US Government sponsored healthcare... who's footing the bill?


Off-Topic Discussions

101 to 150 of 179 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

5 people marked this as a favorite.
hustonj wrote:
Like anything and everything else, the people who will pay for it are the people who have made good decisions and are earning income that gives them choices.

This is the ideology that is wrong with this country. People thinking that because they have done well or just had good luck, they are entitled to reap the benefits without regard to other people.

Quote:
Insurance companies in the USA are still private corporations, and if they are not profitable they shut their doors.

This is what's wrong with health insurance here. Something as essential as healthcare should not be motivated by profit, it should be motivated by making people healthier. Healthcare is a right not a privilege, and administrating care is a responsibility not a service.

It boils down to the simple fact that our economic system does not value human life. People are a resource, they are capital, but they have no value beyond what companies can get them to pay. That is indentured slavery on a national scale, based on class.

Quote:
Like so much of the modern liberal agenda, this public law takes from those who earn to force them to provide for those who do not.

Are you the guy who when you got the School Tax card in Monopoly said I don't have kids, screw the children! and then thought that was a life lesson?

I want you to look up a word in the dictionary. It's stewardship. It's synonymous with conservation, and steward is synonymous with conservative. At least, by definition. In practice, they are opposites.


Antimony wrote:
This is another good example of where I believe the current law may have missed the mark. If it set up a pool of federal grant dollars to fund all drug research--or better yet, if all drug research was funded by the World Health Organization--prescription drug costs could be lowered significantly from day one at market. (Assuming everything else remains equal, and all that.)

While we're changing stuff, let's change the fact that most research is geared toward finding causes of disease so researchers can publish and make a name for themselves and get grants, as opposed to finding cures for disease which is not rewarded at all in the system.

The Exchange

1) forced to buy from private company. I see this as a huge problem and much worse than government just providing it without other companies involved

2) "You gotta pass this bill to read it" ANYONE to support that does NOT belong in our government.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Andrew R wrote:
1) forced to buy from private company. I see this as a huge problem and much worse than government just providing it without other companies involved

Total agreement.

Quote:
2) "You gotta pass this bill to read it" ANYONE to support that does NOT belong in our government.

Stop paying attention to Glenn Beck, since he's the one responsible for that out-of-context edit.

"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy."

Full context:
From this press release. This was originally on the Speaker's site, but since Boehner took over, it's been redesigned and I can't find it.

Quote:

“You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention—it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting.

But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy. Furthermore, we believe that health care reform, again I said at the beginning of my remarks, that we sent the three pillars that the President’s economic stabilization and job creation initiatives were education and innovation—innovation begins in the classroom— clean energy and climate, addressing the climate issues in an innovative way to keep us number one and competitive in the world with the new technology, and the third, first among equals I may say, is health care, health insurance reform. Health insurance reform is about jobs. This legislation alone will create 4 million jobs, about 400,000 jobs very soon."

Everyone in Congress who cared to read the bill. Extensively. It is their only job, and it was the only topic of debate for quite a while. The speech was given to the National Association of Counties, not to the House of Representatives. The "you" here is a group of concerned taxpayers, not members of Congress, who at this point have had the bill in their hands for a while. The point of the quote, in context, is that because of all of the proposed amendments and the Congressional reconciliation process, taxpayers are unlikely to see the final version of the bill until it is actually passed and its finalized contents can help to dispel the misinformation about the bill (e.g. false suggestions that death panels, a public option, imprisoning the uninsured, etc. are part of the bill).

There's a fair argument to be made here that Congress's methods for passing omnibus bills are messy, but this isn't a case of a bill passed blindly.

P.S. Stop paying attention to Glenn Beck.

The Exchange

i never have seen glen beck. And i doubt enough law makers are reading and understanding many large bills.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Andrew R wrote:
i never have seen glen beck. And i doubt enough law makers are reading and understanding many large bills.

More circular thinking. Members of Congress don't read and understand bills before voting on them. Why? Because of this bill I'm sure that members of Congress didn't read and understand! Why's that? Because members of Congress don't read and understand bills before voting on them!


