100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Mandate Was A Republican Idea | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
but that is NOT what is happening now and is likely NOT what will happen in the future. people simply don't pay for insurance and then go to the ER when they get sick enough and it is an incredible strain on our system. the ER personnel have to deal with everybody and it compromises the care for everyone. many of the uninsured get hospitalized or treated superficially and discharged and it all costs time and money. if they refuse or cannot pay the tax then what? nothing. so, many will just forget about the tax and the insurance. particularly younger healthier people...and we are all still stuck footing the bill under emergency situations with the ER clogged and staff overworked and a vast amount of treatment in an inappropriate and very expensive setting. there has to be a better way of handling this without leaving a gigantic black hole of a loophole. but i think that single payer is very likely the best way to handle it. I dont know a way around it really, it would be uncivil to not treeat people in emergencies because of their financial status,,, at least this bill can alleviate how many people dont see a doctor AT ALL or even go to an emergency room when they are uninsured(myself included) because they know they wont be able to afford the bill. I doubt that those who pay for insurance are going to stop using it because of this bill, so at worst case, we will still have SOME portion of those who misuse emergency rooms now,, still misusing them, but I guess one way to alleviate it IF it became more of a problem is to add a cap , in addition to the tax, at which unpaid emergency bills over a certain amount will allow seizure of assets and property if any person to cover the cost |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i think this is one of the principal reasons we really need
a single payer care system. people will be able to see a doctor when they get ill rather than rely on the ER, you get rid of the leech-like insurance middlemen completely and there is no special private insurance pool to create and administer and no legal status of compliance to determine. this is the way it will ultimately be resolved so the earlier we do it the better it will be - more savings and faster more efficient implementation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i think this is one of the principal reasons we really need a single payer care system. people will be able to see a doctor when they get ill rather than rely on the ER, you get rid of the leech-like insurance middlemen completely and there is no special private insurance pool to create and administer and no legal status of compliance to determine. this is the way it will ultimately be resolved so the earlier we do it the better it will be - more savings and faster more efficient implementation. but the false philosophy of entitlement to 'FREEDOM' will never allow that to happen,,, I think this is the best we are gonna get |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i'm resigned to the current bill for the near term
but expecting that it will be single payer in a few years. the economics are too compelling and eventually everyone will figure out that it is not an encroachment on freedom. just wish it would hurry up and happen. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i'm resigned to the current bill for the near term but expecting that it will be single payer in a few years. the economics are too compelling and eventually everyone will figure out that it is not an encroachment on freedom. just wish it would hurry up and happen. hope springs eternal,,,,IM with you in those hopes, just not so confident it will ever happen that way,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm. No opinion? Just regurgitation of a story you found somewhere? Wow. I'm impressed. Not to mention a copyright issue since no link was posted. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the bill is unconstitutional - NEVER before has a precedent been set that forced someone to do business with a private company or be fined. It would be like making everyone buy auto insurance or pay a fine even if they didn't own or drive a car. Social security and medicare are government run programs thus the difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the bill is unconstitutional - NEVER before has a precedent been set that forced someone to do business with a private company or be fined. It would be like making everyone buy auto insurance or pay a fine even if they didn't own or drive a car. Social security and medicare are government run programs thus the difference. Don't worry it wont hold. Let the courts strike it down and if on the slim chance they don't Republican's have already vowed to get rid of the bill once they get a majority again (Can anyone say November  )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can't believe I actually read these words in a forum post:
" ... the false philosophy of entitlement to 'FREEDOM' ... " 'ENTITLEMENT' ... ? to FREEDOM ... ? Freedom is OUR BIRTHRIGHT. Perhaps this concept is just too deep to allow ease of understanding ... ? I'd like to know what your REAL 'philosophy' [sic] is, since it's obviously NOT freedom ... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm. No opinion? Just regurgitation of a story you found somewhere? Wow. I'm impressed. Not to mention a copyright issue since no link was posted. so posting the link makes it true....  that must be why you do that so often |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i think this is one of the principal reasons we really need a single payer care system. people will be able to see a doctor when they get ill rather than rely on the ER, you get rid of the leech-like insurance middlemen completely and there is no special private insurance pool to create and administer and no legal status of compliance to determine. this is the way it will ultimately be resolved so the earlier we do it the better it will be - more savings and faster more efficient implementation. but the false philosophy of entitlement to 'FREEDOM' will never allow that to happen,,, I think this is the best we are gonna get "How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words" Samuel Adams |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Winx
on
Thu 03/25/10 09:16 AM
|
|
Hmm. No opinion? Just regurgitation of a story you found somewhere? Wow. I'm impressed. Not to mention a copyright issue since no link was posted. No copyright issue at all. I posted the author and the newspaper and the date. Nice try though.  http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/3460142 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Thu 03/25/10 09:37 AM
|
|
I can't believe I actually read these words in a forum post: " ... the false philosophy of entitlement to 'FREEDOM' ... " 'ENTITLEMENT' ... ? to FREEDOM ... ? Freedom is OUR BIRTHRIGHT. Perhaps this concept is just too deep to allow ease of understanding ... ? I'd like to know what your REAL 'philosophy' [sic] is, since it's obviously NOT freedom ... gladly,, freedom is a wonderful philosophy, but in a culture which is capitalistic in nature is never totally FREE.. we give but we also GET and in order to GET we must GIVE,,s omething,,, nothing is actually free, except emotions and opinions in the end, the only variant to our FREEDOM to healthcare, is which group will hold the privileges and profits,,,and whether its unsurance companies or goverment,, it will never be US,, so what difference does it truly make |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We are only as free as our purchasing power enables us to be. THAT's the nature of capitalism.
