Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Whistleblowers and Obama Health Care


Off-Topic Discussions

1 to 50 of 352 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

Given that the Obama administration has prosecuted more whistleblowers than all previous administrations combined and given the sordid history of the federal government and health care scandals (Walter Reed, the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, MK Ultra, radiation experiments on US Soldiers, medical experiments on the mentally ill/mentally handicapped, the list goes on and on and on), shouldn't that be a red flag against putting this administration in control of what happens to our bodies?

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

Because corporations have so much a greater track record.

Putting aside the hyperbole, it comes down to this.

Is the pre-Obama system of handling medical care working on a state and national level. No, because the most expensive healthcare system in the world is delivering the least value for the consumer dollar. We also have hospitals going under financially because they have to treat all emergency cases whether they can pay or not.

What we need is a national health care plan. That unfortunately got sunk in the water, so what we have is a compromise that still heavily favors health care providers.

Unfortunately the major truth is that there is no way to fix health care unless everyone is brought on board, elsewise we have the aforementioned problem of uninsured care.

Precedent.. You are required to have insurance if you drive a vehicle. I don't think anyone is seriously going to argue to repeal that rule.

There's no shortage of people taking cheap shots at Obamacare. What's lacking however is a pratical alternative means to address the myriad probolems of the healthcare system that led to it's genesis.

Am I totally happy with Obamacare as it exists? No. I think that any solution short of a national health care program is a half-assed bandaid approach at best. But half-assed bandaid approaches are the only things that are going to pass in the FUD that gets raises when people bring up a national health care answer.


LazerX, there are several problems with your argument

1.) SOME, but certainly not all, corporations have a worse track record. On the other hand, all federal governments that the US has had have had a worse track record. Yes, we've only had one federal government, but that's part of the point. We have no other federal government to turn to when the one we have is acting unethical. Yes, we can change who is President, but a quick look at history will show that changing who is President has never gotten rid of the underlying problems.

2.) You've presented a false dilemma. We can certainly change our health care system without putting that health care in the hands of a government which gave us the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment.

3.) There's no evidence that we need a national health care plan. The fact that the current system doesn't work doesn't mean that our only other option is to turn to a government which gave us the Walter Reed scandal.


I have to agree with Lazar here. The government is a bunch of knuckleheads on many things, but when it comes to healthcare it's better them than a corporation that has a vested financial interest in refusing me healthcare. Our current healthcare system f~+@s with people more than any of the socialized systems out there. Obamacare is a half-assed system, and the supreme court is going to shoot it down as unconstitutional, but it's better than what we have now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darkwing Duck wrote:

LazerX, there are several problems with your argument

1.) SOME, but certainly not all, corporations have a worse track record. On the other hand, all federal governments that the US has had have had a worse track record. Yes, we've only had one federal government, but that's part of the point. We have no other federal government to turn to when the one we have is acting unethical. Yes, we can change who is President, but a quick look at history will show that changing who is President has never gotten rid of the underlying problems.

Who says socialized medicine has to be governed by the federal government? It could be governed at the state level, which I personally think might be a better idea. Not sure I want a government govering as large an area of ours to try and handle the entire medical system. I'd rather the state governments do it.

Quote:
2.) You've presented a false dilemma. We can certainly change our health care system without putting that health care in the hands of a government which gave us the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment.

Yet that keeps healthcare in the hands of those who have no reason not to refuse our treatment based off of any technicality they can find.

Quote:
3.) There's no evidence that we need a national health care plan.

The inability of the lower class to gain any sort of healthcare isn't sufficient?

Quote:
The fact that the current system doesn't work doesn't mean that our only other option is to turn to a government which gave us the Walter Reed scandal.

Better them than the corporations that are primarily motivated by profit. Profit is a s$+$ty motivator when it comes to healthcare.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting Subscriber

I'm British and I love the fact that I can go into my doctors at any time for any medical problem and not have to pay anything. I have friends who have all sorts of medical problems and they have all been treated for free by our National Health Service regardless of income, social standing or medical condition.

Just put it like this. No government since the 1940's has said that they want to privatise the NHS. Why? Because it would be electoral suicide.

