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.
It seems after the summit that single payer would of been much easier with opt in opt out. It seemed to me the Democrats were looking out for people simple we need to have people be insured.... republicans cared about doing something about insurance... just that do something about insurance..... without regard to what real people out there are going through. Even when they gave a story about someone with insurance problems it was disconnected to how their plan would help this person. I want a gov't that is looking out for American people.
Ah, the crux of the argument. We fiscal conservatives have faith that the American people can adequately look out for themselves, given the opportunity and the incentive. Fiscal liberals believe the American people need the federal government to take care of them. Thus, the disagreement over Health Insurance.
No. They have freedom of speech. And honestly I dont know how I feel about UHC but to say that there are hardly people who care is not right.
I made no such claim. If I didnt care, do you think I'd start threads on the subject?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theliberalvoice
Thats right. SHUT THEM UP, I say. And I mean it. They had 8 years and we saw what Republican leadership did. Shut up, bend over and take it Republicans. Nice and slow so you all really feel it.
Republicans didnt have 8 years.. They had 6, which resulted in lower unemployment, higher stock markets, better economies etc. ALL of these went down hill the minute Democrats took over. Ignoring this wont change reality..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theliberalvoice
If Obama had guts, he would not listen a WORD Republicans have to say. Sure, do they have freedom of speech? of course. But they are the ones who are stopping him from doing anything. I feel bad for him having to work the party of NO.
Wait, Obama wouldnt listen to a word Republicans say, but they are stopping him? So what you are claiming is you wouldnt work with the other party to get your adjenda passed? How childish.. All of this of course ignores the fact that they cant stop him from doing ANYTHING.. They held enough votes to pass ANYTHING they wanted without the Republicans.. But NOOOO.. Democrats couldnt even get their own individuals to vote for the bill, and now you are claiming you want Republicans to vote for something that they shouldnt be ignored in regards to..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theliberalvoice
I was referring to BentleeBees thread about when she flipped out about Obama not making progress even though he has been in office for 1.5 years. At that time, he was only in for like 6 months.
Then why did you say it to me?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theliberalvoice
Criticize him. I dont care. What do you think you and the rightie tighties have been doing all this time?
When one makes such foolish steps, they are open to be criticized.. Thats how it works..
I agree we don't need the federal gov't getting involved in our lives and that would be good if everyone was honest and everyone actually had equal opportunity. I bet those people driving toyota's right now are glad the gov't got invovled in that because if we left it up to toyota they would wait until it was in their best interest money wise to do something about it. I'm glad gov't is involved when I eat because I know I would be eating a lot of tainted food if it wasn't inspected. Because America is about corporation and the dollar. Heck I'm glad that gov't made rules for driving even though I hate it if I'm caught speeding. I think someone with pre existing conditions has lots of incentives to have insurance but they aren't given the opportunity as you say fiscal conservatives believe it should be. I don't want a hand out... I just don't want an insurance company gouging me, or any company allowed to cheat me if it takes gov't involvement to get me their that is why they get paid what they do that is why they can sit there and smile with their good insurance policies.
I agree we don't need the federal gov't getting involved in our lives and that would be good if everyone was honest and everyone actually had equal opportunity. I bet those people driving toyota's right now are glad the gov't got invovled in that because if we left it up to toyota they would wait until it was in their best interest money wise to do something about it. I'm glad gov't is involved when I eat because I know I would be eating a lot of tainted food if it wasn't inspected. Because America is about corporation and the dollar. Heck I'm glad that gov't made rules for driving even though I hate it if I'm caught speeding. I think someone with pre existing conditions has lots of incentives to have insurance but they aren't given the opportunity as you say fiscal conservatives believe it should be. I don't want a hand out... I just don't want an insurance company gouging me, or any company allowed to cheat me if it takes gov't involvement to get me their that is why they get paid what they do that is why they can sit there and smile with their good insurance policies.
No insurance company is allowed to cheat you because we still have the court system to enforce contracts signed by consenting adults. Think about this a bit. What interest does Toyota have in allowing defective vehicles be driven by its customers? Would this not lead to the eventual ruin of the company? I would argue that many foods you eat are NOT inspected and the government is limiting your access to many foods that are good for your health, through their bureaucratic procedures. I would also argue that speed limits affect productivity and efficiency by placing a time constraint on legal commerce and transportation. If one is not driving recklessly, why limit one's speed? But these are arguments for another thread.
The point is that most individuals DO have good health insurance and many who don't have no desire to pay for it. So why make such a government intrusion into the free market economy for the small minority who have no insurance, partly because of the decisions they've made, partly because of unfortunate circumstances. This latter group can best be helped through private charities and help from family and friends.
Everyone seems to agree that the practice of denying pre-existing conditions should be banned. Can someone explain to me why a bill about this hasn't already been passed?