A Man In Black wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
i never have seen glen beck. And i doubt enough law makers are reading and understanding many large bills.
More circular thinking. Members of Congress don't read and understand bills before voting on them. Why? Because of this bill I'm sure that members of Congress didn't read and understand! Why's that? Because members of Congress don't read and understand bills before voting on them!

Actually... Andrew R is pretty much right on this one.(not about "Obamacare", but about lawmakers not reading bills in general.) Also, The bill referenced in the article failed miserably.

Also, Ive never watched Beck either.


Not reading every bill that's put in front of them apparently isn't all that unusual (even though most people hate him, Michael Moore also proved this regarding the Patriot Act).
Now, that includes bills which you might agree with (on both sides of the political spectrum), so calling out only those bills you disagree with, for not having been read, is incredibly hypocritical.


I agree, GG. The so-called PATRIOT Act is pretty much the single biggest example of why legislation forcing lawmakers to read laws is needed, IMO.


Actually, Andrew R. is way off. Rand's bill was legislation looking for a problem. Almost every piece of legislation IS read, either by the congressperson or their aides, who then give a synopsis to the congressperson. Only the truly lazy don't read the legislation, and they need to be dealt with by their constituencies. This doesn't even take into account that the majority of the legislation is just rehashed from bills that didn't pass years earlier.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

TheWhiteknife wrote:
Actually... Andrew R is pretty much right on this one. Also, The bill referenced in the article failed miserably.

And that bill died in agony because it didn't do anything but introduce an obvious way to extend debate on any subject or prevent the docket from moving, simply by introducing an arbitrarily long bill to the docket. Paul even pointed out that it was mostly an empty gesture, because there's already a rule that 48 hours have to pass to allow a bill to be read before it can be passed.

Remember, Rand Paul's agenda is entirely "government is completely incompetent, so starve the beast!" Of course he's going to say that Senators don't read the bills.

Quote:
I agree, GG. The so-called PATRIOT Act is pretty much the single biggest example of why legislation forcing lawmakers to read laws is needed, IMO.

It passed in less than the currently-mandated time. It has more to do with the 107th Congress being awful than the lack of rules to make them do something they're already supposed to.


So, the aformentioned example of the Patriot Act. It had 48 hours?


Speaking, I suppose, as an "industry insider..."

Urizen wrote:
I guess I'm cynical of honest intentions and actual consequences. :/

This.

Hudax wrote:
Something as essential as healthcare should not be motivated by profit, it should be motivated by making people healthier. Healthcare is a right not a privilege, and administrating care is a responsibility not a service.

And this. Also...

Hudax wrote:
While we're changing stuff, let's change the fact that most research is geared toward finding causes of disease so researchers can publish and make a name for themselves and get grants, as opposed to finding cures for disease which is not rewarded at all in the system.

Yes, please.

In case you can't tell, while my work is generally respected by my coworkers, I am less than popular with some of them when we have round-tables to discuss reform.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

TheWhiteknife wrote:

So, the aformentioned example of the Patriot Act. It had 48 hours?

No, but it wouldn't have mattered if the rule was a million hours. It was passed in the face of existing rules, under what are obviously exceptional circumstances, in a Congress that pretty much everyone now hates and has been washed out by two landslides since.

In fact, this is a great example of exceptional thinking. The PATRIOT Act was passed because there was a single terrible example, so it must be a symptom of a terrible trend! We need drastic changes in order to counteract this terrible trend, nevermind that these drastic changes would have been more or less useless to prevent this exception, and have negative consequences to boot.

The 107th Congress fell into the exact same logical trap that you're falling into.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I really dont mean this to sound snarky, so I apologise beforehand, but I really do fail to see what the problem with extending debate on anything until every point has been completely ground out and its application in the real world understood as well as possible is.

As an aside, You do know that the two landslides since also voted to re-extend the Patriot Act, right? Id rather have the debate-caused gridlock.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

TheWhiteknife wrote:
I really dont mean this to sound snarky, so I apologise beforehand, but I really do fail to see what the problem with extending debate on anything until every point has been completely ground out and its application in the real world understood as well as possible is.