The last thing you should be worried about if you get ill is whether you can afford it or whether your insurance covers it and whilst our system isn't perfect it benefits hugely from the fact that no patient gets charged for their healthcare.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Darkwing Duck wrote:

LazerX, there are several problems with your argument

1.) SOME, but certainly not all, corporations have a worse track record. On the other hand, all federal governments that the US has had have had a worse track record. Yes, we've only had one federal government, but that's part of the point. We have no other federal government to turn to when the one we have is acting unethical. Yes, we can change who is President, but a quick look at history will show that changing who is President has never gotten rid of the underlying problems.

2.) You've presented a false dilemma. We can certainly change our health care system without putting that health care in the hands of a government which gave us the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment.

3.) There's no evidence that we need a national health care plan. The fact that the current system doesn't work doesn't mean that our only other option is to turn to a government which gave us the Walter Reed scandal.

You've proved my basic point... It's far easier to attack an approach than to actually come up with a workable alternative.

It's also misstating the case, The White House isn't looking to oversee every medical provider in the country. What we have is a healthcare system that has major problems with providing healthcare.

The Bulk of these problems are two fold. The relative lack of affordable and comprehensive health care plans, and the growing number of unfinanced emergency healthcare that the lack of the first generates.


4 out of 5 doctors agree that health care wasn't badly broken in the first place.

4 out of 5 doctors agree the national healthcare act, even with a mandate would not fix the underlying cause of the broken healthcare system.

5 out of 5 doctors agree that healthcare for profit is the root cause of the healthcare system being broken.

The fix, there isn't one. We can only hope for the least broken system is used.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darkwing Duck wrote:
... shouldn't that be a red flag against putting this administration in control of what happens to our bodies?

.

His time is almost over.

Romney is going to have robot-battle parts
installed into all our bodies.

.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
Given that the Obama administration has prosecuted more whistleblowers than all previous administrations combined and given the sordid history of the federal government and health care scandals (Walter Reed, the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, MK Ultra, radiation experiments on US Soldiers, medical experiments on the mentally ill/mentally handicapped, the list goes on and on and on), shouldn't that be a red flag against putting this administration in control of what happens to our bodies?

Yes and that is why Progressives like Cenk Uyugar have criticized him for stopping whistleblowers. Maybe have a law to protect whistleblowers with national care is the way to go.

I think having the state government will not pass becuase of conservative interests in state legislatures and the inability for national media to cover state issues. Also not all states would pass it probably and then this could cause immigration for healthcare.


As chairman of the Commonwealth Party of Galt (M-L), I hereby assure all of you that the first thing the victorious international proletarian socialist revolution will do is provide free health care to all human beings. After that, we'll provide free care to all of your pets and farm animals. And after that, we'll round up Citizen Duck and enclose him in a five by five cell with nothing but a computer that can only get the Paizo Off-Topic Discussion forum on the internet.

Vive le Galt!


doctor_wu wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
Given that the Obama administration has prosecuted more whistleblowers than all previous administrations combined and given the sordid history of the federal government and health care scandals (Walter Reed, the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, MK Ultra, radiation experiments on US Soldiers, medical experiments on the mentally ill/mentally handicapped, the list goes on and on and on), shouldn't that be a red flag against putting this administration in control of what happens to our bodies?

Yes and that is why Progressives like Cenk Uyugar have criticized him for stopping whistleblowers. Maybe have a law to protect whistleblowers with national care is the way to go.

I think having the state government will not pass becuase of conservative interests in state legislatures and the inability for national media to cover state issues. Also not all states would pass it probably and then this could cause immigration for healthcare.

Also because of all sorts of interstate issues. Too many ways to game the system. If a state implements a British style free at point of service system, can out of state people take advantage of it? Can you retire to a state with a better health care system, preferably funded by income/payroll taxes so you don't have to pay into it? Can you not move to a different state to retire?

If you're going to require similar systems in states to avoid these problems, then it's going to require federal regulation anyway.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

As chairman of the Commonwealth Party of Galt (M-L), I hereby assure all of you that the first thing the victorious international proletarian socialist revolution will do is provide free health care to all human beings. After that, we'll provide free care to all of your pets and farm animals. And after that, we'll round up Citizen Duck and enclose him in a five by five cell with nothing but a computer that can only get the Paizo Off-Topic Discussion forum on the internet.

