I just would like to comment on one part of the following statement:
If ones existence is being subsidized (which it is, if someone else covers their costs, healthcare or otherwise) then they should not have the luxuries of new car payments, fancy cellphones, cable, or internet at home. These ARE luxuries and if someone else is paying for their food or healthcare, then essentially they are paying for these luxuries. If one can afford these things, then they do not need financial assistance.
I know some people actually do need help. Until we can determine who truly needs what, then some will paint most with the same brush.
I need to stay out of this discussion because I'm extremly passionate about it, but just one thing burns my butt. We worked hard, and I mean hard, to pay our home off a couple years ago. My wife needed a fairly major surgery, well.... $85,000 worth of it anyways. No insurance, pre existing condition blah blah blah. The attitude from the hospital was sell or mortgage your home. To a certain extent, I think it's totally unfair that some good law abiding folks would be put in a situation where they had to start from scratch again, just because of something out of our control, when we give tax payer dollars to already ultra rich oil companies for instance, or provide disaster relief after a hurricane, so people can rebuild their homes. Long story short, we went to another distant place and my wife got the surgery for free, within the U.S. Now she's on Medicare with a supplimental, but our hearts go out to those who lost or are losing their homes because of the "Market based system" we still have in place in this country. One other thing...... My wife has a chronic illness. Very sick, hasn't left the house since August of 2010. There is a drug called remicaid that would essentially cure her enough where she could go out of the house and enjoy life, but the remicaid runs nearly $6,000 a month! Yup! $6,000! With no insurance on account of that friggin "pre existing condition clause in there for the insurance companies profit margin, my wife had to take asacol, a $400 a month drug that made her vomit. Obamas healthcare bill, now has allowed her, THANK GOD! to finally afford a supplimental in addition to the medicare card that she just recently got by the way, and can now get the remicaid injections she will be delighted to start up here in a month or so, or at least until the republicans can take that away from her again! All because of Obama! So you might hate Obama for the healthcare bill because you are totally healthy, but as the spouse of a severly ill person, who has actually finally benifited from it, and for the first time ever, now can actually afford insurance as a suppliment and no longer be discriminated against.
when we give tax payer dollars to already ultra rich oil companies for instance,
The fact that we give tax breaks to the rich is wrong. But this does not justify making the rich subsidize the poor simply because the rich can afford to do so. The rich have a moral obligation to look out for the less fortunate. But this does not give the less fortunate an entitlement to the money or property of the rich.
Quote:
or provide disaster relief after a hurricane,
Including letting people re-build along the beach thus perpetuating the burden they pose on society. And anyone who does not take precautions to look out for themselves in natural disaster situations has no right to demand that society come to their aid.
Quote:
"Market based system"
This market based system relied on people?s greed. The collapse in the housing market came about because a market bubble burst. I have no sympathy for people who bought homes they could not afford because they expected the price to go up enough to make them rich when they sold what they never really paid for.
Quote:
There is a drug called remicaid that would essentially cure her enough where she could go out of the house and enjoy life, but the remicaid runs nearly $6,000 a month! Yup! $6,000! With no insurance on account of that friggin "pre existing condition clause in there for the insurance companies profit margin, my wife had to take asacol, a $400 a month drug that made her vomit. Obamas healthcare bill, now has allowed her, THANK GOD!
The price of this drug is controlled by market forces of supply and demand. Obamacare hasn?t changed this. All Obamacare has done is make everyone else responsible for your wife?s drug costs. Obamacare has not produced any net savings as far as the cost of medical care is concerned. It simply makes people pay for drugs they don?t themselves need to take.
The Left?s entitlement mentality is a prime reason why conservatives and libertarians have fought tooth-and-nail for decades to prevent any meaningful reform of the healthcare industry.
I need to stay out of this discussion because I'm extremly passionate about it, but just one thing burns my butt. We worked hard, and I mean hard, to pay our home off a couple years ago. My wife needed a fairly major surgery, well.... $85,000 worth of it anyways. No insurance, pre existing condition blah blah blah. The attitude from the hospital was sell or mortgage your home. To a certain extent, I think it's totally unfair that some good law abiding folks would be put in a situation where they had to start from scratch again, just because of something out of our control, when we give tax payer dollars to already ultra rich oil companies for instance, or provide disaster relief after a hurricane, so people can rebuild their homes. Long story short, we went to another distant place and my wife got the surgery for free, within the U.S. Now she's on Medicare with a supplimental, but our hearts go out to those who lost or are losing their homes because of the "Market based system" we still have in place in this country. One other thing...... My wife has a chronic illness. Very sick, hasn't left the house since August of 2010. There is a drug called remicaid that would essentially cure her enough where she could go out of the house and enjoy life, but the remicaid runs nearly $6,000 a month! Yup! $6,000! With no insurance on account of that friggin "pre existing condition clause in there for the insurance companies profit margin, my wife had to take asacol, a $400 a month drug that made her vomit. Obamas healthcare bill, now has allowed her, THANK GOD! to finally afford a supplimental in addition to the medicare card that she just recently got by the way, and can now get the remicaid injections she will be delighted to start up here in a month or so, or at least until the republicans can take that away from her again! All because of Obama! So you might hate Obama for the healthcare bill because you are totally healthy, but as the spouse of a severly ill person, who has actually finally benifited from it, and for the first time ever, now can actually afford insurance as a suppliment and no longer be discriminated against.
