist economy (income redistribution-then what happens when there are no longer any rich)? Do we want that doctor that operates on you to make the same salary as a postal worker? Do you want to wait six months to get an ingrown tonail removed?

This is the problem that the president and our government have to tackle. You can hate him all you want, but I don't think anyone here has an easy solution.
So your solution is do nothing and make no compromises. I'd bet your tune would change if you lost your insurance and your ability to pay for it and suddenly found yourself and/or a loved one at the mercy of a system that offers them care at full bloated prices that will result in their losing their homes, cars, any retirement savings or assets, and leave them virtually on the street.
What isn't taken into consideration either are the costs that bloat the system that are unnecessary. What your bill says is twice what the cost is that's paid. I know that from experience. So half of the costs we currently assume with health care provided by hospitalization are bogus. That's something that can be addressed by a serious Congress.
The prescription medication addiction of this country is another. We take drugs for everything, and then when those adversely affect us, we don't stop taking them, we get prescribed others to combat the negative effects of the first drugs. It's like the Old Lady who swallowed a Fly....and on it goes. Old people sit in cold houses because they can't afford the bills to heat their homes and still pay for overpriced medications that they most likely don't really need, or they need to offset the reactions caused by a primary medication. It's a culture of scam.
Medication and prescribed drugs in this country is so far over the top and doctors are so driven by bonuses and kickbacks from the drug companies who are in bed with the CEO/big business executives who spend billions lobbying Congress that NOTHING will get done. Doctors push expensive drugs on people who don't need them because they profit from it. That should be illegal.
But that's where this money you're talking about lies. It's waste. Waste.
Even so, doing nothing leaves tens of millions of Americans on the verge of extreme poverty and hopelessness.
Like I said, if it were you or someone you loved, your tune would change.
If this country were serious about health care reform, we wouldn't be offering tax breaks to people who can't afford the health care in the first place (middle class), but we'd be reigning in the drug companies who are in league with big business and doctors in this country prescribing extremely expensive medication for health issues THEY create and we'd make it illegal to bloat costs we know are inflated because an insurance company whittles it down.

It's a scam, but in the meantime, millions suffer. The poor have Medicaid and government assistance which though it leaves a lot to be desired, is at least something. Millions in the Middle Class are left to become poor so they can qualify for Medicaid (which some doctors refuse to accept).... is that good for the country? Taking moderately prosperous people who are generating the economy, but not individually able to afford health insurance, and making them pay full prices they can't afford and pushing them into poverty...what's more expensive for America in the long run?
We have the resources. We have the money. We don't have competent government and we don't have leaders who are wisely using our resources.

Last edited by MoMark; 01-25-2007 at 10:37 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2007, 10:25 AM
 
11,564 posts, read 17,496,164 times
Reputation: 17201
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoMark View Post
So your solution is do nothing and make no compromises.
Absolutely not. I don't have a solution (if I did I'd run for God, nevermid president). I actually agree with you more than you know - cost control is the key.
I was just sounding off that throwing money, a simple answer of socialized health care, was not the answer. One additional cost control measure would be tort control - malpractice, frivoulous lawsuits, etc. Those drive up health care for everyone. This is something the president specifically mentioned but other politicians (probably on the lawyer lobby payroll) have been against.

Last edited by Dd714; 01-25-2007 at 10:32 AM.. Reason: add
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2007, 10:39 AM
 
Location: Springfield, Missouri
2,814 posts, read 11,893,647 times
Reputation: 2000001281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714 View Post
Absolutely not. I don't have a solution (if I did I'd run for God, nevermid president). I actually agree with you more than you know - cost control is the key.
I was just sounding off that throwing money, a simple answer of socialized health care, was not the answer. One additional cost control measure would be tort control - malpractice, frivoulous lawsuits, etc. Those drive up health care for everyone. This is something the president specifically mentioned but other politicians (probably on the lawyer lobby payroll) have been against.
Agreed, much of the problem is peripheral...lawyers, frivolous lawsuits, malpractice, etc. Those have to be addressed along with all the other factors for sure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2007, 10:47 AM
 
20,304 posts, read 37,790,850 times
Reputation: 18081
Regarding health care... America is the ONLY one of the "great" industrialized nations that doesn't provide health care for its people. Okay, maybe that's just an interesting anecdote....but... it still strikes me as hugely arrogant on our part to tell everyone to go sink or swim on their own... we can argue this all day... won't resolve a thing.

Here is something maybe we can all agree on... the state of MA, in a bi-partisan effort... recently put into effect (I think) a law that everyone has to either buy health insurance or pay into an uninsured patient fund, in exactly the same way auto insurance is handled in the states, either buy insurance or pay a chunk into the uninsured pool.

In the case of MA, my understanding is there's a sliding scale for how much "uninsured penalty" one pays, depending on income. I think this is a decently creative solution that allows us wave our silly "private industry solves problems better than government" flag, while covering the vast bulk of our population.

One issue the MA scheme gets at is that a lot of perfectly healthy people, mostly single men, choose to not carry health insurance, they keep more money in their pockets, and screw the greater good of society at large. Some of these young men father babies, then someone else has to pay the medical costs. In a much larger way, taking all the healthy men and women out of the pool of paying members means there is less money in the pot to cover all of the older folks, the families, the sick ones who need care, thus the cost of insurance is higher to cover the smaller population who have access to a plan and pay for it. By getting all of the adults into the pool of paying members, the cost is spread out more evenly over all of society and the cost per person or family "should" be less.

Something like the MA scheme is fine with me. I have to insure my cars, my house, etc, and I do have health insurance AND long-term care insurance.

Sadly, it was an individual state that had to take the lead, as our "leaders" in the Federal government are too busy wasting our time with smokescreens like the "sanctity of marriage" or flag burning, non issues that don't need Congressional attention.

Still, Bush didn't even try to solve this problem until Nov 7, 2006, when we the people took the national agenda away from his kleptocratic regime and annointed the Dems to resolve these issues... and many other issues... W is just trying to pre-empt the Dems by co-opting their mandate and trying to make it his own. Sorry W, no sale.

s/Mike from back east
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2007, 01:25 PM
 
Location: NOVA - retiring to OKlahoma
569 posts, read 1,118,966 times
Reputation: 353
Health Care has been an issue in this country for years. It's ludicrous to blame it on all on GW. If I recall correctly, reforming health care was Hillary Rodham Clinton's pet project when "Slick Willie" was prez. Nothing was done then to fix it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2007, 02:23 PM
 
Location: on an island
13,374 posts, read 40,153,042 times
Reputation: 13176
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdbeard5 View Post
Health Care has been an issue in this country for years. It's ludicrous to blame it on all on GW. If I recall correctly, reforming health care was Hillary Rodham Clinton's pet project when "Slick Willie" was prez. Nothing was done then to fix it.
From Wikipedia:
One of the most prominent items on Clinton's legislative agenda, however, was a health care reform plan, the result of a taskforce headed by Hillary Clinton, aimed at achieving universal coverage via a national healthcare plan. Though initially well-received in political circles, it was ultimately doomed by well-organized opposition from conservatives, the American Medical Association, and the health insurance industry. Despite his party holding a majority in the House and Senate, the effort to create a national healthcare system ultimately died under heavy public pressure. It was the first major legislative defeat of Clinton's administration.
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
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - 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 - Top