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's not an assumption. Many people believe that the majority of people choose their circumstances. They chose to buy homes knowing that their partners could die at any moment. They chose to have children knowing that they could be born with handicaps. They chose to buy a new car knowing that they could get laid off at any time. They made those choices and it's no one elses problem that they weren't able to afford them when things changed. That's life. Deal with it or die.
Some people choose to be shot. Oddly, having their own gun never seems to prevent that.
That is the beauty of this bill; everyone carries health insurance or else pays 2% of their income. This will solve your frustrations.
So how do you enforce that. Obama said in the debates with clinton that you can not force people to buy heath insurance if they do not want to.He said enforcing it is a nightmareand imp-ossible. If you fine them it only means you have someone who does not pay their medical bills with the fine.Do you then jail them;well no you can't according to the courts because it only invloves a fine as penalty.If you fine them does that solve the problem if they still refuse to pay for insurnce?That was the 15 million Obama estimated will not get insurance in his campaign.Who is going to enforce this and how much will it take with appeals.They will have appeals you know.
Originally Posted by Sonrise I don't have health insurance. a few weeks ago, while on a camping trip with the mens group from my church I was rushed to the ER. They thought it wa appendicitis, then kidney stones, then finally gall stoness. Long story short I was released after about 4 hours; after a cat scan, ultra sound, blood work, urinalysis, etc. Total bill including hospital, lab work, physician, etc, came to about $4600 . So what did I do? I simply called up the financial aid/business office and set up a payment plan.
Two days later I had a follow up at my family doctor. Since I have no insurance, I paid $60 up front, he gave me an excellent exam, spent plenty of time with me and wrote me a few prescriptions. Oh, it looks like I had diverticulitis, but they're still not sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn
You are screwed! Now you have a preexisting condition and no health insurance!
Diverticulitis can become quite serious at times and the underlying condition of Diverticulosis never goes away. You could possibly need emergency surgery for this condition in the future. I have seen it often.
Or if it ends up being the gall bladder and it needs to come out, it may cost about 18K. That is what mine cost to remove 2 months ago. Luckily I have insurance. Add that approx 18K to the already $4600 you have already spent. Man, those without insurance could have bought that car you are all talking about youngsters prefering to purchase instead of health insurance.
You had better find some health insurance soon because your health care can end up being VERY expensive. Have you figured out how much a colonoscopy will cost? Sigmoidoscopy? Any of the other routine tests they give to determine what is causing your issues? If it is diverticulitis, you will need to have routine exams more often than someone without a pre-existing condition.
Their answer = I don't care about all Americans, other Americans, or America in general. I only care about myself, and people who are like me.
It's the American way.
Excuse me, S's Dad, this question was posed as a reply to my post and you are most rude putting words in my mouth. My answer could not be further from the truth. By having the opportunity to use independence and resourcefulness to the fullest, I have succeeded in supporting myself without leeching off the rest of the population. There are benefits to depending only on yourself which are learned no other way, and once learned this experience creates a totally different type of person than those dependent on handouts while living comfortably and justifying their 'daily toil' with nonsense while patting themselves on the back for enduring. Honestly, with integrity going down the tubes along with thrift, ingenuity and patience, I don't think many of the younger generations will learn this stuff and the US will become a nation enslaved. As long as someone else pays the bill, all's well.
I disagree strongly with your premise. From Bob Herbert of the New York Times:
"Some 247,000 jobs were lost in July, a number that under ordinary circumstances would send a shudder through the country. It was the smallest monthly loss of jobs since last summer. And for that reason, it was seen as a hopeful sign. The official monthly unemployment rate ticked down from 9.5 percent to 9.4 percent.
But behind the official numbers is a scary story that illustrates the single biggest challenge facing the United States today. The American economy does not seem able to provide enough jobs — and nowhere near enough good jobs — to maintain the standard of living that most Americans have come to expect.
The country has lost a crippling 6.7 million jobs since the Great Recession began in December 2007. No one is predicting a recovery in the foreseeable future powerful enough to replace the millions of jobs that have vanished in this historic downturn.
Analysts at the Economic Policy Institute noted that the economy has fewer jobs now than it had in 2000, “even though the labor force has grown by around 12 million workers since then.â€
continued...
"Two issues that absolutely undermine any rosy assessment of last week’s employment report are the swelling ranks of the long-term unemployed and the crushing levels of joblessness among young Americans. More than five million workers — about a third of the unemployed — have been jobless for more than six months. That’s the highest number recorded since accurate records have been kept.
For those concerned with the economic viability of the American family going forward, the plight of young workers, especially young men, is particularly frightening. The percentage of young American men who are actually working is the lowest it has been in the 61 years of record-keeping, according to the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston.
Only 65 of every 100 men aged 20 through 24 years old were working on any given day in the first six months of this year. In the age group 25 through 34 years old, traditionally a prime age range for getting married and starting a family, just 81 of 100 men were employed.
