100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Address to the Congress amazing speech | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Americans have the best healthcare in the world. Some of the biggest problems with the system are cost, exclusion, corruption (consumer and provider) and greed. I'd prefer they address the problems. Leaving it to the government will doom the system to beauracracy, inefficiency, and, I believe, a lower standard of care. Companies will slowly drop health care altogether and leave it in the hands of the government. I prefer the government have as little hand in my personal responsibilities as possible. Address the problems. Lets find a way to provide a minimum of health insurance at a reasonable cost to the individual. I had to pay COBRA for a year for my ex at a cost of over $435/month. And today she can't even GET health insurance. Lets take a bite out of the insane liability insurance that doctors and hospitals pay. Lets find a way to not exclude a pre-existing conditions if someone simply lost their job for a few months. Let's put heat on drug manufacturers that 'create' a market for their drugs. Sure, there are quite a few problems. But it's better than what I believe is in store. The addressing of these problems was done in the 90s. It did nothing. We are worse off now. Interesting... So you are saying that government intervention made things worse? Governement did not intervene, they "suggested" the healthcare organizations get their ducks in a row, or there would be government intervention. The time has come. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was just watching the Republican response to his speech. Obama needs to stop being nice to the Republicans and use his Democratic advantage and get er done as far as I am concerned. He is trying too damn hard to bring a group in that cannot be brought in. Just do it, man. And they talked of their form of healthcare reform and it is basically nothing new. Nothing at all. They do not want to change it. Their only defense is to put a price on life. They are saying that the cost of saving lives is too much. It is actually less than the war in Iraq and that saved how many lives? Is still saving how many lives? Sheesh, just get it worked out and passed already. He doesn't need the Republicans. He is much too nice in my opinion. I am not a liberal, nor am I democrat, nor am I anything they have listed. So keep your rightwing rhetoric that means absolutely nothing because you wouldn't even know a liberal or socialist if you saw one and it bite you in the ***. I'm sorry, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... I guess people need to reclassify this duck then don't they...lol I am unaffilitated. So I am not even an Independent...lol Do me a favor then: Name one, just one economically conservative principle you agree with. And then explain to me why this healthcare plan will not fail. I actually participated in Welfare Reform which made it impossible to lay around and get welfare, economically fiscally conservative ideal done under Clinton. I believe in regulation on all government run programs that limit the clients who can recieve the benefits. I am never prejudice towards them and call them lazy or blame them for the life situation ( which seems to be a republican/conservative thing to do)that got them on benefits. But I believe in the oversight which is fiscally conservative. I can name more but I will leave it at that. As for the healthcare reform bills and suggestions being addressed now. The projections cannot even be close to accurate so the people doing them are being very pessimistic on the costs and results. This health care reform can be done and should be. We may have to adjust it again in the future since it will be new but it will still work. Look back and see how pessimistically they projected the banking collapse, look back at the housing bubble, look at the pessimism on the stock market projections, look at the Y2K fiasco, etc... and so on. They have been pessimistically projecting crap, and it ends up being crap, for the most part, all my life. I think the only things that were not projected correctly were the gas shortage of the 70s and that damn 9/11, which could have been prevented if they would have only examined it and got really pessimistic over the intel. Hell they did more work trying to make Obama some evil figure than they did protecting us before and on 9/11 
any welfare is a socially liberal stance. reform just makes you slightly less liberal. i know you support welfare in many cases. care to try for another? also, are you actually blaming a democratic administration for 9/11? I just want to make sure I'm reading that right. As for reasons this program will fail: 1. Supply shortage. in short, increase demand while supply remains, you get a price increase. artificially limit the price by government intervention (through a "public option" included) and you create a ceiling. price ceiling = supply shortage. 2. Lack of providers. Right now, doctors are loaded. yes, the uninsured still get care, but only at ERs. We're talking a 15% increase in usage of the preventative care system. I'm pretty sure the number of physicians is not going to increase 15% 3. Taxation. I'm told this program will not increase our debt one single dime. i don't believe it. however, in an attempt to make it happen, taxes will naturally rise. there is no other way to do it. taxing those that receive benefits already will lessen household income. that will have all kinds of fun ripple effects across the economy. so will taxing businesses as that cuts their funds as well. kiss a few jobs goodbye there for the low-level corporate employee. hope his buddies enjoy their care. 4. It's been proven time and time again the government has not been able to sustain any kind of program of this nature, even on a small scale, efficiently. Medicare anyone? Social Security? Medicaid? Every government budget for the last several decades has run into the red, moreso than planned. Remember cash for clunkers recently? it was expected to last 2-3 months and instead lasted 2-3 weeks. Then the additional 2 billion was to last until labor day but still ran out a week and a half early. The government accountants are never right. 