Okay how bout this. I will go along with your guys idea of solving this "problem" under a couple of conditions. 1) If you are getting free health care you must prove you are an american citizen 2) If you are getting free health care you must submit to random drug testing.(Each failure leads to suspended coverage for x amout of time, 3 strikes your out) 3) If you are getting free health care you must show proof of employment, or proof that the unemployment office has NO jobs in your area. All children under the age of 18 get it free regardless as you cant choose your parents. All Americans that meet this criteria get the free hook-up, what do you think:shrug:
France, the best health care?
- Thread starter Spytheweb
- Start date
Okay how bout this. I will go along with your guys idea of solving this "problem" under a couple of conditions. 1) If you are getting free health care you must prove you are an american citizen 2) If you are getting free health care you must submit to random drug testing.(Each failure leads to suspended coverage for x amout of time, 3 strikes your out) 3) If you are getting free health care you must show proof of employment, or proof that the unemployment office has NO jobs in your area. All children under the age of 18 get it free regardless as you cant choose your parents. All Americans that meet this criteria get the free hook-up, what do you think:shrug:
Now we're making some progress. Gotta get some shuteye though. I'll take your suggestions under advisement UGA12.
UGA12 - sounds like a great idea. Heard on the news this morning about people getting FREE health care. I guess the nurses, doctors, etc. are going to all volunteer their time. I suppose utility companies and landlords will donate their services. Nothing is FREE. Somebody always has to pay for it. We, the taxpayers, are the government. Nothing is free.
Your right somebody is going to pay. If you can meet the criteria I listed you will be doing your part to pay:shrug: I have a feeling however that that criteria would not fly with most liberals.
- Sep 27, 2005
- 1,171
- 14
- 0
So you're taken care of, that means the rest of the country does not exist. Or changes could effect you. What if your wife loses her job tomorrow, what happens? What if you find out you have brain cancer and maybe your hospital bills could run $900,000 or so? Insurance company's have people on retainer who's job it is to dig through your medical history and come up with a reason for a preexisting conditions to deny you, and they don't have to be good reasons, just good enough for them.
Every claim they pay out is a medical loss for them. Insurance companies are not in the business of providing health care, they're in the business of making money. The person who denies will proably get a bonus for doing so.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GXiJVL2tkC4&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GXiJVL2tkC4&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundamerica/view/
- Sep 27, 2005
- 1,171
- 14
- 0
So somehow the rest of the world is smarter than the US because they have programs up and running and their citizens are happy with it. America can't come with anything because it's people are too stupid, their government can't run anything right? Why is America the leader of the free world again?
The US is a country that exploits it's people for money and is so good at it the people themselves supports the system that holds them down. From universal health, to high speed trains, to slow speed broadband, to the death penalty. Americans are locked into a mindset that the masters don't need you in chains to keep it going.
The government is rotten, so many congressman are on the take that this is not the government it was meant to be a few hundred years ago, and will never be. Coporate money drives everything. Lobbying should be outlawed. They said that Rome would never fall, we'll just have to wait and see.
Hmmmm...not sure those countries with government health care are all so giddy about it unless we are talking about the poor and jobless whom I am sure are very happy.
And we should start copying programs in other countries that work? Hmmmmm....we aren't other countries. We have our own problems that other countries don't have. We have issues that other countries don't have. That seems like a simple solution - copy what others have done.
I don't want the government to tell me what doctor or PA I have to see. I don't want to wait a month for an appointment. I don't want the government telling me what medications, generic of course, I need to take.
I posed the question before. What massive program has the government overtaken and made better?
Do you think BO and the congress is going to switch over to this plan? Somehow I doubt it. When Obama and the like trust their healthcare to this plan, I'll be the first to follow them.
