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 09-22-2009, 01:27 PM
 
19,198 posts, read 31,422,068 times
Reputation: 4013

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by summers73 View Post
Kind of like what "voluntary" means, right?
Still bitter over that stinging reproof, eh? Not knowing what the term "voluntary tax system" actually means is an entry on YOUR ledger (among others). And it'll not be found under Assets.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-22-2009, 01:38 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,823 posts, read 23,395,338 times
Reputation: 6541
Quote:
Originally Posted by delusianne View Post
If you're buying insurance now from a major insurance company you already are "being forced to conform to the interests of those in power"
That is where you are completely wrong. People who buy insurance now do so voluntarily they not being forced to buy anything. If a 20 year old chooses not to buy health insurance, and instead puts their money into home or car payments, that is entirely their choice. But you would have government remove all choice and impose your will by force. You would create the fascist socialist nation of America. Did you not learn anything from 1930's NAZI Germany?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2009, 03:02 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
37,950 posts, read 22,048,638 times
Reputation: 13761
Quote:
Originally Posted by delusianne View Post
Why on earth do you think that? Just give a link.

"arbitrarily defined requirements" - not hardly arbitrary.
"Essential Benefits Package” Requirements for “Qualified Health Benefit Plans.” Cost‐sharing underthe essential benefits package would be designed so that the plan covers approximately 70 percent ofthe full value of benefits in the essential benefits package; “Qualified Health Benefit Plans” could cover ahigher percentage.

The essential benefits package would be required to cover the following items andservices:
• hospitalization;
• outpatient hospital and clinic services, including emergency department services;
• services of physicians and other health professionals;
• services, equipment, and supplies incident to the services of a physician or health professional inappropriate settings;
• prescription drugs;
• rehabilitative and “habilitative” services (i.e., services to maintain the physical, intellectual,emotional, and social functioning of developmentally delayed individuals);
• mental health and substance use disorder servicescertain preventive services (with no cost‐sharing permitted) and vaccines;
• maternity care;
• well‐baby, well‐childcare, oral health, vision, hearing services, equipment, and supplies for those under age 21
http://www.agc.org/galleries/advy/HR...0-%20Final.pdf

(This document ^ is a terrific excellent summary of HR3200)

also see

Explaining the ‘Exchange’: A Primer - Prescriptions Blog - NYTimes.com

and Ezra Klein - Health Insurance Exchanges: The Most Important, Undernoticed Part of Health Reform

arbitrarily: marked by or resulting from the unrestrained and often tyrannical exercise of power

If a 21 year old man, who was not a "developmentally delayed individual," wanted an insurance policy that did not cover every day office visits, "well‐baby, well‐childcare, mental health and substance use disorder" or any manner of arbitrarily mandated government requirements, he would not have an "Essential Benefits Package” and he would be fined/taxed by the government. And if his employer offered the same plan to his all male employees, he would suffer fines and penalties too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2009, 03:06 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
37,950 posts, read 22,048,638 times
Reputation: 13761
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rggr View Post
Does anyone see the irony in the claim that medicare, government insurance, wastes billions, so we're going to use those wasted billions to fund government insurance? He would gain some credibility if he would go ahead and cut the billioins of wasted dollars (without cutting services as he claims) and demonstrate that to the people. Then he would only need to figure out how to pay for the other third or whatever it is that's left.
You clearly don't get it, 0bamaCare will have zero waste and zero fraud, it will be perfection on earth. So none of your concerns about a US history replete with examples of bloated, inefficient, wasteful, over budget government programs applies here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2009, 03:11 PM
 
35,016 posts, read 39,082,216 times
Reputation: 6195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rggr View Post
Does anyone see the irony in the claim that medicare, government insurance, wastes billions, so we're going to use those wasted billions to fund government insurance? He would gain some credibility if he would go ahead and cut the billioins of wasted dollars (without cutting services as he claims) and demonstrate that to the people. Then he would only need to figure out how to pay for the other third or whatever it is that's left.
I think that's the plan, to start cutting the waste and saving the money now, for 2013 when all systems should be (Pay)Go.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2009, 03:17 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,325 posts, read 44,865,163 times
Reputation: 7118
They've been saying that for decades - why didn't they do it before?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2009, 03:23 PM
 
35,016 posts, read 39,082,216 times
Reputation: 6195
Maybe becuz.... no one wanted to rile the med-related industries, and because insurance costs hadnt yet reached an insupportable point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2009, 03:27 PM
 
10,545 posts, read 13,560,380 times
Reputation: 2823
Quote:
Originally Posted by delusianne View Post
I think that's the plan, to start cutting the waste and saving the money now, for 2013 when all systems should be (Pay)Go.
If he does that, I will give him credibility on that and will hope that he turns his attention to the waste in other programs as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2009, 03:33 PM
 
19,198 posts, read 31,422,068 times
Reputation: 4013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
If a 20 year old chooses not to buy health insurance, and instead puts their money into home or car payments, that is entirely their choice.
Yeah, sure it is. Until Mr. 20-Year-Old puts all that money into a new way-cool motorcycle that he then splatters along with himself into a tree, while of course not wearing a helmet, as that would be a sign of having surrendered his Individual Freedom. Then the ambulance comes and they haul him off to the emergency room where they plug him up to expensive machines and do all sorts of expensive procedures to save his worthless butt, while I and everybody else end up paying for it.

The choice you want to provide isn't the choice to accept or reject health care. Your hero will get that when he needs it. The choice you want to provide him is the choice to walk away from his own Personal Responsibility® to pay for it.

Yeah, imagine that. The folks who ever strut about claiming to be the champions of Personal Responsibility® now want to forget about all that stuff entirely. And now all those loudmouths who whine on and on about how this free health care that goes to shiftless illegal aliens is driving them into the poorhouse through higher premiums have suddenly changed their tune.

What a lot of flat out flim-flam arguments you all put up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2009, 03:36 PM
 
4,104 posts, read 5,299,790 times
Reputation: 1256
I onced argued in NM that anybody who chose to forgo a helmet should also forgo treatment in the event of an accident. My congressman wanted nothing to do with me. That was about 1992 if I remember.
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.

© 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