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.
Good, and I hope they show the people's plight who rabbled to kill it off realize how much they screwed themselves after they get into a health care catastrophe. Now people can't whine if they are uninsured, bankrupt, and can't pay for the maintenance medical care to prolong their lives and quality of life. The sad thing is this debate keeps coming forward, and the same resistance comes up, and when reality hits in another year or two the same complaints will go up again.
It's no longer the "Circle of Life", it's the circle of stupidity.
Pretty soon only those who can afford it will receive health care that is more then life saving care. Too bad I guess.
I am sorry, doctorHugo, I did not mean to rain on your parade.
The truth is that we are all in it together, democrat, republican, libertarian, independent, federalist, green, and everything in between. Defending one's mental position does not help, just clouds the real issues at play.
We messed up, there is no easy fix for it. Just hard, honest, collaborative work to figure out the best solutions available to us now will bring stability to this economy and us back to leading normal lives again.
Playing the blame game, or as in this thread, attempting to teach people or companies compassion for those less fortunate does not work. There will always be someone to yell from the top of his longs that he won't pay a cent more in taxes to help others even if people are dropping dead in the streets from lack of medical care. I now remember an episode in US history - while Europe lied crushed by Hitler and London was in flames from Blitz, America was still debating if it had any place intervening in European affairs. Such is human nature and democracy.
This is why we need a government to care and act for the welfair of the people it is elected or employed to serve, for this great country that is no less civilized than any other developed country in the world.
Yeah, I know, I am dreaming, infighting will never stop, people come together just for moments when tragedy strikes.
Oh, well, what do I know, I'll go to sleep, good night.
Not to be concerned about "my parade". My concern was with your reaction to my intentionally EXAGERRATED comments (all done up in saggy red bold font) to get YOUR attention. Obviously I failed in that effort. I humbly prostrate myself before you in abject disgrace... Allow me to clarify extensively for good reason and then I shall simply conclude with one ever-so brief reference so as not to boggle down your powers of concentration. Here is that offending post comment;
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorhugo Drop pre-existing conditions. Why? Lower insurance premiums to make them more affordable. WHY? Offer subsidies to the poor. HUH! In this country?
In going the excessive highlighting route I was trying to get you to think 'out of the box' of conventional partisan animose we are party to here. Reason being, though you and I and most others all disagree, we DO have the desire to see a common solution. We merely differ in the path to such.
Drop pre-existing conditions. Why?
Item 1 in that comment...I think in the realm of "private" insurers. In that realm the critical consideration in formulating premium charges would be past experience in specific health issues. It's an actuarial fact. If you take the position, as those to the left do, that "government" (whether federal or state) has an obligation to provide what you say is your "right", then you stand on very weak grounds constitutionally. Forgetting that for a moment and returning to risk calculation. If you had your way and a government entity was created to satisfy your alleged "right" then itwould absorb the "financial liability" of incalculable risk-taking. Please to reread that line so you grasp the REAL and FULL meaning. What I'm saying is that in your zeal to establish 'universal health coverage as a single public provider system' you are burdening down ALL OF US, that it is we, the taxpayers...with an ever-increasing financial burden that CANNOT be even remotely calculated for, because the risk chance is unknown. I've gone to circumspect DETAIL for a reason. NO-BAH-DEE even acknowledges this point I just went to great pains to make. It's I want, I want, I want...and the loudest voice or squeakiest wheel gets the political grease. Tha's NOT a solution.
