40
   

Congrats USA! Health care for all!! ??

 
 
Rockhead
 
  0  
Reply Tue 6 Sep, 2011 07:10 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
you're right, finn.

poor people don't need health insurance.

they would just abuse it anyway...
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Tue 6 Sep, 2011 07:15 pm
@Rockhead,
A typical limp arrow from the loose string bow of Rockhead.

How did you come up with the notion that I'm suggesting "poor people don't need health insurance?"

You know you're complete disreagrd for what people are actually writing might be OK is your posts were clever, but they are about as clever as the lame jokes appearing on coasters in a bar.
Rockhead
 
  0  
Reply Tue 6 Sep, 2011 07:16 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
it's your...

glad you are feeling up to bashing folks tonight.

must suck to be you...
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Tue 6 Sep, 2011 07:19 pm
@Rockhead,
No actually it is quite pleasent to be me. I enjoy it immensly.

By the way, please resist the urge to reply when this sort of tripe is all you have. I'm actually feeling sorry for you, and I really don't want to.
Rockhead
 
  0  
Reply Tue 6 Sep, 2011 07:21 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
to quote a great republican, Joe Wilson, "you lie".

but we all know that.

what percentage of Texas is without health coverage now?
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Tue 6 Sep, 2011 07:23 pm
@Rockhead,
What the hell are you gibbering about?

I assure you that I am not lying, I really do feel sorry for you.
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Sep, 2011 07:27 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
we may have identified one of the problems with conservatives.

they don't seem to know the difference between sneering down their nose, and having feelings.

interesting...
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Sep, 2011 08:21 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

JPB wrote:

I wasn't talking about government financed healthcare. I was talking about individual taxpayer financed healthcare. I think if folks had to pay the cost of their insuance/healthcare for a while we would very quickly settle on a single payer model. Whether that single payer became the government is a different question.


Who else might the "single payer" be?

Your logic is twisted.

If folks had to pay for 100% of their healthcare, they might very well reduce frivilous usage and they might long for a "single payer" to cover the cost for them, but once they had the latter, they would certainly give up on the former.


Maybe. I envision a couple different scenarios. First, it will take a very short period of time before folks realize that we can't afford unlimited healthcare for everyone. The debate will be in defining the limit -- a certain level of healthcare provided for everyone based on a certain cost. I would like to see it end up on a local level a la education whereby a certain minimum standard must be met, the community must raise funds to meet that standard and those communities who would like to fund higher levels may do so.

Second, It wouldn't take long before we run into "no child left behind" type debacle where the feds think they need to be involved, but that would put us right back where we are today unless we throw out the existing dynamic and begin anew.

Yes, I am a dreamer....
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Sep, 2011 09:22 pm
@Rockhead,
You crack me up Rocky.

You drop into a thread and toss a sh*t grenade my way and then whine about me returning the favor.

If you didn't constantly park yourself under my nose and demand a sneer, your feelings wouldn't get hurt.
Rockhead
 
  0  
Reply Wed 7 Sep, 2011 09:37 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
you don't hurt my feelings, you insult my intelligence...

go away.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Sep, 2011 09:59 pm
@JPB,
JPB wrote:


Maybe. I envision a couple different scenarios. First, it will take a very short period of time before folks realize that we can't afford unlimited healthcare for everyone. The debate will be in defining the limit -- a certain level of healthcare provided for everyone based on a certain cost. I would like to see it end up on a local level a la education whereby a certain minimum standard must be met, the community must raise funds to meet that standard and those communities who would like to fund higher levels may do so.

Second, It wouldn't take long before we run into "no child left behind" type debacle where the feds think they need to be involved, but that would put us right back where we are today unless we throw out the existing dynamic and begin anew.

Yes, I am a dreamer....


Yes, you are a dreamer, but not in the way you think.

If people have to pay for 100% of their own healthcare most will be far more judicious in terms of what they seek. They won't run to the doctor when they have the sniffles, they won't insist on an MRI for all sorts of minor complaints, and they won't be as quick to fill their medicine cabinet with scores of pills they don't really need

However, when they need extra-ordinary medical attention (either for themselves or their loved ones), most will do whatever they have to, to get the money to pay for it.

There is only one entity possible in a single-payer system: The Government. The term is code for socialized medicine. If that's what you feel works best for people, fine but call a spade a spade.

People are not going to retain, and more importantly, pass on to their progeny the frugality they learned from paying 100% themselves once The Government picks up the tab.

As a result, The Government will have to ration healthcare.

In your dream perhaps you can get everyone to agree on limitations, but not in the waking world.

Before you suggest that they have, Canadians and Brits have not agreed upon the healthcare limitations imposed by their socialized medicine programs.

They may live with the limits because they feel like they have no choice, and when they don't run up against a limit themselves, the limits probably don't bother them, but there was never a national consensus in Canada or the UK on what degree of rationing was acceptable.

Moreover, if someone in Canada or the UK can come up with the money, their healthcare will not be limited by national guidelines. So who really has to make do with the necessary limitations? The aged and terminally ill who are poor.

A world in which the aged poor and the terminally ill are deemed too bad a bet for the community to pay for their healthcare is hardly the stuff of dreams.

In any case, how does this sort of rationing signifigantly differ from the rationing that would take place in a totally free market approach?