Because it is trivially abused to grind the Senate to a halt to prevent the passage of a bill. We have a rule for an appropriate length of debate on a bill in the Senate: cloture. Debate continues until there is either unanimous floor vote to close debate, or 60 votes to end debate. (Preventing this unanimous vote in order to prevent the passage of a bill is a filibuster.)

It's a simplistic non-solution that duplicates existing floor rules, and would grind the Senate to a halt if it was enforced or, more likely, wouldn't be paid any mind at all.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Irontruth wrote:

NASA's actually been really beneficial to the economy. Conservative estimates think that we've gotten a 2:1 or 3:1 return on our investment in space research. Higher estimates put it around 14:1.

The telecommunications industry would not exist the way it does now, without NASA.

Then there are the giant list of inventions that were made for NASA because of their specific requirements... that are now standard household items. Like cordless tools.

Any major investment in basic science will yield returns in the form of spin-offs. An Apollo scale effort on the environment would yield similar perhaps even greater return.


Shifty wrote:

It's really really not that hard to manage. This country has a population less than a tenth of the US, yet we manage.

In simple terms we all (taxpayers) pay a small charge on our taxable income, if you earn a significant wage, you pay slightly more (Levy Surcharge). If you have private health insurance (which the Govt will allow you a rebate on) then you wont pay the Surcharge.

At 1% of your TAXABLE income, its not so bad.

If something happens to you, you WILL be taken care of.

Now I don't mena to get all preachy, but what I find odd is that you'd take a firm stance on something that even you yourself admit to not fully understanding. If you are going to make a public stance on something, you migth do yourself a huge favour and get informed first - it gives you credibility.

My stance against Obamacare is that it is MANDATORY like car insurance, and that while it allows you to keep the insurance you have, it does NOTHING to INSURE that a company that provides health insurance will be REQUIRED to keep offering insurance if the fines for not offering insurance is cheaper than offering a plan. My admission to ignorance over how it is going to be funded does NOTHING to lessen my credibility, it is put out their so that maybe others who are better informed than myself could provide a more informed decision. Incidentally I am also against entitlements. Nothing should be a given...it should be EARNED.


Gendo wrote:
My stance against Obamacare is that it is MANDATORY like car insurance, and that while it allows you to keep the insurance you have, it does NOTHING to INSURE that a company that provides health insurance will be REQUIRED to keep offering insurance if the fines for not offering insurance is cheaper than offering a plan. My admission to ignorance over how it is going to be funded does NOTHING to lessen my credibility, it is put out their so that maybe others who are better informed than myself could provide a more informed decision. Incidentally I am also against entitlements. Nothing should be a given...it should be EARNED.

Note that there was nothing before the ACA that made a company that provides health insurance keep offering it. In fact, as costs have been rising companies have been doing so. What does ACA change?


thejeff wrote:
The Mad Badger wrote:

I am wondering why one would overly tax one of the few industries we have that is successful for the United States during a recession.

Seems to me a means of not helping us get out of the recession. Just my two cents.

Actually, this recession (technically over for several years now) has been good for big business. Corporate profits are back up to record levels.

Somehow that doesn't seem to help the rest of us.

Alot of economists would disagree with you there. I was just listening to NPR the other day and they felt that indeed we are still in a major recession. Which big corporations are reporting record profits? The stock market is certainly not doing well at all which is a good indicator of how the economy is doing.

I would love to see what corporations are making record profits in the United States industry. I am not talking about other nations but corporations which would effect the US economy.


Irontruth wrote:
The Mad Badger wrote:

I am wondering why one would overly tax one of the few industries we have that is successful for the United States during a recession.

Seems to me a means of not helping us get out of the recession. Just my two cents.

Taxes do impact growth, but the effect is actually relatively minor.

It's like crowd noise at a football game. Sometimes it gives players that extra motivation, or it prevents good communication between the visiting team, but the two teams relative skill levels have a far greater effect on the outcome of the game.

Sweden has a tax burden of about 47.9% their GDP. Yet they experienced over 4% growth last year.