5. The government does not have to make a profit. Furthermore, the government can't make a profit by it's nature. That means any public option will have a severe unfair advantage over any public plan that needs to make a profit, and even those that do not have to make a profit like Kaiser Permanente. While I'm told the plan will be self-sustaining, I was also told there were WMDs in Iraq and that if we didn't spend this $787B that the unemployment would rise over 8% and the economy would go into a tailspin. They still haven't dished out 15% of it and we're still here. Also, no WMDs. The government has a bad habit of saying what's pretty and it not being true. 6. A lack of reform. There are problems with the system... duh. any idiot with a third grade education can see that. however, we should not be throwing money at the system without taking care of the symptoms that put us in this place to begin with. start with tort reform. you lose an arm when they save your life. So what? Is that arm really worth 10 million dollars? absolutely not. you may lose out in a a couple million in wages over your lifetime and add another 50% for the inconvenience, but you're still far, far less than what juries have made standard practice. fraud and malpractice insurance has made the costs of the system skyrocket. fix the problems that exist now before wasting all this money on a broken system. The end (coverage for all) does not justify the means (billions and billions wasted) there are my brief summaries of my arguments. if you disagree, please explain holes in my logic and post a little more than "that's not true" or "you're wrong" I am getting tired here so briefly I was blaming our government for not acting properly before 9/11, I don't care who the president was or who the rest of the government was at the time. They were lax and it cost us many lives. As for your list, lots of speculation there and personal agenda. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, it can still be done successfully around and through everything you listed there. We are capable of this feat, it is a doable thing. You obviously have no grasp on business or economics and without it, there is no way I can convince you otherwise. There is no way this plan can succeed in providing the same quality of care the majority of our citizens currently enjoy for anywhere near the same cost. If you can see personal agenda in there, I'd like it to be pointed out. All that is is fact. Also, please tell me what is speculation that is not based on experience with our own government. notice there is no reference to any other nation or system in my post (because we cannot compare ourselves to canada, france, or anyone else for that matter as it's all apples to oranges) And thank you drivin  .
No, but you know what I do have? I have the confidence in this government to do what it says it is going to do. No matter what problems arise and no matter how many nay sayers we have, like you, we can do this and should do this. Our government has many faults, yes it does but it also runs this country daily and we are not a third world nation. When we ride or walk down the street, no matter where it is in this country we can see the success of this government and the people it governs. So no matter how many fearmongering points you put out there trying to make it fail before it is ever attempted, I say it can be done regardless and should be done. So I will back it to be done. I wonder if you had the same optimism about Iraq before we entered... I wish i still had blind faith that angels, in the form of kings ran our government... Hell no Iraq was an illegal war and there can be no optimism for illegality and death. It is not blind faith, I don't even know what that concept is. Our government works. It always has and it always will. Why, because of citizens like me that participate and vote and address issues with the legislative branch of the government. Just because I will not call something to failure before it ever gets tried, makes me too optimistic, well I guess I will proudly be that, because I am in the league with the founding fathers of this great nation, who made an attempt at something that had never been done with optimism that it would work, not knowledge that it would work. Honestly i admire your passion dragoness. One thing i think you could learn from, is cause and affect. For everything that passes, that is seemingly good, there is an adverse side affect. Just like in science, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. I think the flaws in our system, or inefficiencies, should be addressed before doing anything drastic, that we the people aren't quite able to concieve. Before the healthcare issue is even addressed, i think we need to have the money first, to avoid economic turmoil. It must be nice to sleep well at night with the knowledge (false or not) that our government will fix the economy, while putting an additional strain on it. Worse off, we have no idea just how much money it will cost. This is where we look at history. The roman empire, for instance. Economic turmoil was first brought from being overextended militarily. Today, right now, the United States is occupying 130 different countries. Imagine what could be done if we merely followed our forefather's advice and minded our own business? I agree and our business is healthcare for all Americans and it is time for it now, people have waited too long already. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was just watching the Republican response to his speech. Obama needs to stop being nice to the Republicans and use his Democratic advantage and get er done as far as I am concerned. He is trying too damn hard to bring a group in that cannot be brought in. Just do it, man. And they talked of their form of healthcare reform and it is basically nothing new. Nothing at all. They do not want to change it. Their only defense is to put a price on life. They are saying that the cost of saving lives is too much. It is actually less than the war in Iraq and that saved how many lives? Is still saving how many lives? Sheesh, just get it worked out and passed already. He doesn't need the Republicans. He is much too nice in my opinion. I am not a liberal, nor am I democrat, nor am I anything they have listed. So keep your rightwing rhetoric that means absolutely nothing because you wouldn't even know a liberal or socialist if you saw one and it bite you in the ***. I'm sorry, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... I guess people need to reclassify this duck then don't they...lol I am unaffilitated. So I am not even an Independent...lol Do me a favor then: Name one, just one economically conservative principle you agree with. And then explain to me why this healthcare plan will not fail. I actually participated in Welfare Reform which made it impossible to lay around and get welfare, economically fiscally conservative ideal done under Clinton. I believe in regulation on all government run programs that limit the clients who can recieve the benefits. I am never prejudice towards them and call them lazy or blame them for the life situation ( which seems to be a republican/conservative thing to do)that got them on benefits. But I believe in the oversight which is fiscally conservative. I can name more but I will leave it at that. As for the healthcare reform bills and suggestions being addressed now. The projections cannot even be close to accurate so the people doing them are being very pessimistic on the costs and results. This health care reform can be done and should be. We may have to adjust it again in the future since it will be new but it will still work. Look back and see how pessimistically they projected the banking collapse, look back at the housing bubble, look at the pessimism on the stock market projections, look at the Y2K fiasco, etc... and so on. They have been pessimistically projecting crap, and it ends up being crap, for the most part, all my life. I think the only things that were not projected correctly were the gas shortage of the 70s and that damn 9/11, which could have been prevented if they would have only examined it and got really pessimistic over the intel. Hell they did more work trying to make Obama some evil figure than they did protecting us before and on 9/11
any welfare is a socially liberal stance. reform just makes you slightly less liberal. i know you support welfare in many cases. care to try for another? also, are you actually blaming a democratic administration for 9/11? I just want to make sure I'm reading that right. As for reasons this program will fail: 1. Supply shortage. in short, increase demand while supply remains, you get a price increase. artificially limit the price by government intervention (through a "public option" included) and you create a ceiling. price ceiling = supply shortage. 2. Lack of providers. Right now, doctors are loaded. yes, the uninsured still get care, but only at ERs. We're talking a 15% increase in usage of the preventative care system. I'm pretty sure the number of physicians is not going to increase 15% 3. Taxation. I'm told this program will not increase our debt one single dime. i don't believe it. however, in an attempt to make it happen, taxes will naturally rise. there is no other way to do it. taxing those that receive benefits already will lessen household income. that will have all kinds of fun ripple effects across the economy. so will taxing businesses as that cuts their funds as well. kiss a few jobs goodbye there for the low-level corporate employee. hope his buddies enjoy their care. 4. It's been proven time and time again the government has not been able to sustain any kind of program of this nature, even on a small scale, efficiently. Medicare anyone? Social Security? Medicaid? Every government budget for the last several decades has run into the red, moreso than planned. Remember cash for clunkers recently? it was expected to last 2-3 months and instead lasted 2-3 weeks. Then the additional 2 billion was to last until labor day but still ran out a week and a half early. The government accountants are never right. 5. The government does not have to make a profit. Furthermore, the government can't make a profit by it's nature. That means any public option will have a severe unfair advantage over any public plan that needs to make a profit, and even those that do not have to make a profit like Kaiser Permanente. While I'm told the plan will be self-sustaining, I was also told there were WMDs in Iraq and that if we didn't spend this $787B that the unemployment would rise over 8% and the economy would go into a tailspin. They still haven't dished out 15% of it and we're still here. Also, no WMDs. The government has a bad habit of saying what's pretty and it not being true. 6. A lack of reform. There are problems with the system... duh. any idiot with a third grade education can see that. however, we should not be throwing money at the system without taking care of the symptoms that put us in this place to begin with. start with tort reform. you lose an arm when they save your life. So what? Is that arm really worth 10 million dollars? absolutely not. you may lose out in a a couple million in wages over your lifetime and add another 50% for the inconvenience, but you're still far, far less than what juries have made standard practice. fraud and malpractice insurance has made the costs of the system skyrocket. fix the problems that exist now before wasting all this money on a broken system. The end (coverage for all) does not justify the means (billions and billions wasted) there are my brief summaries of my arguments. if you disagree, please explain holes in my logic and post a little more than "that's not true" or "you're wrong" I am getting tired here so briefly I was blaming our government for not acting properly before 9/11, I don't care who the president was or who the rest of the government was at the time. They were lax and it cost us many lives. As for your list, lots of speculation there and personal agenda. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, it can still be done successfully around and through everything you listed there. We are capable of this feat, it is a doable thing. You obviously have no grasp on business or economics and without it, there is no way I can convince you otherwise. There is no way this plan can succeed in providing the same quality of care the majority of our citizens currently enjoy for anywhere near the same cost. If you can see personal agenda in there, I'd like it to be pointed out. All that is is fact. Also, please tell me what is speculation that is not based on experience with our own government. notice there is no reference to any other nation or system in my post (because we cannot compare ourselves to canada, france, or anyone else for that matter as it's all apples to oranges) And thank you drivin .
No, but you know what I do have? I have the confidence in this government to do what it says it is going to do. No matter what problems arise and no matter how many nay sayers we have, like you, we can do this and should do this. Our government has many faults, yes it does but it also runs this country daily and we are not a third world nation. When we ride or walk down the street, no matter where it is in this country we can see the success of this government and the people it governs. So no matter how many fearmongering points you put out there trying to make it fail before it is ever attempted, I say it can be done regardless and should be done. So I will back it to be done. I wonder if you had the same optimism about Iraq before we entered... I wish i still had blind faith that angels, in the form of kings ran our government... Hell no Iraq was an illegal war and there can be no optimism for illegality and death. It is not blind faith, I don't even know what that concept is. Our government works. It always has and it always will. Why, because of citizens like me that participate and vote and address issues with the legislative branch of the government. Just because I will not call something to failure before it ever gets tried, makes me too optimistic, well I guess I will proudly be that, because I am in the league with the founding fathers of this great nation, who made an attempt at something that had never been done with optimism that it would work, not knowledge that it would work. Honestly i admire your passion dragoness. One thing i think you could learn from, is cause and affect. For everything that passes, that is seemingly good, there is an adverse side affect. Just like in science, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. I think the flaws in our system, or inefficiencies, should be addressed before doing anything drastic, that we the people aren't quite able to concieve. Before the healthcare issue is even addressed, i think we need to have the money first, to avoid economic turmoil. It must be nice to sleep well at night with the knowledge (false or not) that our government will fix the economy, while putting an additional strain on it. Worse off, we have no idea just how much money it will cost. This is where we look at history. The roman empire, for instance. Economic turmoil was first brought from being overextended militarily. Today, right now, the United States is occupying 130 different countries. Imagine what could be done if we merely followed our forefather's advice and minded our own business? I agree and our business is healthcare for all Americans and it is time for it now, people have waited too long already. It's a nice thought, but nationalization will not do that! If nationalization made things cheaper, then all nationalized businesses would be more effective than the private industry. We know for a FACT that this is not so. (remember Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac?) Frederick Hayek won a Nobel Prize in economics for proving it (see "the Road To Serfdom"). Nationalization of industry has been such a massive failure in so many countries, I'm amazed that people even consider it seriously. (See the history of Mexico, the USSR, Germany, and Italy for a start. Also, see "Economics In One Lesson" by Hazlitt and the well-renowned economist Ludwig Von Mises' writing on Capitalism and Socialism). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The government's fundemental problem is the fact that it severly lack's efficiency. When you introduce this inefficiency to anything that has anything to do with money, you have lots and lots of spending, with little results. I think the largest issue here is a complete, utter lack of faith in the government. They have not proven themselves capable of such a responsibility. Reform needs to happen first in fixing all the problems we currently have. Do that first to prove they are capable, then they can consider being ambitious. As has been stated by dragoness, the government has tried this before and failed miserably. Being that nothing has changed but a more charasmatic spokeshole at the top, nobody should have any more faith in them now. Again, I don't advocate any intervention, but you don't go to a bank expecting to get a loan when you just had your home and car repossessed. You blow off responsibility, you must earn it back a little at a time. Don't quote me wrong. Correct it. That is not what was said by me. Our government has not failed us to the point of complete and utter disregard. There