You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Healthcare
- Thread starter Al Wohlstrom
- Start date
Speaking of Pelosi......I wonder why the water boarding thing went away..WOW:lipsrsealed:Pelosi's fine, Reed has no backbone.
IMSA
Speaking of Pelosi......I wonder why the water boarding thing went away..WOW:lipsrsealed:
I wonder who authorized it in the first place.
well....seeing that the democrats only have the balls to squeeze the Americans wallet...It must have been Bush that authorized to put the squeeze on the bad guys.....but to pelosi's credit..she thought it was OK........well..........at the time:laugh:I wonder who authorized it in the first place.
I am with you Al. I vote for the person not the party.
When I read the democratic argument, I am reminded (again) of the UK system. While IMSA's post notes of Wall Street greed etc, I am sorry I didn't post the article from the Sunday Times which showed that women over 55 are denied cancer treatment by the NHS, while younger women get the treatment.
Have we forgotten that Obama wants to change the democratic party to look like the UK Labour party? This was said after the election by a U of Maryland (or Virginia) professor on BBC World Service (some of you may have seen this transmission on PBS).
America needs a better healthcare system but the democrats don't have the answer. I don't think anyone will find much difference with coverage denial by either the NHS or U.S. insurance companies. Someone has to pay the bill.
Regarding the health care legislation's success, I think Mr. Obama's future and career rests on its passage more than the republican's needing it to fail to insure their long term future.
When I read the democratic argument, I am reminded (again) of the UK system. While IMSA's post notes of Wall Street greed etc, I am sorry I didn't post the article from the Sunday Times which showed that women over 55 are denied cancer treatment by the NHS, while younger women get the treatment.
Have we forgotten that Obama wants to change the democratic party to look like the UK Labour party? This was said after the election by a U of Maryland (or Virginia) professor on BBC World Service (some of you may have seen this transmission on PBS).
America needs a better healthcare system but the democrats don't have the answer. I don't think anyone will find much difference with coverage denial by either the NHS or U.S. insurance companies. Someone has to pay the bill.
Regarding the health care legislation's success, I think Mr. Obama's future and career rests on its passage more than the republican's needing it to fail to insure their long term future.
I thought this was interesting.
From Salon
AUGUST 3, 2009 9:57AM
Why Republicans need health care to fail
Over the past 30 years the Republicans have been working to promote their agenda and none of it seems to be for the betterment of America. They have worked hard to push the cutting of funding for infrastructure repairs to promoting their crusades in the oil lands. Now we are discussing heath care reform and the Republicans are pulling every dirty trick out of their playbook to stop it, from the classic propaganda of high taxes and the destruction of the middle class to trying to claim senior citizens will be encouraged to commit suicide.
But why are they fighting so hard? I have three answers and none of them will be very popular with the conservative element.
Reason number one, money. Lets be perfectly honest, Republicans claim they are for the common man and main street businesses but ever action only benefits mega corporations. Consider this, Cleve Killingsworth, CEO of Blue Cross received a pay increase of 26% pushing his salary, including a million dollar year end bonus to $4.3 million dollars*. How many people had to be denied coverage or life saving treatments in order to boost profits high enough to pay that kind of salary? And you know the lobbyists on K street make sure a chunk of those profits are funneled to their favorite memebers of Congress.
Reason number two, power. Corporate America has become the new feudal system. They control their employees with the threat of unemployment and the loss of benefits. As long as the unemployment rate remains high and insurance costs are out of control people will remain at a job, even a bad one, for financial reasons. High insurance rates are just another control mechanism and again, corporate America makes sure members of Congress are well compensated for maintaining the status quo.
And reason number three, the "gotcha" factor. Since 2005 the Republicans have been on a downhill slide. From Katrina to the Cheney shooting and the endless scandals of the "do nothing" Congress the Republicans haven't had a win in years. They suffered a humiliating defeat in both 2006 and 2008. They now have such a void in leadership that Sarah Palin, the clown princess of the Republican party, is actually at the top of the 2012 nominee list. They have no real plans or programs so the best they can do is try to tear down those of the Democrats in order to claim victory. The Republicans are desperate for some kind of win and they couldn't care less how the rising cost of health care affects the average American or to paraphrase South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint, they want the issue to be President Obama's Waterloo.
The Republicans are desperate to regain power in America. They have proven they will do anything to re-seize control of the government. Well anything but actually help Americans, after all that would be socialism!!!!!