I guess I'm being elitist because I don't empathize with the poor and jobless to the nth degree. Maybe I'm twisted because I have been working for the last 50 years so that I wouldn't end up poor. Brand me whatever you want, but I think most of you will agree but maybe not have the nerve to admit it. I'm tired of working my butt off for 50 years so that someone else can take my money to help themselves because they were too lazy or stupid to get an education and didn't feel like working or would rather drink or do drugs. I don't want to support them or girls and their kids that have 5 children from 5 different fathers.
I happily support the elderly, handicapped, veterans and those who can't contribute due to no fault of their own. I guess I'm just too old school to be more compassionate.
And we should start copying programs in other countries that work? Hmmmmm....we aren't other countries. We have our own problems that other countries don't have. We have issues that other countries don't have. That seems like a simple solution - copy what others have done.
I don't want the government to tell me what doctor or PA I have to see. I don't want to wait a month for an appointment. I don't want the government telling me what medications, generic of course, I need to take.
I posed the question before. What massive program has the government overtaken and made better?
Do you think BO and the congress is going to switch over to this plan? Somehow I doubt it. When Obama and the like trust their healthcare to this plan, I'll be the first to follow them.
I guess I'm being elitist because I don't empathize with the poor and jobless to the nth degree. Maybe I'm twisted because I have been working for the last 50 years so that I wouldn't end up poor. Brand me whatever you want, but I think most of you will agree but maybe not have the nerve to admit it. I'm tired of working my butt off for 50 years so that someone else can take my money to help themselves because they were too lazy or stupid to get an education and didn't feel like working or would rather drink or do drugs. I don't want to support them or girls and their kids that have 5 children from 5 different fathers.
I happily support the elderly, handicapped, veterans and those who can't contribute due to no fault of their own. I guess I'm just too old school to be more compassionate.
Latest news report - Medicare (government run program to aid seniors and disabled) is going broke. They are now spending more money than they are receiving in tax money and it is projected that the fund will be insolvent by 2017.
And you want the government to manage everyone's healthcare?
And you want the government to manage everyone's healthcare?
we agree. i am glad that others on the left side of things do recognize this as well. i am not happy with the current situation, but i don't think that obama is going after this in a way that will truly benefit. (i humblly consider myself middle class) myself and others like me are going to be on the wrong end of this thing in a few years.
Would love to hear what some of the obama supporters think about this compromise:shrug:
1) I have no problem with this one.
2) This one?s well-intentioned; however, where do you draw the line? Would it be fair to withhold coverage from occasional marijuana users but provide it to smokers and alcoholics? How about the legally obese? Before you know it, the only people eligible for the public option are Buddhist monks.
3) This one?s well-intentioned as well; however, how would you?
a) Define ?your area??
b) Define ?NO jobs?? Are you suggesting out of work professionals would need to take low paying service sector jobs to be eligible for the public option?
I think we?re making progress but we need some clarification on points 2 & 3.
2) Yes it is fair because one is leagal and the other is not. If you can afford to be packing bowls, then you dont need free health care anyway.
3) Your arera= your zip code. Professionals probably would not be on the free option anyway, but yes if they want to take that route then take a service based job until you find another one of your liking:shrug:
Last edited:
Even though I believe smokers, alcoholics and the clinically obese place a much bigger strain on our healthcare system than recreational marijuana smokers do, if it meant getting the bill passed, I would agree to criteria #2 based on the legality issue you raised.
Criteria #3 just doesn?t work and here?s why:
First, I believe all unemployed would, by default, be disqualified because there are always available jobs in any local area. But out of work auto workers and machinists aren?t going to apply for jobs as a clerical workers or work as sales clerks at The Gap.
Second, the amount of data mining that would be required to verify there were ?no jobs? in your local area (regardless of the criteria you use to define your local area) would be an administrative nightmare requiring the kind of inter-agency data gathering and sharing that does not currently exist. Creating this type of system would be extremely costly and create the kind of administrative overhead that plagues our current healthcare system.