Under the Communist Anarchy of ObamaRule, you will be made happy quite shortly as he proceeds to shred our Constitution and disassemble the economic engine of our nation that you seem to have such a problem accepting. Once we have all been reduced to serfdom, you'll be able to point proudly to everyone's new-found 'equality' with a prideful finger and say 'I helped create that!' .... be proud. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Thu 03/25/10 10:33 AM
|
|
We are only as free as our purchasing power enables us to be. THAT's the nature of capitalism. Under the Communist Anarchy of ObamaRule, you will be made happy quite shortly as he proceeds to shred our Constitution and disassemble the economic engine of our nation that you seem to have such a problem accepting. Once we have all been reduced to serfdom, you'll be able to point proudly to everyone's new-found 'equality' with a prideful finger and say 'I helped create that!' .... be proud. serf: : a member of a servile feudal class bound to the land and subject to the will of its owner you totally miss my point,, its not a matter of WHETHER we will be in 'serfdom' , its only a matter of who the 'OWNER' is currently its those with wealth and big business,,, doesnt seem any less or more inviting than a government owner,,,,,we are never truly FREE,, we have and always be in capitalistic serfdom some slaves had viscious owners who beat and abused them,, others actually had owners who tried to protect them from that treatment,,,, so many ways big business screws over the little man for profit, Im not so impressed by the current system of healthcare for that reason and am very open to the change,,,,something different may be better or it may be worse,, but the status quo will NEVER be worse OR better,,,,I'll take the chance with change |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You volitionally disregard the route by which OUR SERFDOM is being created. I find myself completely unsurprised by that. Your 'point' completely overlooks the FACT that, UNTIL OBAMA, we were a FREE people. Interesting that you employ the use of the word 'owner' ... what are you implying while actually fearing to say what you really mean? You also fall back repeatedly on the term 'capitalistic serfdom' ... which is a giveaway for the fact that you obviously believe any OTHER route by which eventual serfdom is achieved is preferable - so long as we're all serfs. Just have the simple honesty to admit you really do believe that Communism or Socialism is your preference. I could at least respect the honesty about the postition. I respect nothing about the weasel-word stealth implications being used.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Thu 03/25/10 10:42 AM
|
|
You volitionally disregard the route by which OUR SERFDOM is being created. I find myself completely unsurprised by that. Your 'point' completely overlooks the FACT that, UNTIL OBAMA, we were a FREE people. Interesting that you employ the use of the word 'owner' ... what are you implying while actually fearing to say what you really mean? You also fall back repeatedly on the term 'capitalistic serfdom' ... which is a giveaway for the fact that you obviously believe any OTHER route by which eventual serfdom is achieved is preferable - so long as we're all serfs. Just have the simple honesty to admit you really do believe that Communism or Socialism is your preference. I could at least respect the honesty about the postition. I respect nothing about the weasel-word stealth implications being used. please do not put words in my post and read my post completely...I used the word OWNER because you brought up the term SERFDOM,, which is a definition that includes the concept of an OWNER... as to the rest, I specifically posted "currently its those with wealth and big business,,, doesnt seem any less or more inviting than a government owner" No MORE or less inviting,, I have no preference besides what is going to work best. WHen it comes to healthcare, I am ready to try to do something that MIGHT be better instead of leaving things in the state they are in. there was no more or less freedom under bush than there is under OBama,,, but I will leave that because of the broad interpretations of the word 'free' |
|
|
|
|