Vive le Galt!

Is that to punish him? Or all of us?


The Glorious People's Revolution does not believe in punishment, Comrade Jeff, only rehabilitation.

We'd just do it for shiznit and giggles.


thejeff wrote:


Also because of all sorts of interstate issues. Too many ways to game the system. If a state implements a British style free at point of service system, can out of state people take advantage of it? Can you retire to a state with a better health care system, preferably funded by income/payroll taxes so you don't have to pay into it? Can you not move to a different state to retire?
If you're going to require similar systems in states to avoid these problems, then it's going to require federal regulation anyway.

Almost every government our Federal leaders point to as examples of how a Federeal health care plan will work has the exact same characteristics you claim will prevent such a health care plan from working at the state level. You claim that a person may be able to retire to a state with a better health care system. Yet, the same thing could be said about somebody in one of the 'model' plans (forex. the French health care system) moving a couple of hundred miles to retire in, for example, Germany.


I should say that in all seriousness, I think Obamacare is a joke and that it is going to make things worse. I don't even think a single-payer option is adequate (free health care now!), but the watered-down, HMO-enriching, shiznit that got passed is the type of Democratic Party mediocrity that gives "socialism" its caricatured appearance in the eyes of the American heartland.

On this one, I side with your conservative, blue collar uncle: "They're going to make us pay more for less."


Darkwing Duck wrote:
thejeff wrote:


Also because of all sorts of interstate issues. Too many ways to game the system. If a state implements a British style free at point of service system, can out of state people take advantage of it? Can you retire to a state with a better health care system, preferably funded by income/payroll taxes so you don't have to pay into it? Can you not move to a different state to retire?
If you're going to require similar systems in states to avoid these problems, then it's going to require federal regulation anyway.
Almost every government our Federal leaders point to as examples of how a Federeal health care plan will work has the exact same characteristics you claim will prevent such a health care plan from working at the state level. You claim that a person may be able to retire to a state with a better health care system. Yet, the same thing could be said about somebody in one of the 'model' plans (forex. the French health care system) moving a couple of hundred miles to retire in, for example, Germany.

You may be right about that. There are a lot of problems with the loose federation model of the EU, most evident right now in the various debt crises. This would be another potential flaw.

Of course, the European systems were (almost?) all set up long before the EU and were designed and worked for a national model. Attempts to weaken them now face fierce resistance. We'll see what happens with time.
A US state-based system would have race-to-the-bottom built in from the start.


thejeff wrote:

A US state-based system would have race-to-the-bottom built in from the start.

If by 'race to the bottom' you mean 'diversity of health care systems which enables each state to custom tailor its system according to that state's particular needs' then I agree.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

I should say that in all seriousness, I think Obamacare is a joke and that it is going to make things worse. I don't even think a single-payer option is adequate (free health care now!), but the watered-down, HMO-enriching, shiznit that got passed is the type of Democratic Party mediocrity that gives "socialism" its caricatured appearance in the eyes of the American heartland.

On this one, I side with your conservative, blue collar uncle: "They're going to make us pay more for less."

I am grateful that we don't have a single payer system because I beleive that our best chances of getting medical marijuana covered by insurance lie in the free market.


I had a friend who moved to California last year. She was trying to motivate me to go with her and her pitch inevitably ended up with "they've got legal weed, Doodlebug!"

Bah! I've been scoring pretty regularly for the last 20 years with it being illegal. Free market? Gimme the black market!

Or better yet, give me international proletarian socialist revolution.

Vive le [bubble bubble bubble]!


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

I had a friend who moved to California last year. She was trying to motivate me to go with her and her pitch inevitably ended up with "they've got legal weed, Doodlebug!"

Bah! I've been scoring pretty regularly for the last 20 years with it being illegal. Free market? Gimme the black market!

Or better yet, give me international proletarian socialist revolution.

Vive le [bubble bubble bubble]!