Lower insurance premiums to make them more affordable. WHY? That is no 'reasonable' risk assumption justification for lowering premiums. It's purely emotionally driven and the by-product of a ROSTTB. How about this slightly modifed and 'reasoned' approach. Return to the long ago days of a famous piece of legislation those of my era grew up with that was to become law. The Taft-Hartley Act. I won't go into it, but those interested in a SERIOUS resolution can Google up an education on it. This stopgap to prevent monopolizing any single industry was a necessary and good thing. Politicians (of both major parties) being at times bought and paid for by corporate interests and partisan 'civilian' groups effectively swept old Taft-Hartley under America's dirty little political carpet...never to see the light of day again. An integral term in this public law was this. The "unfair restraint of trade". Please to lock well into that. For when any major 'private' insurers of any form or type collude in any manner to rig rates, to put it succinctly...they would have been encouraging a monopoly and been found to have been in violation of that phrase I suggested you lock into. Given our recent history of HMOs and such types of providers and a shrinking down to few very large insurers (risk-takers) it would be fair to observe that excess against the public interest has been allowed to foster and grow. POINT> Correction of that can be accomplished by modifying certain law and assigning responsibility to congressional watch dog committees, NOT to the Executive Branch of the federal government and thus one flaw in the current baby's dirty bathwater can be corrected. Othes can be similarly addressed. There is NO NEED to throw the "private insurance" baby out with the "excess against the public interest" bathwater. My position is... as opposed to continually making partisan rants..that's all. Having made THAT solution to the existing health system there is NO NEED for an extravagantly expensive NEW system that only takes away YOUR free choice, restricts YOUR best health care and whose cost is by "reasonable" standards INCALCULABLE, because there is no accurate model and no fixed values to base such on, only politically expedient phony estimates on BOTH sides.
Offer subsidies to the poor. HUH! In this country? STOP please...ENOUGH!!! The poor are political "target groups" in this country. They have ALL MANNER OF government largess set aside for them. No hospital can turn away a needy person in dire need without the wrath of litigious revenge upon them surely as night follows day...AND THEY WELL KNOW IT. The poor like the rest of us are entitled to the best medical care then and there available and promptly so. The "best" 'special' medical care AVAILABLE is something neither you nor I nor the poor may ever really see. That is reality and I deal with it, so should you. Its true. The rich get the best, because they can afford it! This is NOT a socialist state. And even then it doesn't always work out. A Marine veteran recently went into one of the most reknown medical facilities in this country, staffed with the best doctors and despite all that came out toes up. Murtha was his name!
You may note I responded to you and made not one partisan, invective laced, or contentious remark. Would that I could see the same in return, not meaning you, but others who know well who they are. For those who think my style of using assorted highlighting is annoying or pointless it is done with the calculated intent to have you not speed-read through my post. To get you to redirect...to focus again and pick up the salient and sometimes subtle points. I reserve sarcasm and a degree of excess for those deserving of such by the manner of their replies.
The last item is to "conclude with one ever-so brief reference so as not to boggle down your powers of concentration." I made prior to even beginning to compile this comment, a post just before this one. It was an invitation at A NON-PARTISAN EFFORT for CONSTRUCTIVE OPINION EXCHANGE. How refreshing!
In comments reported by Congress Daily, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s top health care aide Wendell Primus admitted top Democrats have already decided on the strategy to pass the Senate's government-run health care bill that funds abortions and has other pro-abortion problems.
Primus explained that the Senate will use the controversial reconciliation strategy that will have the House approve the Senate bill and both the House and Senate okaying changes to the bill that the Senate will sign off on by preventing Republicans from filibustering.
“The trick in all of this is that the president would have to sign the Senate bill first, then the reconciliation bill second, and the reconciliation bill would trump the Senate bill,” Primus said at the National Health Policy Conference hosted by Academy Health and Health Affairs.
“There's a certain skill, there's a trick, but I think we'll get it done,” he said.
For those opposed - call your US House Representative and make your voice heard.
I sincerely implore you to reconsider. Do NOT write anybody. I LOVE THIS CLOWN PRIMUS. It's clear to all, but them and their leftie supporters that the overwhelming majority of the voting public do NOT want ObaCare in any form. So let them ram it through by any means necessary. Why? That will be the straw that breaks the public's back and GUARANTEES that in November the Oba-maniacs will be ejected from congress and away will go some powerful committee leaders and members too. Reform and taking back our country is only months away.
If Health Care reform dies, I have a serious question... ???
