Congress Approved Health Care Bill

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

03-23-2010, 07:50 PM
2dumb2kwit

Quote:

Originally Posted by LostOutrider

I think you missed my point with that example, brother. I'm seeing this as a happy medium between the two extremes. One part of the broken system is that we don't require folks to be insured but we do require hospitals to care for them. You're paying for that part already. Since I'm personally not cool with turning folks away who aren't insured, then the next step is making sure they are insured.

Besides, this didn't have to be sold to the public. Public hasn't voted on this. That is where the whole representative democracy part comes in. If the vocal minority turns the tide (and history shows it has to turn at some point), then they'll roll it over again. This is going to seriously hurt one party. Time will tell which one.

I have to dis-agree with you, on this. I think this bill is the worst of both extremes with other bad things added.

And it does have to be sold to the people. Not for it to be law, but for the politicians to keep their jobs, after voting for it.
03-23-2010, 07:50 PM
Rick

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2D

Maybe the doctor that would want you to have a $5,000 test, to confirm what he was 99% sure of if ins. was paying for it, might think twice about it, if his patient/friend had to pay for it himself.

I'm not a doctor. If my doctor thinks that $5,000 test will confirm what he THINKS my problem is then I want that danged test. I sure don't want him withholding some test because of the cost. Then I might have to spend several grand on my funeral. No thanks.
03-23-2010, 07:53 PM
Rick

Quote:

Originally Posted by LostOutRider

next step is making sure they are insured.

So I should pay for MORE so someone else can have health care? Uh, no. I don't buy the principle. Did you buy me a car? Did you buy me a house? Then why should you pay for my health care?
03-23-2010, 07:55 PM
2dumb2kwit

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick

I told my Representative, I'm all for health care. But not on top of a mountain of debt. First, let's resolve the deficit issue so we can afford to do the right thing. Next, address real reform. Tackle the core problems that are driving health care costs. Third, stop Medicare and Medicaid abuse. That's $30 billion a year. Once that's complete then we can afford to insure everyone across the board. BINGO!

I wonder what the cost of abuse with be with this new plan?

I think the fact that they are saying, that over 16,000 more IRS agents are going to be needed to police who is paying what, is a clue! And that's just to police who buys insurance.
03-23-2010, 07:56 PM
LostOutrider

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2dumb2kwit

I have to dis-agree with you, on this. I think this bill is the worst of both extremes with other bad things added.

And it does have to be sold to the people. Not for it to be law, but for the politicians to keep their jobs, after voting for it.

You keep changing tense on me. Was sold, does have to be sold. Pick one. Like I said, this is going to cost a whole stinking party their job. Even NPR was pointing that one out. If it turns out to be unpopular, then the Dems are out. If it works, then the Repubs . . oh, wait, they already got voted out. Well, they'll stay out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick

So I should pay for MORE so someone else can have health care? Uh, no. I don't buy the principle. Did you buy me a car? Did you buy me a house? Then why should you pay for my health care?

You already are paying more because someone does not have health care. Unless you are handling your own medicine with snake oil and prayer, then you're getting stuck already.
03-23-2010, 07:58 PM
BENESSE

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick

I told my Representative, I'm all for health care. But not on top of a mountain of debt. First, let's resolve the deficit issue so we can afford to do the right thing. Next, address real reform. Tackle the core problems that are driving health care costs. Third, stop Medicare and Medicaid abuse. That's $30 billion a year. Once that's complete then we can afford to insure everyone across the board.

You are right, of course.
What's really frustrating to me is that we had plenty of opportunities in the past to do this and do it right.
Nixon tried it, Clinton tried it.
So now that we've had a far from perfect solution shoved down our throats we just woke up?
Always a day late and a dollar short.
03-23-2010, 08:01 PM
2dumb2kwit

Quote:

Originally Posted by LostOutrider

I think you missed my point with that example, brother. I'm seeing this as a happy medium between the two extremes. One part of the broken system is that we don't require folks to be insured but we do require hospitals to care for them. You're paying for that part already. Since I'm personally not cool with turning folks away who aren't insured, then the next step is making sure they are insured.