Some jobs require regular blood tests. As I work in computer security, I'm in one of them. Note, also, that as my back problems are progressive, there is a high probability that I will need to go on permanent disability within ten years (this is what my doctor told me - he, also, told me that most people with an MRI like mine are already on permanent disability - he was very surprised that I've been able to return to work, so it may happen sooner than later). So, cheap access is, also, important to me. With the drugs I'm on now, I am seriously sleep deprived (I had about a 30 hour deficit last week). MJ may help me sleep and deal with the pain and stress.


You know if socialized medicine is so bad why are the republicans relying on it so much? I mean you would think they wouldn't want their healthcare packages as congressmen if it was so bad.


You'd also think that if private jets are so bad that the Democrats and their supporters wouldn't have any. Fact is, they all suck. All of them.

They deserve to rot alive, IMHO, but since we can't inject them with Phyresis, we're stuck with them making our legal, tax, and healthcare system stink of decayed flesh. Literally in that last case.


Why do people continue to believe that the so-called "Obamacare" involves a government take-over of healthcare? It doesn't. Insurance companies will continue to control the capital, and thus the industry.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Abraham spalding wrote:
You know if socialized medicine is so bad why are the republicans relying on it so much? I mean you would think they wouldn't want their healthcare packages as congressmen if it was so bad.

Socialized medicine is "bad" for rich people. The data suggests it works better than what we have now for pretty much everyone else.*

Congressional healthcare, on the other hand, isn't sustainable across the entire population.

* Damn, there goes that "class warfare" again.


bugleyman wrote:
Why do people continue to believe that the so-called "Obamacare" involves a government take-over of healthcare? It doesn't. Insurance companies will continue to control the capital, and thus the industry.

I know. That's why I hate it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Why do people continue to believe that the so-called "Obamacare" involves a government take-over of healthcare? It doesn't. Insurance companies will continue to control the capital, and thus the industry.
I know. That's why I hate it.

Fair enough. I know if I were an actual socialist I would be insulted whenever people call Obama one.

At least you hate it for an actual reason. ;-)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Machaeus wrote:

You'd also think that if private jets are so bad that the Democrats and their supporters wouldn't have any. Fact is, they all suck. All of them.

They deserve to rot alive, IMHO, but since we can't inject them with Phyresis, we're stuck with them making our legal, tax, and healthcare system stink of decayed flesh. Literally in that last case.

The difference is the republicans are actively betting against the government working and then trying to get into position to prove themselves right. That's bad for all of us since if they prove themselves right then our government is trashed and we are in a bad place.

If the democrats are proven right then we simply have a working government that provides services.

One crashes our society the other doesn't.

The funny thing is all this talk of 'restoring our country' but they don't actually want to return consumer protections, union defense, and monopoly busting as well.

I'm sorry I don't want to go back to how things were, I want to progress to a better society.

Shadow Lodge

Darkwing Duck wrote:
Given that the Obama administration has prosecuted more whistleblowers than all previous administrations combined and given the sordid history of the federal government and health care scandals (Walter Reed, the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, MK Ultra, radiation experiments on US Soldiers, medical experiments on the mentally ill/mentally handicapped, the list goes on and on and on), shouldn't that be a red flag against putting this administration in control of what happens to our bodies?

Your criticism seems oddly specific given your list of indictments. Would you trust ANY administration with your healthcare since.. you know, the Obama administration wasn't responsible for anything on your list?

Shadow Lodge

Abraham Spalding wrote:
The funny thing is all this talk of 'restoring our country' but they don't actually want to return consumer protections, union defense, and monopoly busting as well.

They're restoring our country to 1900, when everything was perfect!


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
Given that the Obama administration has prosecuted more whistleblowers than all previous administrations combined and given the sordid history of the federal government and health care scandals (Walter Reed, the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, MK Ultra, radiation experiments on US Soldiers, medical experiments on the mentally ill/mentally handicapped, the list goes on and on and on), shouldn't that be a red flag against putting this administration in control of what happens to our bodies?
Your criticism seems oddly specific given your list of indictments. Would you trust ANY administration with your healthcare since.. you know, the Obama administration wasn't responsible for anything on your list?

I think the whole "Republican vs. Democrat" thing is profoundly stupid and reduces any political discussion in the US to something most often seen on school playgrounds. Let's try to get past the "Republicans can beat up Democrats!" "Uh, uh, Democrats can beat up Republicans!" crap..please?