Quote:
Originally Posted by subsound
Good, and I hope they show the people's plight who rabbled to kill it off realize how much they screwed themselves after they get into a health care catastrophe.
Now people can't whine if they are uninsured, bankrupt, and can't pay for the maintenance medical care to prolong their lives and quality of life. The sad thing is this debate keeps coming forward, and the same resistance comes up, and when reality hits in another year or two the same complaints will go up again.
It's no longer the "Circle of Life", it's the circle of stupidity.
Pretty soon only those who can afford it will receive health care that is more then life saving care. Too bad I guess.
That's the bottom line. Too bad, I guess.
The people who oppose it, people who are pawns for the corporate interests in this issue... or who may even work directly or indirectly for health insurance related companies... those people really just don't care what happens to the people who can no longer afford their premiums.
Many of them have made it very clear that they believe those who can't afford their health insurance are losers.
I've got a close friend who's in their 50's. They're in good health right now but they had cancer when they were 38.
They have an individual policy right now with a really high deductible so raising the deductible is not going to help them.
As I said, my friend is in their 50's. There's at least 10 years before they will qualify for Medicare coverage.
Anthem is raising their premiums for Individual policies 20% - 40% nationwide this year.
Shopping around for better prices at 50 and with a pre-existing condition is not an option.
I'd like to know how my friend is suppose to live without health insurance (or keep paying more and more for their coverage)
when they've been unable to find employment that offers benefits.
This recession has wiped out their savings.
If health care reform dies, I would really appreciate suggestions that I can offer to my good friend. The fact is, some day they will probably have to face cancer again. I'm genuinely concerned for their welfare.
My friend is certainly not a loser and doesn't want to be a burden on society....
Maybe they'd have been better off if they hadn't beat cancer the first time around. If the doctors would have just let them die at 38 when they were first diagnosed, they wouldn't be facing this situation today. What's the point of being a "cancer survivor" if at 50 something, you're living in constant fear that you may lose your health insurance.
How would you like to live with that constant fear?
Last edited by World Citizen; 02-11-2010 at 06:42 PM..
This bill is so horrible that it would not motivate me a bit. As a part of the "base" the Dems can count my ass out for November. I am staying home. And there is no doubt that November will be a blood bath for them. And they deserve it. When I see the change and hope I voted for, I will come back.
Given what our country's been through in the last 12 months, it's too bad that some feel like you do.
I would like to say, you're wrong. And, staying home / withdrawing support is the best way to assure that nothing gets done.
I hope you change your mind and go to the polls. I hope you'll continue to vote in support of the party who stands for what you want to see done.
Given what our country's been through in the last 12 months, it's too bad that some feel like you do.
I would like to say, you're wrong. And, staying home / withdrawing support is the best way to assure that nothing gets done.
I hope you change your mind and go to the polls. I hope you'll continue to vote in support of the party who stands for what you want to see done.
Why don't you just admit you got played by your party and this 2000 page monster has NOTHING to do with "health care". You got punked. Some of you are slowly realizing it but most of you are still sucking down that Kool-Aid. You had the majority and could have pushed it through. No one but your own party could stop it. Yet, they did. I wonder why? Don't you??
Why don't you just admit you got played by your party and this 2000 page monster has NOTHING to do with "health care". You got punked. Some of you are slowly realizing it but most of you are still sucking down that Kool-Aid. You had the majority and could have pushed it through. No one but your own party could stop it. Yet, they did. I wonder why? Don't you??
It's obvious that you're enjoying their failure.
I guess I'm glad that they didn't just push something through in order to get something done.
I'd like to see all of the special deals taken away. I'd like everyone to sit down at the table again and start over.
Health care is a serious issue that needs to be addressed. This is not the time for politics as usual and all of the mean games...
Did you happen to read my previous post?
Quote:
Originally Posted by World Citizen
That's the bottom line. Too bad, I guess.
The people who oppose it, people who are pawns for the corporate interests in this issue... or who may even work directly or indirectly for health insurance related companies... those people really just don't care what happens to the people who can no longer afford their premiums.
