|
03-27-2012, 10:36 PM | #1 | |||
Master Dwellar
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 4,197
|
Obamacare
i know plenty of you here LOVE obama. personally, i think he could be a one term dude and i'd be happy with that. rail me if you want but you will not "change" my views. however, healthcare has been an issue for decades. this "forced" healthcare program he is trying to do is not right.
Quote:
oh and here's another thing....i had to be taken to the emergency room about a year and a half ago. i chose the "free" hospital because i did not have insurance. i still get bills to this day for their sorry ass service. Quote:
yeah i said that. rip me one. i'm not gonna care. i am jaded. very. and i usually stick to my own self but every now and then i've had enough and have to voice my opinion. now back on subject: Quote:
i understand obama's interest in making sure everyone has insurance but lets be real. in america.......snot gonna happen.
__________________
For your dreams to come true, you must first have a dream. |
|||
03-27-2012, 10:41 PM | #2 | |
Master Dwellar
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 4,197
|
and this is the dude that took my first return in as many years but i agree with him here: (and on taking my tax return actually)
ETA: for the states fuck up in my child support payments when they didn't take enough out Quote:
__________________
For your dreams to come true, you must first have a dream. |
|
03-27-2012, 10:43 PM | #3 | |
Master Dwellar
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 4,197
|
wow. they're stating the obvious now:
Quote:
__________________
For your dreams to come true, you must first have a dream. |
|
03-28-2012, 08:29 AM | #4 |
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 3,338
|
I'm on Fred's side on this. The Congress has been abusing the heck out of the commerce clause ever since Teddy Roosevelt's administration. Back then, the Supreme Court sharply limited the government's power. Since then, every President has packed the Court with as many appointees as he could, tilting the Court ever more toward an activist Court which has granted more and more power to the Congress and President. There is an excellent article on this subject here.
I, too, want everyone to have health insurance. But I would much rather see everyone get it through their job, rather than forced upon them. Unlike Fred, I have to pay for mine every month but I have a really low bill and a decent company stemming from my days in the service. So, unless I am REALLY broke, I will always have it. It isn't perfect but it does what we need it to do most of the time so I cannot complain. The thing is, it's the principle, darnit! Giving the government such broad powers is foolish in the extreme. They can do much more than take a penalty out of your tax return. They can reach into your bank account and take money out, too. Think of what a $500 bite would do to your household budget. Or even $100. They could also monitor your spending. There are many things to dislike about that bill. But there is no guarantee on how the Court will rule. I strongly suspect the Supreme Court will rule only narrowly on the Individual Mandate portion and leave stand the rest of the bill. I might be wrong but this Court is not the Court of a century ago. It is rare that the SC does NOT cede more power to the government. I certainly hope, for America's sake, that the entire bill is struck down.
__________________
Never be afraid to tell the world who you are. -- Anonymous |
03-28-2012, 08:40 AM | #5 |
™
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,717
|
My brother in law is in his early 40s and has never had medical insurance in his adult life. Last year, he was in a bicycle accident and went to the emergency room for treatment. He never paid a penny for that, but the cost was in the thousands of dollars. I'm sure he continues to get bills from them, but knowing his financial situation, those bills are unpaid.
He's probably never going to voluntarily buy insurance, and we taxpayers are going to continue to pay for his sporadic emergency room visits. I'd like to see him forced to chip into the pot. I'm in favor of a mandate. especially since going hand in had with a mandate is the elimination of pre-exisiting conditions exclusions. By brother in law is a good guy, and I wish him well. But he's the kind of guy who is a drag on the system. He should pull his weight. |
03-28-2012, 08:50 AM | #6 | |
Makes some feel uncomfortable
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,346
|
Quote:
I don't view this as a power grab by the government. It's an attempt to fix an unfair system that is broken, and to help Americans when they are unwell. It's certainly not perfect (that would be a system like the UK's or Canada's, IMHO), because it had to pass through congress, and Democrats wanted bipartisan approval. Remember, this plan is similar to the plan put forth by republicans in the early nineties. Fred, you need to do some more research, and be less racist.
__________________
"I'm certainly free, nay compelled, to spread the gospel of Spex. " - xoxoxoBruce |
|
03-28-2012, 09:41 AM | #7 | |
erika
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: "the high up north"
Posts: 6,127
|
Quote:
__________________
not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh |
|
03-28-2012, 04:02 PM | #8 |
still says videotape
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 26,813
|
If I'm using the term properly, single-payer would be superior to the mandate. Guaranteeing insurance companies a profit and forcing their products on people seems the greater sin. I don't think severing insurance from work does any great harm to peoples motivation. It may in fact make people more willing to risk starting businesses.