Alright #1 stays, #2 stays. and # 3 kicks in after a 90 day grace period. :shrug: BTW I find it a telling fact of this forum that an actual civil discussion on fixing things gets two guys, but if one of the resident idiots post their worthless drivil everyone comes out and has to get involved. lol. And we wonder why our government cant get shit accomplished, their just like most around here.
I think a better option for criteria #3 would be...
Anyone unemployed but currently enrolled (or has been enrolled within the past 90 days) in a job skills training program, trade school or college is eligible for the public option healthcare plan. If you're unemployed and don't meet the above criteria, you don't qualify.
If you agree, I think we sign the bill and have a beer. :toast:
I have no problem with that as long as they are bettering themselves in prder to do their part. Now that wasnt so hard. We have Americans getting healthcare and doing their part support it. I can go along with that plan. :mj06:
Unless something has changed recently---I believe congress has the same health plan as any other civil service employee. No?
CNSNews.com
Congressmen Who Vote for Government-Run Health Care Agency Should Be Its First Customers, Legislation Says
Thursday, July 09, 2009
By Matt Cover
Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) (Photo courtesy of Fleming?s Web site)
(CNSNews.com) ? Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) introduced a bill Monday that urges members of Congress who vote to create a government-run health insurance agency to give up their own comprehensive health insurance plans to join the new the public option they advocate for others.
The bill, H. Res. 615, says members of Congress who vote for a government-run health care bureau should become the inaugural customers of government-run health-care.
?That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that Members who vote in favor of the establishment of a public, federal government run health insurance option are urged to forgo their right to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and agree to enroll under that public option,? the resolution reads.
Fleming said he offered the non-binding resolution after he found out that under both the House and Senate proposals, members of Congress and other federal government employees will not have to participate in the planned health insurance exchanges for at least five years.
After five years, they still do not have to participate in the exchanges if they do not want to, while every other American must have a plan that conforms to the government?s rules, Fleming added.
?It?ll be at least five years after passage until a congressperson can ? at least ? opt in to the [government] system, and then it doesn?t force them to do that ? it just allows them to do that,? Fleming told CNSNews.com.
?I think that the job of a congressman is to represent his people,? he said. ?How can you honestly represent your people when you?re not dealing with the same problems and issues and decision-making that others do??
Fleming said his bill would address the public perception that Congress doesn?t like to play by its own rules, exempting itself from the downsides of the ?reforms? it says we all need.
?I think there is a very deep sense in the electorate, which I think is accurate, that Congress tends to exempt itself from the very policies that it creates,? said Fleming. ?You have to believe that if Congress exempts itself or has an option that doesn?t force members into the same kind of plans [the public is required to have], then it?s, again, ?What?s good for the goose is not necessarily what?s good for the gander?.?
Fleming said that if a public option does come to the floor, he plans to offer an amendment that would require, rather than simply encourage, members of Congress to enroll in the government plan.
?When the bill actually comes to floor ? if it contains a single-payer option ? then we plan to add an amendment that says that, there being a single-payer option, members of Congress will forgo their ability to opt into the federal program and that they will take the same single-payer option that most Americans will end up with,? said Fleming.
The ?federal program? Fleming referred to is the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, which is available to all federal government employees, including members of Congress and their staffs.
It is essentially a health insurance pool that offers hundreds of different private insurance plans that conform to limited rules. Because all federal agencies and both houses of Congress participate in the pool, the benefits are quite good, better than those offered under many private plans because health care costs do not affect the government?s bottom line.
Fleming, a physician, said that private insurance is not without its problems and he agrees that the market needs to be reformed, but he also said that a government-run health system would make the problems worse.
?Already, we?re in a tremendous bureaucracy, red tape like we?ve never seen before both for Medicare and Medicaid and for private insurance,? he said. ?Private insurance uses Medicare as kind of a template for what it does, so even private insurance as it exists today has a lot of red tape and issues. It?s not as bad as the government system, and it can be improved.