The US has about a 26.9% of our GDP goes to government revenue. But we experienced 2% growth.

Other factors, like the consumer confidence and the number of consumers increasing their spending, have a much greater effect on the economy.

Home sales for example are plagued by:

- the number of foreclosed homes for sale (excess supply)
- banks not giving out loans (reduced demand)
- people can't refinance their current homes or sell them without major losses (reduced demand)

Taxes have an impact on home sales, but they're extremely minor compared to those other factors.

If you are taxing the sale of medical devices directly how does that not effect the growth of that said industry?

For example if a said hospital has a budget of 100K to spend on medical devices and now those said medical devices have a tax who do you think that tax is passed onto? The customers now with that addtional tax they have to take into account they now can buy less with their money less additional features and in many cases may decide to fore go the purchase all together and buy something that does not ahve the tax because their money goes further with something else or decide to buy less options with the equipment they buy.

I am not saying that those taxes are the sole reason the economy might fail but it seems short sided to tax a successful industry when the economy is in the tanker. It is the many small things which can cause the bigger colapse. Seems smarter to wait for the economy to turn around before taxing overly taxing our few successful industries. I would say for the time being leave Hollywood and medicine alone they are two of the few things we export to the rest of the world with success.


GM, UPS, Caterpillar, Verizon, ExxonMobil, for starters.

Here's an article I chose from random


The Mad Badger wrote:
thejeff wrote:
The Mad Badger wrote:

I am wondering why one would overly tax one of the few industries we have that is successful for the United States during a recession.

Seems to me a means of not helping us get out of the recession. Just my two cents.

Actually, this recession (technically over for several years now) has been good for big business. Corporate profits are back up to record levels.

Somehow that doesn't seem to help the rest of us.

Alot of economists would disagree with you there. I was just listening to NPR the other day and they felt that indeed we are still in a major recession. Which big corporations are reporting record profits? The stock market is certainly not doing well at all which is a good indicator of how the economy is doing.

I would love to see what corporations are making record profits in the United States industry. I am not talking about other nations but corporations which would effect the US economy.

As I said "technically". According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, which defines such things, the recession ended in June 2009. Recession is usually roughly defined as 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. We've had growth since 2009. It's been slow and I'd certainly agree that it still feels like a recession. If those economists are saying the definitions are bad, I'd agree with them.

As for corporate profits, I've seen that all over the place. Here and here, for example.


It's a very good time to be a plutocrat.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
It's a very good time to be a plutocrat.

When is it not a good time to be a plutocrat ? If indeed you are a true plutocrat?


The Mad Badger wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
It's a very good time to be a plutocrat.
When is it not a good time to be a plutocrat ?

Ain't that the truth.

EDIT: Sorry, Lord Dice, that should've been your line, I know.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
The Mad Badger wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
It's a very good time to be a plutocrat.
When is it not a good time to be a plutocrat ?

Ain't that the truth.

EDIT: Sorry, Lord Dice, that should've been your line, I know.

Yeah, that was Lord Dice's answer.

Yours was "Russia in 1917."

Get your cues straight.


!!!


thejeff wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
The Mad Badger wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
It's a very good time to be a plutocrat.
When is it not a good time to be a plutocrat ?

Ain't that the truth.

EDIT: Sorry, Lord Dice, that should've been your line, I know.

Yeah, that was Lord Dice's answer.

Yours was "Russia in 1917."

Get your cues straight.

Thank you for putting that Comrade in his place he ha been giving the rest of us Anklebiters a bit of the business lately.


The Mad Badger wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
The Mad Badger wrote:

I am wondering why one would overly tax one of the few industries we have that is successful for the United States during a recession.

Seems to me a means of not helping us get out of the recession. Just my two cents.

Taxes do impact growth, but the effect is actually relatively minor.

It's like crowd noise at a football game. Sometimes it gives players that extra motivation, or it prevents good communication between the visiting team, but the two teams relative skill levels have a far greater effect on the outcome of the game.

Sweden has a tax burden of about 47.9% their GDP. Yet they experienced over 4% growth last year.