Besides, this didn't have to be sold to the public. Public hasn't voted on this. That is where the whole representative democracy part comes in. If the vocal minority turns the tide (and history shows it has to turn at some point), then they'll roll it over again. This is going to seriously hurt one party. Time will tell which one.

We are paying that guys $500 doctor bill, so you think we should give the gov't $2,500 so that they will pay his bill, instead of us paying for it?
03-23-2010, 08:03 PM
LostOutrider

Do you wipe those numbers off when you get done pulling them out?
03-23-2010, 08:03 PM
crashdive123

If you want to continue debating the merits of the law and how it may impact us - fine. Please leave the politics out of the discussion. I know it's tough on this one, but you are all intelligent enough to do it. I have confidence in you.
03-23-2010, 08:05 PM
2dumb2kwit

Quote:

Originally Posted by LostOutrider

You keep changing tense on me. Was sold, does have to be sold. Pick one. Like I said, this is going to cost a whole stinking party their job. Even NPR was pointing that one out. If it turns out to be unpopular, then the Dems are out. If it works, then the Repubs . . oh, wait, they already got voted out. Well, they'll stay out.

You already are paying more because someone does not have health care. Unless you are handling your own medicine with snake oil and prayer, then you're getting stuck already.

Was being sold, is being sold, and will continue to be sold for years to come.
03-23-2010, 08:06 PM
LostOutrider

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2dumb2kwit

Was being sold, is being sold, and will continue to be sold for years to come.

Truth, there.
03-23-2010, 08:07 PM
Rick

Pssst. Come 'ere. Closer. Closer. I say we start a third part. We'll call it the Free American Revisionist Thinkers or F.A.R.T. for short. The FART team needs a PAC anyway.
03-23-2010, 08:08 PM
Ken

Quote:

Originally Posted by LostOutrider

Do you wipe those numbers off when you get done pulling them out?

LMAO - Score one point for the opposing view for being witty! :clap:

At least you guys finally got on the scoreboard. :sneaky2:
03-23-2010, 08:08 PM
crashdive123

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENESSE

You are right, of course.
What's really frustrating to me is that we had plenty of opportunities in the past to do this and do it right.
Nixon tried it, Clinton tried it.
So now that we've had a far from perfect solution shoved down our throats we just woke up?
Always a day late and a dollar short.

I agree that there have been attempts to improve the system in the past that either were thwarted, or did not have all that much enthusiasm behind them. The ability to buy insurance across state lines (real competition), tort reform, medical savings accounts, the same tax breaks that employers get, and on and on. Many ideas have been floated about that I think would have dramatically improved access and affordability.
03-23-2010, 08:09 PM
2dumb2kwit

Quote:

Originally Posted by LostOutrider

Do you wipe those numbers off when you get done pulling them out?

It's just an example, but in the long run I'd bet that my percentages are pretty close.
03-23-2010, 08:11 PM
LostOutrider

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick

Pssst. Come 'ere. Closer. Closer. I say we start a third part. We'll call it the Free American Revisionist Thinkers or F.A.R.T. for short. The FART team needs a PAC anyway.

Only if the secret handshake involves the pulling of fingers.
03-23-2010, 08:12 PM
2dumb2kwit

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick

Pssst. Come 'ere. Closer. Closer. I say we start a third part. We'll call it the Free American Revisionist Thinkers or F.A.R.T. for short. The FART team needs a PAC anyway.

...and don't forget the research grant.:tongue_smilie:
03-23-2010, 08:16 PM
BENESSE

Quote:

Originally Posted by crashdive123

I agree that there have been attempts to improve the system in the past that either were thwarted, or did not have all that much enthusiasm behind them. The ability to buy insurance across state lines (real competition), tort reform, medical savings accounts, the same tax breaks that employers get, and on and on. Many ideas have been floated about that I think would have dramatically improved access and affordability.

