Congress Approved Health Care Bill

[2dumb2kwit]

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.

[Rick]

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.

[Rick]

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?

[2dumb2kwit]

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.

[LostOutrider]

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.

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.

[BENESSE]

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.

[2dumb2kwit]

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?

[LostOutrider]

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

[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.

[2dumb2kwit]

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.

[LostOutrider]

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

Truth, there.

[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.

[Ken]

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

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

At least you guys finally got on the scoreboard.

[crashdive123]

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.

[2dumb2kwit]

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.

[LostOutrider]

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.

[2dumb2kwit]

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.

[BENESSE]

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.

[Rick]

A FART PAC that requires pulling your finger. Oh, I like the sound of that. It's the smell that bothers me.

[crashdive123]

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.