The US has about a 26.9% of our GDP goes to government revenue. But we experienced 2% growth.

Other factors, like the consumer confidence and the number of consumers increasing their spending, have a much greater effect on the economy.

Home sales for example are plagued by:

- the number of foreclosed homes for sale (excess supply)
- banks not giving out loans (reduced demand)
- people can't refinance their current homes or sell them without major losses (reduced demand)

Taxes have an impact on home sales, but they're extremely minor compared to those other factors.

If you are taxing the sale of medical devices directly how does that not effect the growth of that said industry?

For example if a said hospital has a budget of 100K to spend on medical devices and now those said medical devices have a tax who do you think that tax is passed onto? The customers now with that addtional tax they have to take into account they now can buy less with their money less additional features and in many cases may decide to fore go the purchase all together and buy something that does not ahve the tax because their money goes further with something else or decide to buy less options with the equipment they buy.

I am not saying that those taxes are the sole reason the economy might fail but it seems short...

Taxes cause minor shifts in the supply/demand chart. If you remember those charts from macro economics class. A 5% tax pushes the demand line slightly to the left, slightly.

Therefore, things like income have a much higher determinant on what your personal demand is going to be. The major problem with this country is not our taxes, it's our shrinking middle class.

We need something that encourages corporations to pay their people good wages. Good enough that they can afford to buy all the stuff that makes our economy go. The more people we have that can do that, the more growth we'll see. The more the wealth gets concentrated in a few hands, the more corporate growth we'll see, while the rest of us stop moving.

Scarab Sages

TheWhiteknife wrote:
I agree, GG. The so-called PATRIOT Act is pretty much the single biggest example of why legislation forcing lawmakers to read laws is needed, IMO.

The PATRIOT ACT was introduced on 23 Oct 2001 in the House. Passed on the 24th. Passed the Senate on the 25th and signed into law on the 26th.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:

Taxes cause minor shifts in the supply/demand chart. If you remember those charts from macro economics class. A 5% tax pushes the demand line slightly to the left, slightly.

Therefore, things like income have a much higher determinant on what your personal demand is going to be. The major problem with this country is not our taxes, it's our shrinking middle class.

We need something that encourages corporations to pay their people good wages. Good enough that they can afford to buy all the stuff that makes our economy go. The more people we have that can do that, the more growth we'll see. The more the wealth gets concentrated in a few hands, the more corporate growth we'll see, while the rest of us stop moving.

Troof!

Also I'd like to point out this misconception about taxes. We want to tax PROFITS at a higher rate. Profit is the money left over after everything has been paid for, including CEO salaries.

If there's one thing that corporations hate its paying taxes. SO if you tax them at a higher rate they're more likely to use that money in other ways than have it evaporate to the government coffers. They might pay their employees more, or reduce the prices on their goods and services, or reinvest that capital to build new buildings or fund research. All of which benefits them, benefits us, benefits the macroeconomy, and so on.

Prohibitively high taxes (like a corporate profit tax rate of 90%+) and no loopholes like low capital gains taxes for the shareholders encourages the precise kind of economic behavior we want to see from these firms.

Right now the companies are making record profits, and just divvying that money up between shareholders. The money is swiftly accumulating at the top ranks, while being systematically squeezed from the rest of us. It's incredibly short-sighted, but the people making these decisions are also going to have the level of wealth required to weather nearly any negative economic blowback, so wtf do they care?


meatrace wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Taxes cause minor shifts in the supply/demand chart. If you remember those charts from macro economics class. A 5% tax pushes the demand line slightly to the left, slightly.

Therefore, things like income have a much higher determinant on what your personal demand is going to be. The major problem with this country is not our taxes, it's our shrinking middle class.

We need something that encourages corporations to pay their people good wages. Good enough that they can afford to buy all the stuff that makes our economy go. The more people we have that can do that, the more growth we'll see. The more the wealth gets concentrated in a few hands, the more corporate growth we'll see, while the rest of us stop moving.

Troof!