have been failures like the lead up to 9/11 and the intel usage. Or letting Bush and his cronies lead everyone down the yellow brick road to Iraq. But that doesn't mean we and they cannot do healthcare reform and make it so there is a public option for those who cannot afford insurance any other way. The nay sayers are those who do not want it for whatever reason but it is usually because they have insurance and cannot see the plight of those who do not or are under insured. It all comes back to this government can do it and should do it. I wish the Republicans could come to the table with the idea that it HAS to be done for that one cancer victim that is going to die because they cannot afford insurance, the child with aids from a blood transfusion, etc... The list of these people goes on and on. They cannot get proper care because they cannot afford insurance or are so under insured that the bill is too high, or are denied insurance because of preexisting conditions. People who have insurance themselves should really not be part of the argument against this healthcare plan because they DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
heavenlyboy34
on
Thu 09/10/09 02:24 PM
|
|
The government's fundemental problem is the fact that it severly lack's efficiency. When you introduce this inefficiency to anything that has anything to do with money, you have lots and lots of spending, with little results. I think the largest issue here is a complete, utter lack of faith in the government. They have not proven themselves capable of such a responsibility. Reform needs to happen first in fixing all the problems we currently have. Do that first to prove they are capable, then they can consider being ambitious. As has been stated by dragoness, the government has tried this before and failed miserably. Being that nothing has changed but a more charasmatic spokeshole at the top, nobody should have any more faith in them now. Again, I don't advocate any intervention, but you don't go to a bank expecting to get a loan when you just had your home and car repossessed. You blow off responsibility, you must earn it back a little at a time. Don't quote me wrong. Correct it. That is not what was said by me. Our government has not failed us to the point of complete and utter disregard. There have been failures like the lead up to 9/11 and the intel usage. Or letting Bush and his cronies lead everyone down the yellow brick road to Iraq. But that doesn't mean we and they cannot do healthcare reform and make it so there is a public option for those who cannot afford insurance any other way. The nay sayers are those who do not want it for whatever reason but it is usually because they have insurance and cannot see the plight of those who do not or are under insured. It all comes back to this government can do it and should do it. I wish the Republicans could come to the table with the idea that it HAS to be done for that one cancer victim that is going to die because they cannot afford insurance, the child with aids from a blood transfusion, etc... The list of these people goes on and on. They cannot get proper care because they cannot afford insurance or are so under insured that the bill is too high, or are denied insurance because of preexisting conditions. People who have insurance themselves should really not be part of the argument against this healthcare plan because they DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!! Actually, self-insured people have every right to participate in the debate, because the costs are SOCIALIZED, and those people (and their heirs) will be paying for it through taxes and inflation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I honestly heard nothing new. It was all the same old talking points that he's said before compiled into one speech. I really want to see a debate about this between him and a prominent opponent from the Republicans. He's never given any real details or done anything but regurgitate the same old lines... I want him to really defend this plan, not just try to sell it. When has a President of the United States EVER had to debate someone of the opposite party while in office? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
People who have insurance themselves should really not be part of the argument against this healthcare plan because they DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!! No disrespect intended, but that's just not valid. The decisions being made affect everyone, not just the uninsured. And as a citizen I certainly have the right to participate in the discussion about the policies and programs of my government. I understand, and to a large degree I sympathize with, your arguments. I just don't agree that the government should be providing health insurance. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I honestly heard nothing new. It was all the same old talking points that he's said before compiled into one speech. I really want to see a debate about this between him and a prominent opponent from the Republicans. He's never given any real details or done anything but regurgitate the same old lines... I want him to really defend this plan, not just try to sell it. When has a President of the United States EVER had to debate someone of the opposite party while in office? This scenario isn't likely simply because it could only really help the opposition. And if you're trying to get your way you generally don't assist the opposition. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