For male teenagers, the numbers were disastrous: only 28 of every 100 males were employed in the 16- through 19-year-old age group. For minority teenagers, forget about it. The numbers are beyond scary; they’re catastrophic.
This should be the biggest story in the United States. When joblessness reaches these kinds of extremes, it doesn’t just damage individual families; it corrodes entire communities, fosters a sense of hopelessness and leads to disorder."
And, finally:
"The official jobless rate is now more than twice as high — 9.4 percent — and even more wildly deceptive. It ticked down by 0.1 percent last month not because more people found jobs, but because 450,000 people withdrew from the labor market. They stopped looking, so they weren’t counted as unemployed.
A truer picture of the employment crisis emerges when you combine the number of people who are officially counted as jobless with those who are working part time because they can’t find full-time work and those in the so-called labor market reserve — people who are not actively looking for work (because they have become discouraged, for example) but would take a job if one became available.
The tally from those three categories is a mind-boggling 30 million Americans — 19 percent of the overall work force."
You sure about that?
They've done a great job, too.......
Your posts belie this assertion.
You are quoting an op-ed that doesn't even link any of the facts provided. Sorry, that is just not verifiable.
Secondly, according to your Op-Ed record keeping "started" 61 years ago, not 200+ years ago which is what I meant when I said "our nations history".
Unemployment numbers are hugely unreliable in trying to determine WHY people aren't working, or exactly how many people ARE working but not full time. Eitherway, my premise that Americans remain lazy and with an entitlement mentality was not disproven with a NYTimes Op-Ed that doesn't even have sources for the facts presented.
Without the Internet at home I don't have work. Yes, people do things online besides post on forums.
The point is, nearly everybody has SOME way of cutting costs from their lifes. The very needy may not, but as I posted earlier, many of the individuals utilized for statistics that support a UHC system can.
Its amazing to me that we classify "poor" in this country at a level that still allows a nice apartment, many times with air conditioning, sometimes with cable TV, Internet, a cell phone, and at least one car in the driveway and rarely a missed meal (as evident by our ever expanding waist lines).
Thats poor? Tell that to somebody in a different country, they will laugh.
Our entitlement mentality and unwillingness to support outselves are bankrupting the country through entitlement programs.
This is the direction of being "progressive".
I know I can fully sustain myself, even if the government reduces my taxes and affords themselves only the responsibilities they should. That should be everybodies goal, as that was the basis of this countries founding. Sad how many have lost sight.
I know of someone who decided not to purchase health care and instead spend the money on season tickets to a local professional team and to send his children to expensive sports camps and ongoing lessons of the same. His wife was too big a diva to work so they had a health club membership for her. And of course, he sustained a serious head injury and the taxpayers of my state paid for it! Many people donated money and gift cards for groceries. Instead of thanks the benefactor of the gift cards was asked if they would just give money in the future.
This is an example of just one family but it makes me wonder of how many more "entitled" are out there?
Sure there are stupid people out there...but MOST are probably like me. My company went bankrupt after my brain tumor diagnosis...
Yeah...good luck with that.
One of the major holes in your line of reasoning - and it is a MAJOR hole - is that you are assuming that most people, many people, or some people - choose to be poor, or not self-sustaining, or sick, or to be injured on a job, or to lose a job due to a financial meltdown. This is the same typical, callous, blind, socially Darwinian, Dickensian mindset that has contributed greatly to the precipitous financial and social decline we find ourself experiencing right now. More than ever, in this economic climate, people simply cannot contribute, because their jobs have left, and will not return. You seem to be so concerned about the interests of the "contributors", i.e. the rich., but who you need to be concerned about are the ones who, through no fault of their own, cannot take care of themselves to the level that they, or you, feel they should. That's what you need to be worried about. Society is only as strong as its weakest link. Unfortunately for you, the weak are getting weaker.
You are quoting an op-ed that doesn't even link any of the facts provided. Sorry, that is just not verifiable.
Secondly, according to your Op-Ed record keeping "started" 61 years ago, not 200+ years ago which is what I meant when I said "our nations history".
Unemployment numbers are hugely unreliable in trying to determine WHY people aren't working, or exactly how many people ARE working but not full time. Eitherway, my premise that Americans remain lazy and with an entitlement mentality was not disproven with a NYTimes Op-Ed that doesn't even have sources for the facts presented.
But your premise remains unproven to begins with. And at least the Op-Ed provides figures to support their argument, even if those figures are unsourced. You've not even done that much.
You forget two points about colleges today. One, some courses are only offered online, and the only time you might actually see a teacher is possibly for tests, so they can monitor and ensure that no one is cheating.
Two, buying a computer is required for admission at many colleges.
And every single student loan available allows the money to be spent for education related expenses, including computers and internet.
However, people know that those costs will have to be repaid, so why not skimp out on getting a loan, instead dedicate ones cash to buying a computer and paying for internet, and then you can claim you are too broke to pay for insurance and then expect that its provided free of charge? Pathetic.
Needing a computer for college is seriously being used as an excuse to expect a UHC entitlement?
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.