That just confirms to me what I've always suspected. That regardless of who "owned" the WH, it has always been about politics and nothing else.
When it suits us we call it something else but we know better.
03-23-2010, 08:18 PM
Rick

A FART PAC that requires pulling your finger. Oh, I like the sound of that. It's the smell that bothers me.
03-23-2010, 08:23 PM
crashdive123

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENESSE

That just confirms to me what I've always suspected. That regardless of who "owned" the WH, it has always been about politics and nothing else.
When it suits us we call it something else but we know better.

I believe that opposition toward those proposals was fierce because it would give individuals too much power. Harder to buy votes that way.
03-23-2010, 08:23 PM
Ken

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick

It's the smell that bothers me.

I had an early dinner after court today. First course was chourico and black bean soup. C'mon over, Rick! :)
03-23-2010, 08:24 PM
Batch

Would it help clear the politics of the topic if we compared the health care bill to other existing large government programs?

Like everyone deserves to own a house. Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac... Uhmmm no!

How, about a good retirement plan for everyone? Social Security... uhmmm no!
03-23-2010, 08:28 PM
BENESSE

Quote:

Originally Posted by Batch

Would it help clear the politics of the topic if we compared the health care bill to other existing large government programs?

Like everyone deserves to own a house. Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac... Uhmmm no!

How, about a good retirement plan for everyone? Social Security... uhmmm no!

How about EDUCATION?
03-23-2010, 08:29 PM
Camp10

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENESSE

That just confirms to me what I've always suspected. That regardless of who "owned" the WH, it has always been about politics and nothing else.
When it suits us we call it something else but we know better.

It is still and will always be about politics! If it was about health than the people who made this up wouldnt have exempted themselves from it.
03-23-2010, 08:29 PM
2dumb2kwit

Quote:

Originally Posted by Batch

Would it help clear the politics of the topic if we compared the health care bill to other existing large government programs?

Like everyone deserves to own a house. Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac... Uhmmm no!

How, about a good retirement plan for everyone? Social Security... uhmmm no!

Don't forget that big gov't programs have always ended up costing at least 6 times what was projected.

Do the math on this bill......we're in deep do-do!
03-23-2010, 08:30 PM
BENESSE

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken

I had an early dinner after court today. First course was chourico and black bean soup. C'mon over, Rick! :)

Condolences to the girlfriend.
03-23-2010, 08:33 PM
BENESSE

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2dumb2kwit

Don't forget that big gov't programs have always ended up costing at least 6 times what was projected.

And even more on unnecessary wars!

Do the math on this bill......we're in deep do-do!

Yeah, I've been doing the math for a little longer than a year.
03-23-2010, 08:34 PM
2dumb2kwit

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENESSE

Condolences to the girlfriend.

...and the dogs.:blushing:
03-23-2010, 08:35 PM
Rick

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benesse

That just confirms to me what I've always suspected. That regardless of who "owned" the WH, it has always been about politics and nothing else.

Well, hot diggity. Of course it is. It's about mega dollars, too. Now, ya'll know I'm a sheeple and not one to conjure up government conspiracies. Although I could easily do that with a simple incantation. I asked many posts ago, why was this pushed so hard? What was the driving push behind health care reform? Over $400 million was spent on lobbying the health care reform bill. That was spent by the health care sector. Another $120 billion was spent lobbying by the insurance industry. (numbers from The Center for Responsive Politics). Need some examples? Re-importation of drugs (drugs made here and shipped out of the country at low prices and re-imported at still low prices) were excluded in the bill courtesy of....the pharmaceutical lobby. How about the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society that lobbied Washington for and got the inclusion of as much as $36.5 billion in spending to create a nationwide network of electronic health records. See my point? Baaaaaaaaa.
03-23-2010, 08:36 PM
Ken

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2dumb2kwit

...and the dogs.:blushing:

http://www.touchmyapps.com/wp-conten...1/payback2.jpg
03-23-2010, 08:36 PM
2dumb2kwit

Quote:

And even more on unnecessary wars!

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENESSE

Yeah, I've been doing the math for a little longer than a year.