?We definitely need reform,? said Fleming. ?What we need to do is have insurance reform by bringing in younger people and giving them incentives to opt in to the system. We need to reform insurance laws and do away with pre-existing illness [limitations], which is keeping a lot of people out of coverage.
?We need to provide subsidies to those who have marginal incomes,? Fleming continued. ?They need portability, they need to be able to buy the insurance directly without the employer, and it all needs to be tax-deductible.?
Congressmen Who Vote for Government-Run Health Care Agency Should Be Its First Customers, Legislation Says
Thursday, July 09, 2009
By Matt Cover
Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) (Photo courtesy of Fleming?s Web site)
(CNSNews.com) ? Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) introduced a bill Monday that urges members of Congress who vote to create a government-run health insurance agency to give up their own comprehensive health insurance plans to join the new the public option they advocate for others.
The bill, H. Res. 615, says members of Congress who vote for a government-run health care bureau should become the inaugural customers of government-run health-care.
?That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that Members who vote in favor of the establishment of a public, federal government run health insurance option are urged to forgo their right to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and agree to enroll under that public option,? the resolution reads.
Fleming said he offered the non-binding resolution after he found out that under both the House and Senate proposals, members of Congress and other federal government employees will not have to participate in the planned health insurance exchanges for at least five years.
After five years, they still do not have to participate in the exchanges if they do not want to, while every other American must have a plan that conforms to the government?s rules, Fleming added.
?It?ll be at least five years after passage until a congressperson can ? at least ? opt in to the [government] system, and then it doesn?t force them to do that ? it just allows them to do that,? Fleming told CNSNews.com.
?I think that the job of a congressman is to represent his people,? he said. ?How can you honestly represent your people when you?re not dealing with the same problems and issues and decision-making that others do??
Fleming said his bill would address the public perception that Congress doesn?t like to play by its own rules, exempting itself from the downsides of the ?reforms? it says we all need.
?I think there is a very deep sense in the electorate, which I think is accurate, that Congress tends to exempt itself from the very policies that it creates,? said Fleming. ?You have to believe that if Congress exempts itself or has an option that doesn?t force members into the same kind of plans [the public is required to have], then it?s, again, ?What?s good for the goose is not necessarily what?s good for the gander?.?
Fleming said that if a public option does come to the floor, he plans to offer an amendment that would require, rather than simply encourage, members of Congress to enroll in the government plan.
?When the bill actually comes to floor ? if it contains a single-payer option ? then we plan to add an amendment that says that, there being a single-payer option, members of Congress will forgo their ability to opt into the federal program and that they will take the same single-payer option that most Americans will end up with,? said Fleming.
The ?federal program? Fleming referred to is the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, which is available to all federal government employees, including members of Congress and their staffs.
It is essentially a health insurance pool that offers hundreds of different private insurance plans that conform to limited rules. Because all federal agencies and both houses of Congress participate in the pool, the benefits are quite good, better than those offered under many private plans because health care costs do not affect the government?s bottom line.
Fleming, a physician, said that private insurance is not without its problems and he agrees that the market needs to be reformed, but he also said that a government-run health system would make the problems worse.
?Already, we?re in a tremendous bureaucracy, red tape like we?ve never seen before both for Medicare and Medicaid and for private insurance,? he said. ?Private insurance uses Medicare as kind of a template for what it does, so even private insurance as it exists today has a lot of red tape and issues. It?s not as bad as the government system, and it can be improved.
?We definitely need reform,? said Fleming. ?What we need to do is have insurance reform by bringing in younger people and giving them incentives to opt in to the system. We need to reform insurance laws and do away with pre-existing illness [limitations], which is keeping a lot of people out of coverage.
?We need to provide subsidies to those who have marginal incomes,? Fleming continued. ?They need portability, they need to be able to buy the insurance directly without the employer, and it all needs to be tax-deductible.?