__________________
If you would only recognize that life is hard, things would be so much easier for you. - Louis D. Brandeis |
03-28-2012, 06:27 PM | #9 | |
Master Dwellar
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 4,197
|
Quote:
i do hope it gets fixed. will it? no. unfortunately not. there are too many executives and shareholders out there with insurance companies to allow it to happen. change? not gonna happen here. once again, sorry if i sounded racist. i'm not.
__________________
For your dreams to come true, you must first have a dream. |
|
03-29-2012, 08:10 AM | #10 |
UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 20,012
|
1.) Obamacare is ruled unconstitutional
2.) Obama wins a second term 3.) With nothing to lose, and proof that compromises just implode on themselves, the Democrats are now able to say "Fuck bipartisan support" and force a single-payer system through Congress. That's what I'm hoping, anyway. Hooray! |
03-29-2012, 10:22 AM | #11 |
Read? I only know how to write.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
|
Let's face it. Free markets are the best way. If you cannot pay in the hospital or Wal-Mart, you do not get the service or product. That is fair. It is unfair and illegal to require any hospital to serve you if you cannot pay. Constitutionally they have the right to put you out on the sidewalk if you cannot provide proof of payment.
These wacko extremists who want all costs dumped on hospitals must be drinking from Limbaugh's Oxycotin cup. |
03-29-2012, 11:25 AM | #12 |
Person who doesn't update the user title
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Bottom lands of the Missoula floods
Posts: 6,402
|
If free markets are best, and "it's unfair and illegal to require hospitals to serve you",
is there agreement to removing their non-profit status so they pay a fair share of property taxes, and income taxes, and they stop being reimbursed by Medicare ? And, maybe reconsider their legal rights to put a lien on the patient's home for whatever unpaid bill the patient incurs out of services and supplies priced at the hospital's discretion of "regular and customary rates" We might just see how many would survive in the "free market". In reality, most hospitals and physicians and their medical aides are given a special place in society, and are not simple retail businesses subject to fair-market competition, freedoms, and restraints. As such, they have other responsibilities to their community. So sayth this wacko extermist. |
03-29-2012, 09:28 PM | #13 | |
Read? I only know how to write.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
|
Quote:
We must decide whether we want socialized medicine (ie UK's National Health Service) or a working free market medicine (ie Affordable Health Care currently being implemented). Otherwise the best solution is to let people die in the streets if they cannot pay. The current system is why a box of Kleenex must cost maybe $125. Due to a perverted and disfuctional system, openly advocated by many with a poltical agenda. Medical services must charge excessively so that the few pay for all others. And to pay for a bloated bureacracy necessary to make cost redirection work. This is the system that extremists want to protect. Medicine is not a charity. It is a business. A service just like any other business whose purpose is the advancement of mankind. Even non-profits must balance the books. |
|
03-29-2012, 09:53 PM | #14 |
erika
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: "the high up north"
Posts: 6,127
|
what do you have against single payer?
__________________
not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh |
03-30-2012, 10:15 AM | #15 | |
Person who doesn't update the user title
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Bottom lands of the Missoula floods
Posts: 6,402
|
Quote:
but have special supports and advantages that other forms of business do not have. Medicine, and especially hospitals, survive in part, on the charity of the public. As such, they have advantages because certain things (obligations) are expected of them. What other free-market, service-business gets tax-free properties, donations from the public, support by religious organizations, volunteers, governmental reimbursement at rates that vary by location, grants to employees for working in relatively isolated communities, county- or volunteer-provided supplemental assistance such as ambulance services, etc. And in some communities are allowed monopolistic business practices. Likewise, there is state-support Schools of Medicine and Nursing to train hospital employees that cause the tax payers far more than what the tuition and student loans. TW, As you said in another post, "I never said...." I too never said anything like "no hospital has gone bankrupt". Of course some have, and physicians and hospital staff have been fired. I too can give a specific examples of a hospital that fired it's entire janitorial staff so aides and voluteers would do that work, and in the same month increased the CEO's salary by $100,000. I agree with you that Medicine is not a charity, but it can not be a free-market business either. Of course, they have to balance their books. But if when a hospital is in the red at the end of the fiscal year, they can have a campaign asking for public donations to balance their books. And, they can go to state and federal agencies asking for "emergency funds" How many truly free-market businesses can compete on such unequal playing fields ? As said before, hospitals have a special place in society, and as such, have some special (non-emotional) expectations and obligations to serve the public. ETA: I forgot to mention "training hospitals" Some hospitals get special compensations from governments by providing "training" to medical personnel. As such, they are often (very often) getting high-trained employees for below-market salaries. Last edited by Lamplighter; 03-30-2012 at 10:22 AM. |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|