That has nothing to do with what we are talking about.....and if it did, it would still fall under "two wrongs, don't make a right".
03-23-2010, 08:38 PM
Rick

I forgot to mention the reason the pharmaceutical lobby said re-importation is not a good thing. The meds aren't safe. Yeah.
03-23-2010, 08:38 PM
BENESSE

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2dumb2kwit

...and the dogs.:blushing:

ESPECIALLY the dogs. For they don't get the jewelry.:sneaky2:
03-23-2010, 08:40 PM
LostOutrider

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick

I forgot to mention the reason the pharmaceutical lobby said re-importation is not a good thing. The meds aren't safe. Yeah.

Hm... considering we can't even get Thomas the Train imported safely, I'm not entirely certain I want to outsource my meds to China.

2d, pull us out some numbers to show how much we'd spend in excess medical bills by taking Made In China lead-pills.
03-23-2010, 08:42 PM
BENESSE

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2dumb2kwit

That has nothing to do with what we are talking about.....and if it did, it would still fall under "two wrongs, don't make a right".

But two lefts do.:innocent:
03-23-2010, 08:43 PM
2dumb2kwit

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick

Well, hot diggity. Of course it is. It's about mega dollars, too. Now, ya'll know I'm a sheeple and not one to conjure up government conspiracies. Although I could easily do that with a simple incantation. I asked many posts ago, why was this pushed so hard? What was the driving push behind health care reform? Over $400 million was spent on lobbying the health care reform bill. That was spent by the health care sector. Another $120 billion was spent lobbying by the insurance industry. (numbers from The Center for Responsive Politics). Need some examples? Re-importation of drugs (drugs made here and shipped out of the country at low prices and re-imported at still low prices) were excluded in the bill courtesy of....the pharmaceutical lobby. How about the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society that lobbied Washington for and got the inclusion of as much as $36.5 billion in spending to create a nationwide network of electronic health records. See my point? Baaaaaaaaa.

No, no, no Rick! You're supposed to keep people looking at the guy supposedly being saved from death on a cold sidewalk, because he doesn't have insurance. Then they yell save this guy...and don't notice all those things that you are talking about.

Sheeez......Do we have to draw you a picture???:innocent: LOL
03-23-2010, 08:47 PM
2dumb2kwit

Quote:

Originally Posted by LostOutrider

Hm... considering we can't even get Thomas the Train imported safely, I'm not entirely certain I want to outsource my meds to China.

2d, pull us out some numbers to show how much we'd spend in excess medical bills by taking Made In China lead-pills.

Once again, you're acting on emotion and missing the details.:innocent:

Quote:

Re-importation of drugs (drugs made here and shipped out of the country at low prices and re-imported at still low prices)
03-23-2010, 08:47 PM
LostOutrider

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick

How about the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society that lobbied Washington for and got the inclusion of as much as $36.5 billion in spending to create a nationwide network of electronic health records.

Just out of curiosity, why is a nationwide network of electronic health records a bad thing? I have an anecdote, which isn't significant data of course, but where the reliance on paper records nearly cost my oldest his life. Had they been electronic, then it would have saved some very precious hours.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2dumb2kwit

Once again, you're acting on emotion and missing the details.:innocent:

The details is that things don't become magically cheaper just because you ship them across the world and then back. I'd be real curious to know why this unregulated pill that just got shipped back to me from a country with much, much looser standards is all of a sudden such a bargain.
03-23-2010, 08:48 PM
2dumb2kwit

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENESSE

But two lefts do.:innocent:

Pffft! Silly girl.......it takes three lefts.:innocent: LOL
03-23-2010, 08:53 PM
crashdive123

Quote:

Originally Posted by Batch

Would it help clear the politics of the topic if we compared the health care bill to other existing large government programs?

Like everyone deserves to own a house. Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac... Uhmmm no!

How, about a good retirement plan for everyone? Social Security... uhmmm no!

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENESSE

How about EDUCATION?

Uhmmmm no!

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:18 PM.