More poor children would probably perish under one than the other, but neither will provide for all.

Do you think that you can develop a consensus in your dream world such that everyone agrees poor children are more vital to society than their elderly mothers and fathers?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not mocking your idea of socialized medicine, only the notion that you think of it as something aspirational and so favorable as to conjure the magic of dreams.

Healthcare for all is indeed a large problem, but there is no perfect solution.

Whether the system is governed by the market or bureaucrats, some people are going to come out on the short end of the stick.

I have greater faith in the market than in bureaucrats.










Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Sep, 2011 10:01 pm
@Rockhead,
I don't think I will, but you're more than welcome to.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  0  
Reply Thu 8 Sep, 2011 01:30 pm
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/legal-challenges/180231-appeals-court-dismisses-key-challenge-to-healthcare-law-?tmpl=component&print=1&page=
Quote:

Appeals court shoots down Virginia's healthcare challenge
By Sam Baker - 09/08/11 12:11 PM ET

A federal appeals court on Thursday dismissed one of the highest-profile challenges to President Obama's healthcare reform law.


The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals said Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R) does not have a legal right to sue over the law's requirement that most people buy insurance. The court vacated a lower court's ruling in the case and instructed the lower court to dismiss the suit.

The Supreme Court is almost certain to have the final say on whether the coverage mandate is constitutional. Most legal observers expect the court to hear arguments during the term that begins in October, and rule in the summer of 2012.

The 4th Circuit’s long-awaited decision isn’t a huge surprise: those who attended oral arguments in the suits said the judges seemed skeptical of the mandate’s critics, especially Cuccinelli. All three of the judges who heard the case were appointed by Democratic presidents, and two were appointed by Obama.

The mandate has a mixed record in federal appeals courts. The 6th Circuit upheld the requirement in a June decision, while the 11th Circuit — which heard the high-profile challenge filed by 26 state attorneys general — ruled that the mandate is unconstitutional.

Unlike those 26 states, Cuccinelli sued on the grounds that enforcing the mandate would violate Virginia law. As Congress moved closer to passing healthcare reform, Virginia enacted a law that says state residents can’t be forced to purchase insurance.

But the 4th Circuit panel said Virginia does not have standing to sue over the mandate because it lacks a "personal stake" in the issue.

The judges seemed concerned during oral arguments that allowing his suit to proceed would essentially allow the states to exempt themselves from whatever federal laws they might choose.


0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Sep, 2011 01:15 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
I'm going to keep this short because I'm too pissed off with the insurance industry right now to keep my cool.

First, I'm all in favor of health care rationing. Decide on a level of funding that we can afford and choose the health care it will provide, or choose the level of health care we want and define a structure to pay for it.

Quote:
In any case, how does this sort of rationing signifigantly differ from the rationing that would take place in a totally free market approach?


Because the free market approach doesn't want to cover sick people and they have the authority to drop them at will. Under a single payer option EVERYONE gets a set amount of coverage. Want more? Buy it.

I liked much of Paul Ryan's proposal except the voucher part. He's obviously a young, healthy individual with a good insurance plan. It's equally obvious that the man has never dealt with insurance companies.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  3  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2011 11:47 am
Appeals court upholds Obama health care law

Quote:
A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued a split opinion upholding the law. The court agreed to dismiss a Christian legal group's lawsuit claiming the requirement that all Americans get health insurance is unconstitutional and violates religious freedom.

The requirement has been the subject of several lawsuits, with some judges across the country ruling it unconstitutional and others upholding the law. That means the Supreme Court is sure to decide the fate of Obama's signature law. The high court is expected to decide soon, perhaps within days, whether to accept appeals from some of those earlier rulings.
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Nov, 2011 12:09 pm
@JPB,
We'll know more by June 2012

Quote:
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court said Monday it will hear arguments next March over President Barack Obama's main domestic achievement, health care overhaul, setting up an election year showdown.

The decision to hear arguments in the spring allows plenty of time for a decision in late June, just over four months before Election Day. More
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 14 Nov, 2011 12:29 pm
@JPB,
Quote:
We'll know more by June 2012
In plenty of time to factor into the election, and I suspect the take away will be that Obama spend a year working on a Constitutionally illegitimate health care plan that did not attempt to fix any of the fundamental nation killing flaws of our health care system when he should have been working on jobs.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  0  
Reply Mon 14 Nov, 2011 02:55 pm
I wouldent bet that the conservative arm of the judicial part of government bought by the Koch brothers will give the health care bill a fair shake. After all they made corporations people dident they?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  2  
Reply Wed 11 Jul, 2012 04:49 am
I think that the health care act is one of the better things that Obama has done and I'm all for it. I feel very ambivalent about the madate that everyone must purchase health care. On the one hand, I'm not sure it isn't improper to force people to enter into a business contract, but on the other hand, I'm kind of glad that it's there. In general, though, I am a strong supporter of Obama's health care law. Anyone who would take the law away must have substitute which can guarantee every American affordable health insurance and can start instantly, or else they should shut up. We simply cannot tolerate the continued specter of people going broke to treat their illnesses.
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jul, 2012 03:22 pm
@Brandon9000,
Nicely put Brandon
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 08/30/2014 at 10:12:53