Many of them have made it very clear that they believe those who can't afford their health insurance are losers.
I've got a close friend who's in their 50's. They're in good health right now but they had cancer when they were 38.
They have an individual policy right now with a really high deductible so raising the deductible is not going to help them.
As I said, my friend is in their 50's. There's at least 10 years before they will qualify for Medicare coverage.
Anthem is raising their premiums for Individual policies 20% - 40% nationwide this year.
Shopping around for better prices at 50 and with a pre-existing condition is not an option.
I'd like to know how my friend is suppose to live without health insurance (or keep paying more and more for their coverage)
when they've been unable to find employment that offers benefits.
This recession has wiped out their savings.
If health care reform dies, I would really appreciate suggestions that I can offer to my good friend. The fact is, some day they will probably have to face cancer again. I'm genuinely concerned for their welfare.
My friend is certainly not a loser and doesn't want to be a burden on society....
Maybe they'd have been better off if they hadn't beat cancer the first time around. If the doctors would have just let them die at 38 when they were first diagnosed, they wouldn't be facing this situation today. What's the point of being a "cancer survivor" if at 50 something, you're living in constant fear that you may lose your health insurance and will be unable to pay for medical treatment if cancer comes back ???
How would you like to live with that constant fear?
I'm sincerely asking you for your insight....
Do you have any suggestions that I can offer to my friend ???? or, do you just think they are a loser who deserves to be un-insured if they can't afford to continue paying higher premiums and can't find a job that offers health insurance?
We're talking about people's lives here, not used cars....
Last edited by World Citizen; 02-11-2010 at 07:32 PM..
Not to be concerned about "my parade". My concern was with your reaction to my intentionally EXAGERRATED comments (all done up in saggy red bold font) to get YOUR attention. Obviously I failed in that effort. I humbly prostrate myself before you in abject disgrace... Allow me to clarify extensively for good reason and then I shall simply conclude with one ever-so brief reference so as not to boggle down your powers of concentration. Here is that offending post comment;
In going the excessive highlighting route I was trying to get you to think 'out of the box' of conventional partisan animose we are party to here. Reason being, though you and I and most others all disagree, we DO have the desire to see a common solution. We merely differ in the path to such.
Drop pre-existing conditions. Why?
Item 1 in that comment...I think in the realm of "private" insurers. In that realm the critical consideration in formulating premium charges would be past experience in specific health issues. It's an actuarial fact. If you take the position, as those to the left do, that "government" (whether federal or state) has an obligation to provide what you say is your "right", then you stand on very weak grounds constitutionally. Forgetting that for a moment and returning to risk calculation. If you had your way and a government entity was created to satisfy your alleged "right" then itwould absorb the "financial liability" of incalculable risk-taking. Please to reread that line so you grasp the REAL and FULL meaning. What I'm saying is that in your zeal to establish 'universal health coverage as a single public provider system' you are burdening down ALL OF US, that it is we, the taxpayers...with an ever-increasing financial burden that CANNOT be even remotely calculated for, because the risk chance is unknown. I've gone to circumspect DETAIL for a reason. NO-BAH-DEE even acknowledges this point I just went to great pains to make. It's I want, I want, I want...and the loudest voice or squeakiest wheel gets the political grease. Tha's NOT a solution.