Why Republicans need health care to fail. - ocularnervosa - Open Salon
IMSA
IMSA,
1. $4,300,000 for Cleve is an unimpressive figure. The real CEO-pay abuse starts at $50,000,000 these days. I wouldn't be concerned about Cleve's pay.
2. Feudal system? If you knew your history, specifically, the history of the English feudal system in the Middle Ages you wouldn't make such a silly comparison. Having to give something up because of one's career choice is not a feudal system, it's simply called consequences and it's a basic part of any significant life choice where one has choice (unlike serfs in the feudal era).
3. You're exactly correct - Republican's are running scared and have run a comedy of errors over the last 9 years. And, Republican leadership will do anything to try to make Obama and the dems look foolish, including tripping up policies and initiatives that America needs, just to try to gain advantage. That's just wrong.
Imsa, I saw the video, and I agree that there is corporate greed, and something should be done. I had Blue Cross/ Blue Shield when I had my knee replacement, no problem. I picked the best knee replacement surgeon I could find. I also agree that there are problems with the current system. But, I have the freedom to choose! Nobody picked my doctor for me, and the wait was minimal, 3 weeks from initial visit to surgery. This bill will take away those freedoms, long lines and waits will be the norm. When your parents (if they are still alive) need medical treatment as they age, will you be content to let a governing board decide if it is cost effective to give them the treatment they need or opt for a less expensive treatment? That IS in the bill! As our medical system stands, with it's fault and shortcomings, it is still the best medical system in the world. At this point and time who is refused emergency medical treatment in the US? Absolutely no one! Just ask the 20,000,000 illegal aliens! We need to fix our current system, it sure as hell wouldn't cost the taxpayer $1.3 TRILLION. The government can't run anything smoothly and efficiently. Can you imagine the graft and corruption that is going to take place with $1.3 TRILLION floating around? That CEO's pay is going to look like chump change!
Oh, Nancy Pelosi is an arrogant lying ass, that's the kindest response I could think of!
And Reed is dumber than a red brick!
Oh, Nancy Pelosi is an arrogant lying ass, that's the kindest response I could think of!
And Reed is dumber than a red brick!
The problem with the majority of people in the US is that they need positive reinforcement regularly. They need a 9/11 every 30 days or so. Right after 9/11, the entire congress thought that water boarding was swell. We are not bothered, or bring out a national outcry of rage when a couple of arabs lop off the head of one of our citizens on tv. But as the thought of 9/11 wears off there are those that get squeamish about protecting the US. Water boarding while probably frightening as hell, is not lethal. Perhaps we should pluck a hair off their wrist each day, NO Damn it! Thats torture! In times of crisis we turn to the water boarders, then as the shock wears off, NO TORTURE! The people that attack the US must laugh their asses off at our stupid rules. Make sure to read them their rights! They have no rights if they attack the US as non combatants. No Geneva convention, no rights. They give no rights to the people they blow up and decapitate. Really, get a grip!Speaking of Pelosi......I wonder why the water boarding thing went away..WOW:lipsrsealed:
Al,
Not sure if you saw it but a video circulated less than a week ago about the terror tactics of some Arabs. A few days later I saw a blurb on the BBC that 81 Christians were killed by fire (via terrorists) in Pakistan. The caption on the video "water boarding is bad?"
You make a good point.
Not sure if you saw it but a video circulated less than a week ago about the terror tactics of some Arabs. A few days later I saw a blurb on the BBC that 81 Christians were killed by fire (via terrorists) in Pakistan. The caption on the video "water boarding is bad?"
You make a good point.
Listen guys. IMO two wrongs don't make a right. If waterboarding is OK, legally according to the treaties and "rules of war" we have signed on to, then I don't have a problem with it.
However, in the big picture, what the heck was someone thinking when they came up with the "rules of war"?!? War is hell. The object is to kill or injur as many of the other guy as possible. Period. Trying to fight an enemy who has no rules, to the best of my knowledge, has never been a winning endeavor for the guy that plays by the rules.
But now we are pretty far from the healthcare topic of this thread.
I don't like the way healthcare is right now as far as costs, however, I don't believe that the current government proposal is anywhere close to the correct solution.
We need another, radically different, proposal.
However, in the big picture, what the heck was someone thinking when they came up with the "rules of war"?!? War is hell. The object is to kill or injur as many of the other guy as possible. Period. Trying to fight an enemy who has no rules, to the best of my knowledge, has never been a winning endeavor for the guy that plays by the rules.