Let's instead look at individual policies without concern for who made it and focus on the consequences and results of that policy.

As for whether the Obama administration was in office during any of those events, why is that relevant? You do realize that the Obama administration will one day no longer be in office, don't you? Someone else will be. Hell, the federal government may even end up dominated by people who are diametrically and aggressively opposed to your personal politics. Always ask yourself when looking to expand the federal government what will/could happen if people who vehemently disagree with you end up in office and end up with the power you are so willing to give your favorite administration.

Shadow Lodge

Darkwing Duck wrote:
I think the whole "Republican vs. Democrat" thing is profoundly stupid and reduces any political discussion in the US to something most often seen on school playgrounds. Let's try to get past the "Republicans can beat up Democrats!" "Uh, uh, Democrats can beat up Republicans!" crap..please?

Exactly what part of your post was supposed to do that?

You're linking two completely separate things: the whistle-blower prosecutions and the health care bill.

You're specifically talking about trusting this administration, rather than the US government in general.

You're blaming this administration for a long history of human rights abuses.

In short you're chucking an entire cheesecake while deriding the food fight in the cafeteria.

Quote:
Let's instead look at individual policies without concern for who made it and focus on the consequences and results of that policy.

Alright... lets look how we got here.

Someone gets cancer or shows up in the ER with a machete sticking out of their head you can't not treat them.

When the hospital treats them the hospital still needs to get paid for it, because Doctors and nurses aren't cheap, nor are chemicals, the building, equipment, supplies...

That money has to come from somewhere.

Either they charge the people who can pay more (which ironically decreases the number of people who can pay), or have the government pay them. If the government pays it costs the government money and gives people less incentive to buy health insurance.

Option 1) Continue as is. People get insurance through their employer. This will get more and more expensive to the government both with the increasing cost of healthcare as well as the growing numbers of people who need the government to pay it for them in times of crisis.

Pros: We know how well it works, the status quo is god

Cons: Lots of uninsured people, and getting healthcare from your employer is more complicated today when people change careers like the weather as opposed to working in the same factory for 40 years.

Option 1.5: Public Option: The government basically opens its own health insurance company. You're on this program unless you buy private insurence.

Pros: Universal coverage
Cons: Government involvement with the poor.

Option 2) Single Payer. The government uses money from the general fund to pay for the doctors. The upside is that everyone gets medical care. The downside is people have little/no incentive not to run to the doctor for every little thing, overwhelming the system. The government may also start offering so little compensation to doctors in an effort to save taxpayer money that the doctors close, can't repay their student loans, or decide screw this I'm going into engineering.

Pros: Covers anyone, theoretically the simplest solution with the least overhead

Cons: Government involvement

Option 2) Obamacare (if they didn't want me to call it that they should have come up with a catchier name than Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) Everyone HAS to buy insurance. If the government think you don't earn enough they'll help you, there's a number of problems with it.

I absolutely hate this plan. First off, the federal government has no authority to compel me to buy an overpriced product that i don't want and don't need for the privilege of breathing. Its an unprecedented expansion of government power with some pretty serious ramifications.

Secondly, its a non progressive tax on the lower middle class. The government doesn't consider where you live, just how much you make. So if you're working in new york city on 35,000 dollars a year (which might let you afford a cardboard box if you're lucky) The government mandates that you buy insurance that meets certain requirements... to the tune of about 300 dollars a month. Young people without kids overpay in order to subsidize older people and people with children. Theoretically the program will still be in place to subsidize them when they're older, but that plan hasn't worked out so well for General motors or our social security program.

Pros: Universal coverage
Cons: Sets a very abuse prone precedent for the expansion of government authority, Entangles Government and Health insurance companies into a quasi extra arm of government, and is effectively a regressive tax on the people who can least afford it.


I have one problem with Obamacare...making it MANDATORY that you must have healthcare and then getting FINED for not having it. DOn't throw car insurance in the mix as precendence. That's crap. Car insurance is there to protect yourself from the other idiot(s) behind the wheel.

I've got a better idea. Everyone gets 100% coverage until your 18th birthday. After that, figure it out on your own. Can't get it. Then cope. I did for 10 years and would do it again.