I am sorry to hear your situation and what you and your wife have had to endure. Let me clarify where I stand.
1. I do think that the whole "pre-existing condition" scenario that comes up so often is unfortunate and must be looked at closely.
2. My wife and I are also working very hard to pay off our house. We are doing this by doing without many of the previously mentioned "luxuries". This is why I have some trouble with some folks recieving benifits or so called "entitlements" while enjoying such luxeries. I must mention that I am not talking specifically about actual severe healthcare needs (such as your wife's). It is meant to include any "entitlement".
3. I believe that there are MANY MANY things involved with our healthcare situation that make it very difficult to deal with or solve. I just believe that there are many things in Obamas bill that go too far and are unconstitutional (no to mention reduce quality of care).
4. Also, (and many of you may disagree) the problem with allowing the federal government "take care" of the problem is that it almost always results in loss of liberties and more government control of our lives.
5. I hesitate to ask because I understand why you are so passionate on this subject.... but, when you found somewhere to get the treatment was it in fact free? By the definition of free, I mean was the medical staff donating their time and skills while supplies were also donated? I'm just curious.
I've argued this case till I have gray hairs in my beard! I wished argueing or debate in these forums could change the world. They never do. Respectfully I'm not going to get dogged down in fruitless debate here. I can forward you links to my other discussions on the matter at different forums. The important thing to me and my spouse at this point, and it finally came to pass, is that for the first time in years, since she became sick, now has medicare and can finally afford a suppliment and get the medicine she actually needs, which would have never been availible to her without federal government intervention. That is all folks!
I am sorry to hear your situation and what you and your wife have had to endure. Let me clarify where I stand.
1. I do think that the whole "pre-existing condition" scenario that comes up so often is unfortunate and must be looked at closely.
2. My wife and I are also working very hard to pay off our house. We are doing this by doing without many of the previously mentioned "luxuries". This is why I have some trouble with some folks recieving benifits or so called "entitlements" while enjoying such luxeries. I must mention that I am not talking specifically about actual severe healthcare needs (such as your wife's). It is meant to include any "entitlement".
3. I believe that there are MANY MANY things involved with our healthcare situation that make it very difficult to deal with or solve. I just believe that there are many things in Obamas bill that go too far and are unconstitutional (no to mention reduce quality of care).
4. Also, (and many of you may disagree) the problem with allowing the federal government "take care" of the problem is that it almost always results in loss of liberties and more government control of our lives.
5. I hesitate to ask because I understand why you are so passionate on this subject.... but, when you found somewhere to get the treatment was it in fact free? By the definition of free, I mean was the medical staff donating their time and skills while supplies were also donated? I'm just curious.
I respect your calm demeanor in this debate and YES! I agree that Obamas plan has lots of flaws and in fact supports the insurance industry in many ways. I still applaud his efforts for at least attempting to address this issue, as many people loose marriages and homes to medical bankruptcy. I welcome open debate and I for one will be the first to raise my hand and state that I DO NOT have the answers. I just know that the costs are well outside most peoples range, and hence the need for insurance, if you can afford that or even obtain it.
You obviously have no comprehension of how science works and you are obviously a socialist. You have an ideological axe to grind and thus won?t acknowledge reality. It isn?t worth the wear and tear it would cause my arthritic arms and shoulders to continue this discussion with you.
Taking the easy way out...... calling me names and call me an idiot while you still fail to use the term "socialistic" incorrectly according to it's definition
Practically every government has a tiered tax rate, you sad that is is socialism but you failed to give any details on how to avoid that without bifurcating the population into peasant and wealthy classes which is what a flat tax helps create.
As we have reduced these "socialistic" high tax rates on the rich we have seen a continued shrinking of the middle class, the rich are getting richer by far, but how many more decades before it trickles down and creates more jobs and raises incomes?
There just does not seem to be any doubt that Obama's goal is to bring down American by destroying our Capitalist system.