Also I'd like to point out this misconception about taxes. We want to tax PROFITS at a higher rate. Profit is the money left over after everything has been paid for, including CEO salaries.

If there's one thing that corporations hate its paying taxes. SO if you tax them at a higher rate they're more likely to use that money in other ways than have it evaporate to the government coffers. They might pay their employees more, or reduce the prices on their goods and services, or reinvest that capital to build new buildings or fund research. All of which benefits them, benefits us, benefits the macroeconomy, and so on.

Prohibitively high taxes (like a corporate profit tax rate of 90%+) and no loopholes like low capital gains taxes for the shareholders encourages the precise kind of economic behavior we want to see from these firms.

Right now the companies are making record profits, and just divvying that money up between shareholders. The money is swiftly accumulating at the top ranks, while being systematically squeezed from the rest of us. It's incredibly short-sighted, but the people making these decisions are also going to have the level of wealth required to weather nearly any negative economic blowback, so wtf do they care?

Similarly with personal income at the higher levels. If you're a business owner, low personal marginal tax rates encourage you to take money out of the business and waste it on hookers & blow or gamble with it in the market. High marginal rates encourage you to keep the money in the business, since you'd get less if you take it out.

Consider: 30% marginal tax rate -> For every $100,000 I take out of the business I get $70,000 to play with.
70% marginal tax rate -> For every $100,000 I take out of the business I only get $30,000 to play with.

Liberty's Edge

Hey, hookers and suppliers of blow need money too, you know.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
houstonderek wrote:
Hey, hookers and suppliers of blow need money too, you know.

Send 'em my way!

The Exchange

Gendo wrote:
Incidentally I am also against entitlements. Nothing should be a given...it should be EARNED.

Watch it, this forum seems a bit to socialist to say those things too loud


1 person marked this as a favorite.

mmmmm, too much opinions and text to read it all... but coming from Europe and looking at the US... why are you asking who will pay for a few hundred million for something as valuable as health care for all when you are a country who spends hundreds of BILLIONS on waging war (or keeping the peace) all over the world?

seriously, 'nough said!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:

Due to the fact that hospitals can not turn away patients who need emergency care.

For the vast majority of people little to nothing will change. What the intent of the program is to change how costs of the uninsured are handled.

The only sane method to deal with this problem is to get everyone on board. To make insurance available for the uninsured and get these costs more evenly balanced out.

I can say with certainty, from own experiences, that hospitals can AND will turn you away without insurance. So please stop using that as a fact. I have been turned away twice while uninsured BUT employed and capable of paying for services rendered.


thejeff wrote:
Gendo wrote:
My stance against Obamacare is that it is MANDATORY like car insurance, and that while it allows you to keep the insurance you have, it does NOTHING to INSURE that a company that provides health insurance will be REQUIRED to keep offering insurance if the fines for not offering insurance is cheaper than offering a plan. My admission to ignorance over how it is going to be funded does NOTHING to lessen my credibility, it is put out their so that maybe others who are better informed than myself could provide a more informed decision. Incidentally I am also against entitlements. Nothing should be a given...it should be EARNED.

Note that there was nothing before the ACA that made a company that provides health insurance keep offering it. In fact, as costs have been rising companies have been doing so. What does ACA change?

Solid point. I worked for 10 years without insurance and learned how to deal. I pointed outility the lack of guarantee for those that have insurance with which they are happy.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gendo wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Gendo wrote:
My stance against Obamacare is that it is MANDATORY like car insurance, and that while it allows you to keep the insurance you have, it does NOTHING to INSURE that a company that provides health insurance will be REQUIRED to keep offering insurance if the fines for not offering insurance is cheaper than offering a plan. My admission to ignorance over how it is going to be funded does NOTHING to lessen my credibility, it is put out their so that maybe others who are better informed than myself could provide a more informed decision. Incidentally I am also against entitlements. Nothing should be a given...it should be EARNED.

Note that there was nothing before the ACA that made a company that provides health insurance keep offering it. In fact, as costs have been rising companies have been doing so. What does ACA change?