How about eliminate any and all programs that fall under the crappiest word in the english language: ENTITLEMENT. No one is entitled to anything.

I now await the inevitable firing squad for my inflammatory perspective.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gendo wrote:
How about eliminate any and all programs that fall under the crappiest word in the english language: ENTITLEMENT. No one is entitled to anything.

Entitlement isn't anything specific, its more or less a republican buzzword for "Government payouts that aren't going to me"

You're talking about ending social security, which is monstrously unfair to people who've had a sizable chunk of their paycheck taken from them for decades.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

There are a lot of health care progressives that aren't very happy with the Obama plan. Many voted against it, on the charge that it wasn't progressive enough, hoping for better. Many Republicans voted against it on the general theory that Obama can't be permitted an actual success, if the goal is to recapture the White House in the next election.

The last part is why our ship of government is sinking with no sign of any real hope. The polarization of government has devolved into the following scenario... The party currently out of power spends it's time stonewalling and sabotaging the party in power. Meantime thanks to the latest SCOTUS decision in the matter the elimination of the ceiling for campaign contributions means everyone in office spends the bulk of their time building their warchest for their next election.

You can be Democrat, Republican, or Independent, and find justifiable reason to damm those who brought us to this state of affairs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gendo wrote:
I have one problem with Obamacare...making it MANDATORY that you must have healthcare and then getting FINED for not having it. DOn't throw car insurance in the mix as precendence. That's crap. Car insurance is there to protect yourself from the other idiot(s) behind the wheel.

Actually it is there for other people to be protected from you being stupid and raising their costs by crashing their property without the means of paying for their car.

Like the woman that last weekend ran a redlight and slammed her car into my wife's car. The woman didn't have car insurance.

The health care mandate requires you to put something up so if you get hurt in a catastrophic manner without the means to pay for it when the government covers it they've already collected some from you to help.

Also the mandate does come with subsidies to help cover your costs if you do get insurance.

Honestly we already have socialized medicine this is simply admitting to what is going on and charging those that make reckless decisions for their decisions. Personal responsibility.

Shadow Lodge

Abraham spalding wrote:
Gendo wrote:
I have one problem with Obamacare...making it MANDATORY that you must have healthcare and then getting FINED for not having it. DOn't throw car insurance in the mix as precendence. That's crap. Car insurance is there to protect yourself from the other idiot(s) behind the wheel.
Actually it is there for other people to be protected from you being stupid and raising their costs by crashing their property without the means of paying for their car.

Except that my cheeto habbit hurts my heart, not yours. Some numbnuts driving with no insurence is a danger to others.

Quote:
The health care mandate requires you to put something up so if you get hurt in a catastrophic manner without the means to pay for it when the government covers it they've already collected some from you to help.

No, the money you're putting up is going to a private insurance company so THEY can pay for their sick old, and hurt.

And what if i don't want to tell an insurance company which parts of my body are getting explored by a camera? Or if I don't want to tell an insurance company how many cups of coffee a day i drink?

The government cannot simply subcontract out the ability to demand personal information.

Quote:


Also the mandate does come with subsidies to help cover your costs if you do get insurance.

They are grossly insufficient in places with high costs of living and high costs of health insurance.

Quote:


Honestly we already have socialized medicine this is simply admitting to what is going on and charging those that make reckless decisions for their decisions. Personal responsibility.

There's nothing lacking in personal responsibility about not buying overpriced health insurance. I get sick, i hand the doctor a Benjamin, he writes me a script for the pill.

Anything larger is supposed to be covered under medicaid, thats why they've been taking it out of my paycheck.

The system pretty much admits that its overcharging certain people to make up for lost revenue with others.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here's the simple solution. Tell Mitt Romney and company that they have to pay 30% on capital gains the way we do on income. Free penicillin and hookers for everyone. Done.


Currently there is plenty wrong with it -- you get coverage even if you can't pay... which means I end up paying for it, no matter what the condition is.

The system is already socialized, those that don't have healthcare coverage cause the prices to go up for the rest of us.