IBM offered to help reduce Medicare fraud for free... The offer is true. Mort Zuckermann, US News and World Report, a Democrat, was interviewed on Fox and confirmed it. IBM has confirmed it. You won't believe it .
IBM offered to help reduce Medicare fraud for free...
What if I told you that the Chairman and CEO of IBM, Samuel J. Palmisano, approached President Obama and members of his administration before the healthcare bill debates with a plan that would reduce healthcare expenditures by $900 billion? Given the Obama Administration's adamancy that the United States of America simply had to make healthcare (read: health insurance) affordable for even the most
dedicated welfare recipient, one would think he would have leaned forward in his chair, cupped his ear and said, "Tell me more!"
And what if I told you that the cost to the federal government for this program was nothing, zip, nada, zilch?
And, what if I told you that, in the end and after two meetings, President Obama and his team, instead of embracing a program that was proven to save money and one that was projected to save almost one trillion dollars - a private sector program costing the taxpayers nothing, zip, nada, zilch - said, "Thanks but no thanks" and then embarked on passing one of the most despised pieces of legislation in US history?
Well, it's all true.
Samuel J. Palmisano, the Chairman of the Board and CEO for IBM, said in a recent Wall Street Journal interview that he offered to provide the Obama Administration with a program that would curb healthcare claims fraud and abuse by almost one trillion dollars but the Obama White House turned the offer down.
Mr. Palmisano is quoted as saying during a taping
of The Wall Street Journal's Viewpoints program on September 14, 2010:
"We could have improved the quality and reduced the cost of the healthcare system by $900 billion...I said we would do it for free to prove that it works. They turned us down."
A second meeting between Mr. Palmisano and the Obama Administration took place two weeks later, with no change in the Obama Administration's stance. A call placed to IBM on October 8, 2010, by FOX News confirmed, via a spokesperson, that Mr. Palmisano stands by his statement.
Speaking with FOX News' Stuart Varney, Mort Zuckerman, Editor-in-Chief of US News & World Report, said,
"It's a little bit puzzling because I think there is a huge amount of both fraud and inefficiency that American business is a lot more comfortable with and more effective in trying to reduce. And this is certainly true because the IBM people have studied this very carefully And when Palmisano went to the White House and made that proposal, it was based upon a lot of work and it was not accepted. And it's really puzzling... These are very, very responsible people and don't have a political ax to grind.
In Mr. Obama's shunning of a private sector program that would have saved our country almost $1 trillion in healthcare expenditures, presented to him as he declared a "crisis in healthcare," he proves two things beyond any doubt: that he is anti-Capitalist and anti-private sector in nature and that he can no longer be trusted to tell the truth in both his political declarations or espoused goals.
Be sure to click on the link below for Mr. Palmisano's statement and 'hear' this yourself.
Dhimmitude-- What does it mean?
Obama used it in the health care bill.
Now isn't this interesting? It is used in the health care law.
Dhimmitude -- I had never heard the word until now. Type it into Google and start reading. Pretty interesting. It's on page 107 of the healthcare bill. I looked this up on Google and yep, it exists.. It is a REAL word.
Word of the Day: Dhimmitude Dhimmitude (pronounced Zimitude)
Dhimmitude is the Muslim system of controlling non-Muslim populations conquered through jihad. Specifically, it is the TAXING of non-Muslims in exchange for tolerating their presence AND as a coercive means of converting conquered remnants to Islam.
ObamaCare allows the establishment of Dhimmitude and Sharia Muslim diktat in the United States . Muslims are specifically exempted from the government mandate to purchase insurance, and also from the penalty tax for being uninsured. Islam considers insurance to be "gambling", "risk-taking", and "usury" and is thus banned. Muslims are specifically granted exemption based on this.
How convenient. So I, as a Christian, will have crippling IRS liens placed against all of my assets, including real estate, cattle, and even accounts receivables, and will face hard prison time because I refuse to buy insurance or pay the penalty tax. Meanwhile, Louis Farrakhan will have no such penalty and will have 100% of his health needs paid for by the de facto government insurance. Non-Muslims will be paying a tax to subsidize Muslims. This is Dhimmitude.
I recommend sending this onto your contacts. American citizens need to know about it --
what is the point in these emails without stating the obvious (so the tea party crazies don't think they are real)
and the only group that really gets excluded from the requirements are not muslims but amish christians...... as they are generally don't accept any form of government assistance, while some muslim beliefs are against insurance, they are not at the extreme they will go against it if required, such as they will have car insurance and home insurance if borrowing money from a bank, and will likely have no issue if the government requires them to purchase coverage.
so yeah the only people really exempt are amish, there is also a date in there relating to the exclusion that helps make sure no other group can claim this exclusion
Linear Mode