But now we are pretty far from the healthcare topic of this thread.
I don't like the way healthcare is right now as far as costs, however, I don't believe that the current government proposal is anywhere close to the correct solution.
We need another, radically different, proposal.
How about this as a proposal:
No health insurance - period. As a responsible citizen you put money in your own savings account every month. Pay for doctor's visits in cash and when you need medical care for a catastrophic health event you use those savings as a down payment and finance the balance.
Earlier in this thread it said that the average was $25K for such events and people were forced to declare bankruptcy but those same people happily pay of their $25K Nissan Camrys without blinking an eye.....
No red tape, no government, finance your busted appendix like a car and get on with life.
Of course that would mean that you would have to take responsibility for your own actions.
No health insurance - period. As a responsible citizen you put money in your own savings account every month. Pay for doctor's visits in cash and when you need medical care for a catastrophic health event you use those savings as a down payment and finance the balance.
Earlier in this thread it said that the average was $25K for such events and people were forced to declare bankruptcy but those same people happily pay of their $25K Nissan Camrys without blinking an eye.....
No red tape, no government, finance your busted appendix like a car and get on with life.
Of course that would mean that you would have to take responsibility for your own actions.
Sounds good to me WEGENER. Problem is that your plan involves fear of the unknown. This is the element that is used by the insurance companies to make money. In essence, health insurance is a way to finance a health event BEFORE it occurs. If people want to buy insurance, that should be their right, but UNIVERSAL coverage for everyone should NEVER be a right. It's a choice.
Listen guys. IMO two wrongs don't make a right. If waterboarding is OK, legally according to the treaties and "rules of war" we have signed on to, then I don't have a problem with it.
Terrorists are non-combatants and are not eligible for rules of war, beheading is also not in the rules of war! These people do not adhere to rules of any kind, and we should not be made to either. Terrorist would stop if treated same for same! They cut off heads, we slap hands, ridiculous! The left is making crime and punishment a joke of stupid procedures and rules. Geeeez, don't offend anyone! Don't profile the people that did it! Check the old ladies in wheelchairs!
I am sorry for getting this thread off track
Hell, go for it Jack!As an old 11 year combat vet, I'm biting my tongue on this one...
After some reflection last night, it occured to me that the health care issue is all about party politics. Since I am an independent, I would like to see ideas from all irregardless of party affiliation (if any).
For me its:
- no pre-existing conditions
- you take your health care where you work and you keep it for your life
- it is affordable
- if you loose your job, an insurance plan steps in to help pay the premium
- one chooses his / her own doctors
- one chooses his / her own hospitals
- one doesn't have to wait to be fixed
- hospitals / doctors / drug companies make money and support the economy
- limit litigation and perposterous insurance claims, however the providers are still responsible for top class care
I would like to see other ideas and see what kind of plan we can formulate. We certainly can do better than those guys in Washington, what the British / Canadian / Italian governments have done. And for an affordable price.
For me its:
- no pre-existing conditions
- you take your health care where you work and you keep it for your life
- it is affordable
- if you loose your job, an insurance plan steps in to help pay the premium
- one chooses his / her own doctors
- one chooses his / her own hospitals
- one doesn't have to wait to be fixed
- hospitals / doctors / drug companies make money and support the economy
- limit litigation and perposterous insurance claims, however the providers are still responsible for top class care
I would like to see other ideas and see what kind of plan we can formulate. We certainly can do better than those guys in Washington, what the British / Canadian / Italian governments have done. And for an affordable price.
Domtoni, That sounds great, unfortunately there is not enough control to suit the government. What really bothers me (other than an unacceptable bill) is the money! At first BO said that the money would come from those making over $250K. Friday I heard one of his spokes people say (when asked the $250K question) that they really couldn't promise that and would do what it takes. The middle class and small business are going to get hammered as usual. The plan is also going to take care of 20,000,000 illegal aliens, then the floodgates will open wide , we will have all of Mexico and S. America here. "Yo Pedro, free health insurance in USA" Why don't we just provide healthcare for the rest of the world? Do you think that the US government can be trusted to spend $1.3 trillion on healthcare without dipping into it for who knows what? They've use OUR Social Security money for whatever suited them since the Korean War. Can you imagine the money that would be if Social Security if it wasn't touched? That money wasn't theirs, they stole, and now it's going to run out. We have for the most part a government of thieves that can't keep their zippers up, and we should trust them? "Let them eat cake"
Similar threads
- Replies
- 19
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 17
- Views
- 670