People who have insurance themselves should really not be part of the argument against this healthcare plan because they DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!! No disrespect intended, but that's just not valid. The decisions being made affect everyone, not just the uninsured. And as a citizen I certainly have the right to participate in the discussion about the policies and programs of my government. I understand, and to a large degree I sympathize with, your arguments. I just don't agree that the government should be providing health insurance. I would never deny them the right to flap their jaws but their views seem inaccurate because they cannot put themselve in the shoes of the uninsured, underindured, denied insurance etc... So they talk and talk but they really can't speak from experience which is really important in this forum. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I honestly heard nothing new. It was all the same old talking points that he's said before compiled into one speech. I really want to see a debate about this between him and a prominent opponent from the Republicans. He's never given any real details or done anything but regurgitate the same old lines... I want him to really defend this plan, not just try to sell it. When has a President of the United States EVER had to debate someone of the opposite party while in office? This scenario isn't likely simply because it could only really help the opposition. And if you're trying to get your way you generally don't assist the opposition. Very true, but I really doubt if the outcome would be in the oppositions favor on this thing. If you had a mother or an father that happens to be on this thing called "spend down" then you would feel differently about this issue. This means that when you spend your allotted yearly amount then you have to pay out of pocket for your medicine. Some medicines cost upwards of $250.00 for one perscription for a senior on an income of less than $2,500.00 per month (and I am being generous) that could be the difference between eating and medicine. That is my mother's situation. This is a woman who has worked hard and is now sick because of the place she worked. And if this was an isolated incident it would be sad but this is the story of not just my mother but of other people who have either lost their jobs or lost their insurance due to no fault of their own. And if I walked in tomorrow and they said we have to close this place up, I would be in a boat just like this. Been there done that and don't want to ever do it again. And I will now withdraw from the debate.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
People who have insurance themselves should really not be part of the argument against this healthcare plan because they DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!! No disrespect intended, but that's just not valid. The decisions being made affect everyone, not just the uninsured. And as a citizen I certainly have the right to participate in the discussion about the policies and programs of my government. I understand, and to a large degree I sympathize with, your arguments. I just don't agree that the government should be providing health insurance. I would never deny them the right to flap their jaws but their views seem inaccurate because they cannot put themselve in the shoes of the uninsured, underindured, denied insurance etc... So they talk and talk but they really can't speak from experience which is really important in this forum. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
People who have insurance themselves should really not be part of the argument against this healthcare plan because they DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!! No disrespect intended, but that's just not valid. The decisions being made affect everyone, not just the uninsured. And as a citizen I certainly have the right to participate in the discussion about the policies and programs of my government. I understand, and to a large degree I sympathize with, your arguments. I just don't agree that the government should be providing health insurance. I would never deny them the right to flap their jaws but their views seem inaccurate because they cannot put themselve in the shoes of the uninsured, underindured, denied insurance etc... So they talk and talk but they really can't speak from experience which is really important in this forum. but wouldn't you have to assume that they never had hard times or always had insurance and can not put themselves in that positiion (even to empathize)? it would affect them too. would it not? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
People who have insurance themselves should really not be part of the argument against this healthcare plan because they DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!! No disrespect intended, but that's just not valid. The decisions being made affect everyone, not just the uninsured. And as a citizen I certainly have the right to participate in the discussion about the policies and programs of my government. I understand, and to a large degree I sympathize with, your arguments. I just don't agree that the government should be providing health insurance. I would never deny them the right to flap their jaws but their views seem inaccurate because they cannot put themselve in the shoes of the uninsured, underindured, denied insurance etc... So they talk and talk but they really can't speak from experience which is really important in this forum. According to his bio, Limbaugh actually has had to deal with real world problems like you talk about. He simply echos talking points without thinking, that's all. (ditto with Hannity, last I checked) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I honestly heard nothing new. It was all the same old talking points that he's said before compiled into one speech. I really want to see a debate about this between him and a prominent opponent from the Republicans. He's never given any real details or done anything but regurgitate the same old lines... I want him to really defend this plan, not just try to sell it. When has a President of the United States EVER had to debate someone of the opposite party while in office? This scenario isn't likely simply because it could only really help the opposition. And