But personally I would rather see the health insurance industry go the way of the dodo -- it's a bloated tick on our health care system and needs to be burned off.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
thejeff wrote:


Also because of all sorts of interstate issues. Too many ways to game the system. If a state implements a British style free at point of service system, can out of state people take advantage of it? Can you retire to a state with a better health care system, preferably funded by income/payroll taxes so you don't have to pay into it? Can you not move to a different state to retire?
If you're going to require similar systems in states to avoid these problems, then it's going to require federal regulation anyway.
Almost every government our Federal leaders point to as examples of how a Federeal health care plan will work has the exact same characteristics you claim will prevent such a health care plan from working at the state level. You claim that a person may be able to retire to a state with a better health care system. Yet, the same thing could be said about somebody in one of the 'model' plans (forex. the French health care system) moving a couple of hundred miles to retire in, for example, Germany.

Nope, it's integrated. If I go into a german hospital, the french Sécurité Sociale is billed (unless I happen to work in Germany, in which I also have a german social security number; goes with nationality and place of work).

And why would I move to another country to get treatment ? What's the point ?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Abraham spalding wrote:


But personally I would rather see the health insurance industry go the way of the dodo -- it's a bloated tick on our health care system and needs to be burned off.

That's not going to happen. They've got the deep pockets and the lobbyists to buy up enough of Congress to keep them at the trough. They flexed that muscle in diluting Obama's health care initiatives to what we have at present.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:


But personally I would rather see the health insurance industry go the way of the dodo -- it's a bloated tick on our health care system and needs to be burned off.
That's not going to happen. They've got the deep pockets and the lobbyists to buy up enough of Congress to keep them at the trough. They flexed that muscle in diluting Obama's health care initiatives to what we have at present.

I'm realize that -- I was simply restating personal preference.


In essence, ninjaed by BNW. You specifically say "this administration" with respect to past horrid practices- it's a soft connection as opposed to a hard one, but it still insinuates. If you don't like Obama or his administration, fine, but don't try to quietly link things completely unrelated to it.

Darkwing Duck wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
Given that the Obama administration has prosecuted more whistleblowers than all previous administrations combined and given the sordid history of the federal government and health care scandals (Walter Reed, the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, MK Ultra, radiation experiments on US Soldiers, medical experiments on the mentally ill/mentally handicapped, the list goes on and on and on), shouldn't that be a red flag against putting this administration in control of what happens to our bodies?
Your criticism seems oddly specific given your list of indictments. Would you trust ANY administration with your healthcare since.. you know, the Obama administration wasn't responsible for anything on your list?

I think the whole "Republican vs. Democrat" thing is profoundly stupid and reduces any political discussion in the US to something most often seen on school playgrounds. Let's try to get past the "Republicans can beat up Democrats!" "Uh, uh, Democrats can beat up Republicans!" crap..please?

Let's instead look at individual policies without concern for who made it and focus on the consequences and results of that policy.

As for whether the Obama administration was in office during any of those events, why is that relevant? You do realize that the Obama administration will one day no longer be in office, don't you? Someone else will be. Hell, the federal government may even end up dominated by people who are diametrically and aggressively opposed to your personal politics. Always ask yourself when looking to expand the federal government what will/could happen if people who vehemently disagree with you end up in office and end up with the power you are so willing to give your favorite administration.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Freehold DM wrote:
In essence, ninjaed by BNW. You specifically say "this administration" with respect to past horrid practices- it's a soft connection as opposed to a hard one, but it still insinuates. If you don't like Obama or his administration, fine, but don't try to quietly link things completely unrelated to it.

Don't you know Freehold? Any time a Republican makes a mistake it HAS to be the Democrat's fault. Especially if the Democrat replaced the Republican.


Smarnil le couard wrote:
And why would I move to another country to get treatment ? What's the point ?

Sorry, it's just that that's the only option for US citizens at this point, and we assume it's the same throughout the world. :P


Hitdice wrote:
Smarnil le couard wrote:
And why would I move to another country to get treatment ? What's the point ?
Sorry, it's just that that's the only option for US citizens at this point, and we assume it's the same throughout the world. :P

Military service comes with healthcare -- as does civil service.

I'm beginning to wonder if all the teabagger candidates aren't just in it for the healthcare.