Solid point. I worked for 10 years without insurance and learned how to deal. I pointed outility the lack of guarantee for those that have insurance with which they are happy.

And by "learned how to deal" I assume you mean "didn't have any serious/expensive medical issues". It's one thing to deal with normal daily life without insurance, especially when you're young and healthy, it's something else entirely to try to deal with a major medical problem: cancer or some other serious disease.


Gendo wrote:
LazarX wrote:

Due to the fact that hospitals can not turn away patients who need emergency care.

For the vast majority of people little to nothing will change. What the intent of the program is to change how costs of the uninsured are handled.

The only sane method to deal with this problem is to get everyone on board. To make insurance available for the uninsured and get these costs more evenly balanced out.

I can say with certainty, from own experiences, that hospitals can AND will turn you away without insurance. So please stop using that as a fact. I have been turned away twice while uninsured BUT employed and capable of paying for services rendered.

Turned away for emergency care?

That's illegal. They have to at least stabilize you before they throw you back out on the street.

For something less life-threatening or critical, they can turn you away.


Andrew R wrote:
Gendo wrote:
Incidentally I am also against entitlements. Nothing should be a given...it should be EARNED.
Watch it, this forum seems a bit to socialist to say those things too loud

[Ears twitch]

What?!?

To the Fun-Timey Reeducation Supercenter with the both of you!


And take Anklebiter Humperdink with you!


Andrew R wrote:
Gendo wrote:
Incidentally I am also against entitlements. Nothing should be a given...it should be EARNED.
Watch it, this forum seems a bit to socialist to say those things too loud

If you like football or support the military, you already approve of socialism.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't really like football all that much and I f#$$ing hate the military.


Hudax wrote:
Antimony wrote:
This is another good example of where I believe the current law may have missed the mark. If it set up a pool of federal grant dollars to fund all drug research--or better yet, if all drug research was funded by the World Health Organization--prescription drug costs could be lowered significantly from day one at market. (Assuming everything else remains equal, and all that.)
While we're changing stuff, let's change the fact that most research is geared toward finding causes of disease so researchers can publish and make a name for themselves and get grants, as opposed to finding cures for disease which is not rewarded at all in the system.

They try not avoid finding cures because there is more profit to be had with treating symptoms than finding cures...


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I don't really like football all that much and I f%$~ing hate the military.

But you do like socialism.

Dark Archive

Irontruth wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Gendo wrote:
Incidentally I am also against entitlements. Nothing should be a given...it should be EARNED.
Watch it, this forum seems a bit to socialist to say those things too loud
If you like football or support the military, you already approve of socialism.

Okay I will bite. Why would enjoying watching a sport having anything to do with someone's politics?


Gruumash . wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Gendo wrote:
Incidentally I am also against entitlements. Nothing should be a given...it should be EARNED.
Watch it, this forum seems a bit to socialist to say those things too loud
If you like football or support the military, you already approve of socialism.
Okay I will bite. Why would enjoying watching a sport having anything to do with someone's politics?

The corporate entity of the NFL uses:

Collective bargaining
Salary caps
Profit sharing
Minimum wage

All of it done with an eye towards leveling the playing field. One of the major reasons for the NFL's success is that teams have really rotated through the top and bottom of the league quite regularly, with a few notable exceptions.

Teams share in the profits. So while the Cowboys are hugely successful and make a lot of money, they have to share it with the Vikings, who haven't had as much success and don't make as much money. This has helped keep more teams competitive. Of the past 14 superbowls, 10 different teams have won, in a league of 32.

If there is any question about their financial success, Forbes recently released a list of the 50 sports franchises worth the most money in the world. All 32 NFL teams were on the list, though Manchester United took the top spot (not that surprising since they probably sell jerseys on 6/7 continents).

So yeah, if you watch football, you are supporting a business that uses socialism to dominate in capitalism. What a strange and awesome world we live in.


thejeff wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I don't really like football all that much and I f%$~ing hate the military.
But you do like socialism.

I do, I love socialism, and that [points up], that ain't socialism.

101 to 150 of 179 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / US Government sponsored healthcare... who's footing the bill? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.