if you're trying to get your way you generally don't assist the opposition. Very true, but I really doubt if the outcome would be in the oppositions favor on this thing. If you had a mother or an father that happens to be on this thing called "spend down" then you would feel differently about this issue. This means that when you spend your allotted yearly amount then you have to pay out of pocket for your medicine. Some medicines cost upwards of $250.00 for one perscription for a senior on an income of less than $2,500.00 per month (and I am being generous) that could be the difference between eating and medicine. That is my mother's situation. This is a woman who has worked hard and is now sick because of the place she worked. And if this was an isolated incident it would be sad but this is the story of not just my mother but of other people who have either lost their jobs or lost their insurance due to no fault of their own. And if I walked in tomorrow and they said we have to close this place up, I would be in a boat just like this. Been there done that and don't want to ever do it again. And I will now withdraw from the debate.... I know about "spend down". It is a difficult situation. If I remember correctly, they have to "spend down" quarterly. They have to reapply all over again every quarter. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
People who have insurance themselves should really not be part of the argument against this healthcare plan because they DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!! No disrespect intended, but that's just not valid. The decisions being made affect everyone, not just the uninsured. And as a citizen I certainly have the right to participate in the discussion about the policies and programs of my government. I understand, and to a large degree I sympathize with, your arguments. I just don't agree that the government should be providing health insurance. I would never deny them the right to flap their jaws but their views seem inaccurate because they cannot put themselve in the shoes of the uninsured, underindured, denied insurance etc... So they talk and talk but they really can't speak from experience which is really important in this forum. It's so easy to find jobs now. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do have a question about this health care plan. maybe posters can help me with it...I've been outta the loop lately lol
what happens to the employer if the don't provide insurance? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
People who have insurance themselves should really not be part of the argument against this healthcare plan because they DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!! No disrespect intended, but that's just not valid. The decisions being made affect everyone, not just the uninsured. And as a citizen I certainly have the right to participate in the discussion about the policies and programs of my government. I understand, and to a large degree I sympathize with, your arguments. I just don't agree that the government should be providing health insurance. I would never deny them the right to flap their jaws but their views seem inaccurate because they cannot put themselve in the shoes of the uninsured, underindured, denied insurance etc... So they talk and talk but they really can't speak from experience which is really important in this forum. According to his bio, Limbaugh actually has had to deal with real world problems like you talk about. He simply echos talking points without thinking, that's all. (ditto with Hannity, last I checked) How rough did he have it? lol He grew up about 2 and 1/2 hours from me. His father, grandfather, and brother were lawyers. His uncle and cousin are appointed federal judges in Missouri. His grandfather was a Missouri prosecutor and was a Representative. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
People who have insurance themselves should really not be part of the argument against this healthcare plan because they DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!! No disrespect intended, but that's just not valid. The decisions being made affect everyone, not just the uninsured. And as a citizen I certainly have the right to participate in the discussion about the policies and programs of my government. I understand, and to a large degree I sympathize with, your arguments. I just don't agree that the government should be providing health insurance. I would never deny them the right to flap their jaws but their views seem inaccurate because they cannot put themselve in the shoes of the uninsured, underindured, denied insurance etc... So they talk and talk but they really can't speak from experience which is really important in this forum. According to his bio, Limbaugh actually has had to deal with real world problems like you talk about. He simply echos talking points without thinking, that's all. (ditto with Hannity, last I checked) How rough did he have it? lol He grew up about 2 and 1/2 hours from me. His father, grandfather, and brother were lawyers. His uncle and cousin are appointed federal judges in Missouri. His grandfather was a Missouri prosecutor and was a Representative. I didn't know this but I suspected it. The biggest mouths out of the talking heads spreading the propaganda were indeed born with a silverspoon in their mouth. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Atlantis,
The Federal Courthouse in their town is named after the grandfather. lol |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Atlantis, The Federal Courthouse in their town is named after the grandfather. lol well, I'm not trying to say, that it's all bad, and of course everyone wants to be wealthy and prosperous and should be the main aim, but I don't think someone with enough money to get the best doctor possible can put himself in a shoe of a regular Joe with a 9-5 job and a 30K annual salary. |
|
|
|
|