That certainly is an eye opener-Thanks Ferd
in addition--
July 28, 2009
10 Questions for Supporters of 'ObamaCare'
By Dennis Prager
1. President Barack Obama repeatedly tells us that one reason national health care is needed is that we can no longer afford to pay for Medicare and Medicaid. But if Medicare and Medicaid are fiscally insolvent and gradually bankrupting our society, why is a government takeover of medical care for the rest of society a good idea? What large-scale government program has not eventually spiraled out of control, let alone stayed within its projected budget? Why should anyone believe that nationalizing health care would create the first major government program to "pay for itself," let alone get smaller rather than larger over time? Why not simply see how the Democrats can reform Medicare and Medicaid before nationalizing much of the rest of health care?
2. President Obama reiterated this past week that "no insurance company will be allowed to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing medical condition." This is an oft-repeated goal of the president's and the Democrats' health care plan. But if any individual can buy health insurance at any time, why would anyone buy health insurance while healthy? Why would I not simply wait until I got sick or injured to buy the insurance? If auto insurance were purchasable once one got into an accident, why would anyone purchase auto insurance before an accident? Will the Democrats next demand that life insurance companies sell life insurance to the terminally ill? The whole point of insurance is that the healthy buy it and thereby provide the funds to pay for the sick. Demanding that insurance companies provide insurance to everyone at any time spells the end of the concept of insurance. And if the answer is that the government will now make it illegal not to buy insurance, how will that be enforced? How will the government check on 300 million people?
3. Why do supporters of nationalized medicine so often substitute the word "care" for the word "insurance?" it is patently untrue that millions of Americans do not receive health care. Millions of Americans do not have health insurance but virtually every American (and non-American on American soil) receives health care.
4. No one denies that in order to come close to staying within its budget health care will be rationed. But what is the moral justification of having the state decide what medical care to ration?
5. According to Dr. David Gratzer, health care specialist at the Manhattan Institute, "While 20 years ago pharmaceuticals were largely developed in Europe, European price controls made drug development an American enterprise. Fifteen of the 20 top-selling drugs worldwide this year were birthed in the United States." Given how many lives -- in America and throughout the world - American pharmaceutical companies save, and given how expensive it is to develop any new drug, will the price controls on drugs envisaged in the Democrats' bill improve or impair Americans' health?
6. Do you really believe that private insurance could survive a "public option"? Or is this really a cover for the ideal of single-payer medical care? How could a private insurance company survive a "public option" given that private companies have to show a profit and government agencies do not have to - and given that a private enterprise must raise its own money to be solvent and a government option has access to others'
money -- i.e., taxes?
7. Why will hospitals, doctors, and pharmaceutical companies do nearly as superb a job as they now do if their reimbursement from the government will be severely cut? Haven't the laws of human behavior and common sense been repealed here in arguing that while doctors, hospitals and drug companies will make significantly less money they will continue to provide the same level of uniquely excellent care?
8. Given how many needless procedures are ordered to avoid medical lawsuits and how much money doctors spend on medical malpractice insurance, shouldn't any meaningful "reform" of health care provide some remedy for frivolous malpractice lawsuits?
9. Given how weak the U.S. economy is, given how weak the U.S. dollar is, and given how much in debt the U.S. is in, why would anyone seek to have the U.S. spend another trillion dollars? Even if all the other questions here had legitimate answers, wouldn't the state of the U.S. economy alone argue against national health care at this time?
10. Contrary to the assertion of President Obama -- "we spend much more on health care than any other nation but aren't any healthier for it" -- we are healthier. We wait far less time for procedures and surgeries.
Our life expectancy with virtually any major disease is longer. And if you do not count deaths from violent crime and automobile accidents, we also have the longest life expectancy. Do you think a government takeover of American medicine will enable this medical excellence to continue?