Because the only way to ban that practice, is to mandate all people have Ins Coverage. Many are opposed to forcing people to buy Insurance, even though those that do not, still get care. The difference is that they don't pay for the care, you do.
I didn't say cheat I said gouge. I was said Toyota put off recalling to save money. A man is in jail for killing people while Toyota knew they had problems with acceleration blaming it on the mats now it is the pedal and now they are saying it may not be the thing to fix it only because gov't got involved. Isn't that why toyota is being investigated. If every company thought they would end up in court or would go out of business and feared that we would live in paradise ain't happening as you seem to imply.
Most people as you say have good insurance. Usually paid by an employer who is feeling the pain of price increases. Those companies are passing that cost on to me. Some companies (such as mine) can not pass on the cost because we will be affected with a loss of customers thus having to lay off employees. Sound like our economy.
Those that are happy with their insurance are either the rich who can afford to pay the 39% increase in insurance or those who have employee sponsered insurance. You should hear the state employees in my state crying because they are starting to contribute toward their insurance. Wait till they have to pay the entire premium. When the big employers can no longer pass the cost on to customers and pass it on to employees sooner or later you are going to complain. The insurance companies are saying they need to raise premium because people are dropping out. As more and more drop out it will affect you and unless you are independentlhy wealthy you will be wanting reform if things stay the way it is. It's a question of when and how low our country wants to go.
Ah, the crux of the argument. We fiscal conservatives have faith that the American people can adequately look out for themselves, given the opportunity and the incentive. Fiscal liberals believe the American people need the federal government to take care of them. Thus, the disagreement over Health Insurance.
In a perfect world ...yes. Ron Paul is correct in what he says , history has proven out what has happened to other societies in the mess that we are approaching. Problem is , In order to do what needs to be done , we need a complete overhaul of our potical system, and our monetary measure....Won't happen in our lifetime.
I watched Canada go through all this in 1959-60 , same discussions , fears , and predictions.... Mottom line , the single payer system does work , it solves most of the arguments I hear on these threads. Anthony Weinner has it right...too bad he does not carry more popular weight.
In a perfect world ...yes. Ron Paul is correct in what he says , history has proven out what has happened to other societies in the mess that we are approaching. Problem is , In order to do what needs to be done , we need a complete overhaul of our potical system, and our monetary measure....Won't happen in our lifetime.
I watched Canada go through all this in 1959-60 , same discussions , fears , and predictions.... Mottom line , the single payer system does work , it solves most of the arguments I hear on these threads. Anthony Weinner has it right...too bad he does not carry more popular weight.
No, a libertarian government would not be perfect, but it would be much better than having to rely upon career politicians to make our decisions for us. Just because circumstances could be better doesn't mean one needs to make circumstances worse. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. The single payer in Australia is NOT working. Look at this article from the Daily Telegraph. But, I do agree with you about needing an overhaul of our political and monetary systems, just not in the manner I believe you would propose.
Quote:
In a startling warning, NSW Health director-general Debora Piccone has told The Daily Telegraph that Australia is hurtling towards a US-style user-pays system due to an ageing population and out of control costs.
"We are really on the edge of losing the universal healthcare system that this country has," she said.
"I would have (previously) said we'd had 10 years to run. It's now looking like we've got five years to run because the cost escalations are so significant and we haven't prepared ourselves."
I think I deviate from my conservative brethren on this issue.
I don't think insurers should be allowed to cherry pick or cancel coverage if a premium paying person gets sick - its just not right.
There is no denying, try as you might, that the MASS election was a referendum on obamacare and his other unpopular ideas. Brown ran on being the 41st vote to stop it - can't get any more referendum than that.
Mass, NJ and VA were indeed snapshots of the mood of the elecorate, as far as obama's policies go. In addition to ALL THE POLLS, which show the same wonderful negative slope, that is powerful evidence the citizenry has had it with his radical agenda.
I'm right there with you, and I view myself as a conservative.
Everyone has either been sick, or will be sick, so to not cover a person simply because they are sick is assuming getting sick is an anomaly. What I do support is coming up with a way to prevent the leaches from gaming the system.
Lets say insurance companies cannot refuse people health care coverage because of preexisting conditions, there should be a way for insurance companies to protect themselves from the leaches, people who go without paying for health insurance until they get sick, and then dropping coverage once they are well again.
If someone had health insurance with another insurer a few months earlier, then they have been paying into health insurance, and they are not a leach. but if someone went without health insurance for over a year, or keeps opening and canceling health insurance plans, then they should either be charged more, or sign a contract to maintain the policy for a certain length of time.
All this assumes we can find a way to lower health care insurance so people can actually afford it too. But this is why we need to analyze what factors are causing health care costs to be so expensive, and remedy them. Throwing up your hands and declaring government should just take it all over ignores the ubderlying cost factors and we end up drowning in debt.
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.