Lower insurance premiums to make them more affordable. WHY? That is no 'reasonable' risk assumption justification for lowering premiums. It's purely emotionally driven and the by-product of a ROSTTB. How about this slightly modifed and 'reasoned' approach. Return to the long ago days of a famous piece of legislation those of my era grew up with that was to become law. The Taft-Hartley Act. I won't go into it, but those interested in a SERIOUS resolution can Google up an education on it. This stopgap to prevent monopolizing any single industry was a necessary and good thing. Politicians (of both major parties) being at times bought and paid for by corporate interests and partisan 'civilian' groups effectively swept old Taft-Hartley under America's dirty little political carpet...never to see the light of day again. An integral term in this public law was this. The "unfair restraint of trade". Please to lock well into that. For when any major 'private' insurers of any form or type collude in any manner to rig rates, to put it succinctly...they would have been encouraging a monopoly and been found to have been in violation of that phrase I suggested you lock into. Given our recent history of HMOs and such types of providers and a shrinking down to few very large insurers (risk-takers) it would be fair to observe that excess against the public interest has been allowed to foster and grow. POINT> Correction of that can be accomplished by modifying certain law and assigning responsibility to congressional watch dog committees, NOT to the Executive Branch of the federal government and thus one flaw in the current baby's dirty bathwater can be corrected. Othes can be similarly addressed. There is NO NEED to throw the "private insurance" baby out with the "excess against the public interest" bathwater. My position is... as opposed to continually making partisan rants..that's all. Having made THAT solution to the existing health system there is NO NEED for an extravagantly expensive NEW system that only takes away YOUR free choice, restricts YOUR best health care and whose cost is by "reasonable" standards INCALCULABLE, because there is no accurate model and no fixed values to base such on, only politically expedient phony estimates on BOTH sides.
Offer subsidies to the poor. HUH! In this country? STOP please...ENOUGH!!! The poor are political "target groups" in this country. They have ALL MANNER OF government largess set aside for them. No hospital can turn away a needy person in dire need without the wrath of litigious revenge upon them surely as night follows day...AND THEY WELL KNOW IT. The poor like the rest of us are entitled to the best medical care then and there available and promptly so. The "best" 'special' medical care AVAILABLE is something neither you nor I nor the poor may ever really see. That is reality and I deal with it, so should you. Its true. The rich get the best, because they can afford it! This is NOT a socialist state. And even then it doesn't always work out. A Marine veteran recently went into one of the most reknown medical facilities in this country, staffed with the best doctors and despite all that came out toes up. Murtha was his name!
You may note I responded to you and made not one partisan, invective laced, or contentious remark. Would that I could see the same in return, not meaning you, but others who know well who they are. For those who think my style of using assorted highlighting is annoying or pointless it is done with the calculated intent to have you not speed-read through my post. To get you to redirect...to focus again and pick up the salient and sometimes subtle points. I reserve sarcasm and a degree of excess for those deserving of such by the manner of their replies.
The last item is to "conclude with one ever-so brief reference so as not to boggle down your powers of concentration." I made prior to even beginning to compile this comment, a post just before this one. It was an invitation at A NON-PARTISAN EFFORT for CONSTRUCTIVE OPINION EXCHANGE. How refreshing!
Bomb-throwers not invited.
You want to make me the bad guy, that's fine with me, I always consider the source. Your loud, screaming and insulting PM's were not appreciated though.
You complain that people want to speed read your posts. Sorry, it's true, your posts go on and on, that can be hardly helped.
You read me wrongly, I do not wish insurance companies out of business. I do wish for a public option to compete with them. It's the easiest way to reinforce anti-trust laws that no longer apply to medical insurance companies. I don't know what will happen yet with the medical insurance reform.
Just time will tell.
I understand all you've said and what you call loudly screaming by my use of assorted methods of highlighting is only to make points which I think are lost. The overriding consideration here in these forums, with this President, is an honest and sincere distrust of him by those of us on the right. We acribe nothing but bad motivations to him based upon what he's said and his appointments. He's obviously a committed socialist intent upon the very change of this government. You may disagree, but I'm simply clarifying the position and sense from the right.
Constructively, I would ony comment upon the end of your post...
Quote:
You read me wrongly, I do not wish insurance companies out of business. I do wish for a public option to compete with them. It's the easiest way to reinforce anti-trust laws that no longer apply to medical insurance companies. I don't know what will happen yet with the medical insurance reform.
Problem with a "public option to compete with them" is is not realistic. I've stated this before on other threads, but I think it's worth repeating. Insurance companied must live by the profit and loss bottom line. How do they do this against a government that has the ability to cover expenses by the unlimited usage of deficit spending? You've set up a competition on an uneven playing field! In about one year of such competition insurance companies would be forced out of business entirely. Obama says I'm not trying to force private insurers out of business, but we know he understands the consequence I just indicated. Therefore, he's lying.