<SCRIPT type=text/javascript> checkTextResizerCookie('article_body'); </SCRIPT>
in addition--
July 28, 2009
10 Questions for Supporters of 'ObamaCare'
By Dennis Prager
1. President Barack Obama repeatedly tells us that one reason national health care is needed is that we can no longer afford to pay for Medicare and Medicaid. But if Medicare and Medicaid are fiscally insolvent and gradually bankrupting our society, why is a government takeover of medical care for the rest of society a good idea? What large-scale government program has not eventually spiraled out of control, let alone stayed within its projected budget? Why should anyone believe that nationalizing health care would create the first major government program to "pay for itself," let alone get smaller rather than larger over time? Why not simply see how the Democrats can reform Medicare and Medicaid before nationalizing much of the rest of health care?
2. President Obama reiterated this past week that "no insurance company will be allowed to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing medical condition." This is an oft-repeated goal of the president's and the Democrats' health care plan. But if any individual can buy health insurance at any time, why would anyone buy health insurance while healthy? Why would I not simply wait until I got sick or injured to buy the insurance? If auto insurance were purchasable once one got into an accident, why would anyone purchase auto insurance before an accident? Will the Democrats next demand that life insurance companies sell life insurance to the terminally ill? The whole point of insurance is that the healthy buy it and thereby provide the funds to pay for the sick. Demanding that insurance companies provide insurance to everyone at any time spells the end of the concept of insurance. And if the answer is that the government will now make it illegal not to buy insurance, how will that be enforced? How will the government check on 300 million people?
3. Why do supporters of nationalized medicine so often substitute the word "care" for the word "insurance?" it is patently untrue that millions of Americans do not receive health care. Millions of Americans do not have health insurance but virtually every American (and non-American on American soil) receives health care.
4. No one denies that in order to come close to staying within its budget health care will be rationed. But what is the moral justification of having the state decide what medical care to ration?
5. According to Dr. David Gratzer, health care specialist at the Manhattan Institute, "While 20 years ago pharmaceuticals were largely developed in Europe, European price controls made drug development an American enterprise. Fifteen of the 20 top-selling drugs worldwide this year were birthed in the United States." Given how many lives -- in America and throughout the world - American pharmaceutical companies save, and given how expensive it is to develop any new drug, will the price controls on drugs envisaged in the Democrats' bill improve or impair Americans' health?
6. Do you really believe that private insurance could survive a "public option"? Or is this really a cover for the ideal of single-payer medical care? How could a private insurance company survive a "public option" given that private companies have to show a profit and government agencies do not have to - and given that a private enterprise must raise its own money to be solvent and a government option has access to others'
money -- i.e., taxes?
7. Why will hospitals, doctors, and pharmaceutical companies do nearly as superb a job as they now do if their reimbursement from the government will be severely cut? Haven't the laws of human behavior and common sense been repealed here in arguing that while doctors, hospitals and drug companies will make significantly less money they will continue to provide the same level of uniquely excellent care?
8. Given how many needless procedures are ordered to avoid medical lawsuits and how much money doctors spend on medical malpractice insurance, shouldn't any meaningful "reform" of health care provide some remedy for frivolous malpractice lawsuits?
9. Given how weak the U.S. economy is, given how weak the U.S. dollar is, and given how much in debt the U.S. is in, why would anyone seek to have the U.S. spend another trillion dollars? Even if all the other questions here had legitimate answers, wouldn't the state of the U.S. economy alone argue against national health care at this time?
10. Contrary to the assertion of President Obama -- "we spend much more on health care than any other nation but aren't any healthier for it" -- we are healthier. We wait far less time for procedures and surgeries.
Our life expectancy with virtually any major disease is longer. And if you do not count deaths from violent crime and automobile accidents, we also have the longest life expectancy. Do you think a government takeover of American medicine will enable this medical excellence to continue?
<SCRIPT type=text/javascript> checkTextResizerCookie('article_body'); </SCRIPT>
Like everything else coming out of Washington, let's just spend, spend and spend more. Personally, I've never been more worried about the future of the U.S. Not putting all the blame on Obama or even "W". There is enough blame to go around the world and back with our politicians local or national, lobbies, big business, etc