Gendo wrote:

I have one problem with Obamacare...making it MANDATORY that you must have healthcare and then getting FINED for not having it. DOn't throw car insurance in the mix as precendence. That's crap. Car insurance is there to protect yourself from the other idiot(s) behind the wheel.

I've got a better idea. Everyone gets 100% coverage until your 18th birthday. After that, figure it out on your own. Can't get it. Then cope. I did for 10 years and would do it again.

How about eliminate any and all programs that fall under the crappiest word in the english language: ENTITLEMENT. No one is entitled to anything.

I now await the inevitable firing squad for my inflammatory perspective.

I don't agree with everything you said, Gendo, but I see where you are coming from.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
I think the whole "Republican vs. Democrat" thing is profoundly stupid and reduces any political discussion in the US to something most often seen on school playgrounds. Let's try to get past the "Republicans can beat up Democrats!" "Uh, uh, Democrats can beat up Republicans!" crap..please?

Exactly what part of your post was supposed to do that?

You're linking two completely separate things: the whistle-blower prosecutions and the health care bill.

You're specifically talking about trusting this administration, rather than the US government in general.

You're blaming this administration for a long history of human rights abuses.

In short you're chucking an entire cheesecake while deriding the food fight in the cafeteria.

Quote:
Let's instead look at individual policies without concern for who made it and focus on the consequences and results of that policy.

Alright... lets look how we got here.

Someone gets cancer or shows up in the ER with a machete sticking out of their head you can't not treat them.

When the hospital treats them the hospital still needs to get paid for it, because Doctors and nurses aren't cheap, nor are chemicals, the building, equipment, supplies...

That money has to come from somewhere.

Either they charge the people who can pay more (which ironically decreases the number of people who can pay), or have the government pay them. If the government pays it costs the government money and gives people less incentive to buy health insurance.

Option 1) Continue as is. People get insurance through their employer. This will get more and more expensive to the government both with the increasing cost of healthcare as well as the growing numbers of people who need the government to pay it for them in times of crisis.

Pros: We know how well it works, the status quo is god

Cons: Lots of uninsured people, and getting healthcare from your employer is more complicated today when people change careers like the weather as...

Option #3: International proletarian socialist revolution makes health care free.

This would be very simple:

First, the glorious people's revolution expropriates the bourgeoisie.

Second, we nationalize all the universities and make going to medical school free for everyone who applies. And is smart enough.

Third, we nationalize most, if not all, of the hospitals and the doctors now work for the local Regional Worker's Council.

Fourth, we find all the CEOs and claims adjustors and other evil, faceless, heartless HMO bandits and the Democratic and Republican politicians who aided them in making ungodly amounts of filthy lucre off of our misery and trauma and we BEAT THEM TO DEATH WITH SHOVELS.

Vive le Galt!

Andoran

LazarX wrote:
Don't you know Freehold? Any time a Republican makes a mistake it HAS to be the Democrat's fault. Especially if the Democrat replaced the Republican.

Well said, and sadly ... all too true.

Andoran

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Gendo wrote:
I have one problem with Obamacare...making it MANDATORY that you must have healthcare and then getting FINED for not having it.

Hospital emergency rooms are legally required to treat patients. They can't say 'you do not have insurance so please go sit in the corner while you bleed to death' (or, 'we have been unable to determine whether you have insurance because you are unconscious, if you come too before you bleed to death we'll ask'). Ergo, in a sense the United States already has 'universal health care'.

What the US does NOT have is universal health insurance. So... many people who don't have insurance get bad health care at the emergency rooms... paid for by taxes and higher premiums on people who DO have health insurance.

Thus, the evil hated 'mandate' actually makes people pay their own way rather than 'free-loading off of others'. After all, the 'mandate' is a CONSERVATIVE Republican idea. It was originally proposed by the 'slightly to the right of Atilla the Hun' Heritage Foundation. It was enacted into law by some guy named Mitt Romney who... oh yeah, is running for president as a Republican.

The 'it is not like car insurance' argument is true only in that it demonstrates another reason why you are wrong. You can choose not to drive a car. You cannot choose to not have health. If you do not pay for your own car/health insurance then everyone else has to. Ergo, stop acting so ENTITLED and pay your own way.

1 to 50 of 352 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / Whistleblowers and Obama Health Care All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.