Since we have no public law codified to hold congress to a balanced budget and we've allowed a succession of congresses to dig us into this deep hole that we're in now..., we are bankrupt as a nation. Perfect example of what I just said is Obama has presented a budget of about 3.7TRILLION $$$S of which about 40% is deficit financed. In the face of this much accumulated debt how does he do that?
Why you reject what I said about reforming laws to hold such companies to stiffer standards (my Taft-Hartley reference) I cannot fathom. This has almost NOTHING to do with party as BOTH PARTIES have been guilty of spending us into this mountain of debt. Trouble with Obama is he talks out of both sides of his mouth. First he says we've got to get spending under control and then he spends like he could care less. Before him Bush did the same, but his spending now will dwarf Bush's.
I understand all you've said and what you call loudly screaming by my use of assorted methods of highlighting is only to make points which I think are lost. The overriding consideration here in these forums, with this President, is an honest and sincere distrust of him by those of us on the right. We acribe nothing but bad motivations to him based upon what he's said and his appointments. He's obviously a committed socialist intent upon the very change of this government. You may disagree, but I'm simply clarifying the position and sense from the right.
Constructively, I would ony comment upon the end of your post...
Problem with a "public option to compete with them" is is not realistic. I've stated this before on other threads, but I think it's worth repeating. Insurance companied must live by the profit and loss bottom line. How do they do this against a government that has the ability to cover expenses by the unlimited usage of deficit spending? You've set up a competition on an uneven playing field! In about one year of such competition insurance companies would be forced out of business entirely. Obama says I'm not trying to force private insurers out of business, but we know he understands the consequence I just indicated. Therefore, he's lying.
Since we have no public law codified to hold congress to a balanced budget and we've allowed a succession of congresses to dig us into this deep hole that we're in now..., we are bankrupt as a nation. Perfect example of what I just said is Obama has presented a budget of about 3.7TRILLION $$$S of which about 40% is deficit financed. In the face of this much accumulated debt how does he do that?
Why you reject what I said about reforming laws to hold such companies to stiffer standards (my Taft-Hartley reference) I cannot fathom. This has almost NOTHING to do with party as BOTH PARTIES have been guilty of spending us into this mountain of debt. Trouble with Obama is he talks out of both sides of his mouth. First he says we've got to get spending under control and then he spends like he could care less. Before him Bush did the same, but his spending now will dwarf Bush's.
If your points are self-evident they do not need to be underlined, highlighted, bold-lettered, etc, do they?
It seems to me that you, (and others as well, by no means I am implying that you are the only one),
keep pounding on this stuff again and again to influence the public opinion.
This is a democratic exercise, it's fair practice if one individual represents one voice.
However, I have had several opportunities to show that there are individuals, perhaps, who manage multiple ID's on the political forum. I suspect that this is a way to make people believe that these government dissenting opinions are pervasive, which doesn't seem to be the case.
Just as it was pointed out by some personal observers that the Tea Parties were photographed and filmed in ways to suggest large participations when in fact they were rather small gatherings.
But it's an election year, I know, the gloves are off (if they were ever on)!
Last edited by learningCA; 02-21-2010 at 06:50 PM..
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.
LearningCA
Allow me to clarify extensively for good reason and then I shall simply conclude with one ever-so brief reference so as not to boggle down your powers of concentration. Here is that offending post comment;
there is NO NEED for an extravagantly expensive NEW system that only takes away YOUR free choice, restricts YOUR best health care and whose cost is by "reasonable" standards INCALCULABLE, because there is no accurate model and no fixed values to base such on, only politically expedient phony estimates on BOTH sides.
? That will be the straw that breaks the public's back and GUARANTEES that in November the Oba-maniacs will be ejected from congress and away will go some powerful committee leaders and members too. Reform and taking back our country is only months away. 
