Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > National Politics / Debate
Click Here to Login

Reply
Old 02-15-2011, 02:32 PM  
Senior Member

Greenville, SC
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,141 | Kudos: +188
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedJeepXJ View Post
We already have the condition that hospitals MUST treat everyone, so it comes down to who really pays for that..................if someone's apartment gets robbed or catches on fire the renter is the only one who suffers the loss of their belongings, no one else has to pay by law.).
Yes, that is the difference. So, that means, to make them the same (aka people won't get their underwear wadded up) then DO NOT REQUIRE HOSPITALS TREAT EVERYONE!

Just like if everyone else had to pay for someone elses car if THEY ran it into a tree, then everyone would have been upset about that mandate. The healthcare is no different. If you take the car and replace it with health then everyone gets all emotional about it... That is where the REAL difference is.
People don't mind just saying "oh well, the guy ran into a tree...he should have bought auto ins... oh well..."

Quote:
so yes if we changed our system to let those that can't pay just die on the street outside the hospital you would have a fair comparison, but we as a society are better then that (or at least we were, if we were talking about adding that requirement now I think republicans would be quite against it).
You are correct that we are better than that. That is why when it is freezing outside there are people running (non-gov't) soup kitchens giving food and providing places to stay.... I don't believe that EVERYONE without ins. would just die in the streets. Have you heard of those doctors that go to other countries and fix cleft pallets and stuff? That isn't gov't funded. Those folks don't have insurance. I believe that we are a type of people that can take care of our own without the governments help.

I guess my thing is that ANYTHING is better than the way we are trying to do it.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2011, 09:07 PM  
Traveler

Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,452 | Kudos: +43
Well, I have not many complaints about my wifes Medicare. Certainly better than any church or volunteer organization could provide! Ladeling up some soup is far different than open heart surgury or pinning bone back together! I guess what really pisses people off, is the law forcing someone to buy something that they don't want. Some don't want to buy car insurance, feeling that they will never have an accident that will affect someone else. The thinking behind the medical insurance thing, is that if you get sick, you won't be a burden to the state. Either way, the republicans certainly never opposed it when it was their idea! Some people just need something to be pissed about, even if it doesn't even affect them.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2011, 09:55 PM  
Traveler

Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,452 | Kudos: +43
We both agree though, that it is wrong to force people into buying something.
Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2011, 06:11 AM  
Senior Member

Greenville, SC
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,141 | Kudos: +188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicinabottle View Post
We both agree though, that it is wrong to force people into buying something.
And that really is what it comes down to.
Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2011, 02:36 PM  
mohel
 
blucher's Avatar

Keizer, OR
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,383 | Kudos: +123
Images: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedJeepXJ View Post
Healthcare law: Opposition to healthcare law eases, poll finds - latimes.com

seems like once the political bickering and exaggerations ended people became ok with the plan.
Many of those most loudly opposed had no clear understanding the bill intended to make it affordable for them. Blue Cross & Blue Shield are far too expensive as is. They charge us ti insure physicians against lawsuits. We need laws that prevent ambulance chasing personal injury lawyers recruiting on TV.
We also need pooled purchases of medications to offset the windfall profits Big Pharma seeks. An insurance pool that includes everyone has buying power and clout.
I'm almost 66 and I'm hurting trying to cover things Medicare doesn't pay for. I was shocked some years back when I saw elderly folks deciding which prescriptions to fill based on their utility bills.

No one is out there trying to kill Grandma but the success of that lie should warn people their information is being spun for profit.
__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2011, 02:47 PM  
mohel
 
blucher's Avatar

Keizer, OR
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,383 | Kudos: +123
Images: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicinabottle View Post
Either way, the republicans certainly never opposed it when it was their idea! Some people just need something to be pissed about, even if it doesn't even affect them.
So much of the bill had it's origins in the GOP. It's so obvious we need to fix healthcare. Each time free clinics touch an area thousands come out of the woodwork for basic healthcare needs gone unmet because of cost.

I have osteoporosis and now get a month of meds for $10. I was paying $94/month but rarely could afford to fill my script so I regularly suffered fractures.

There are so many ways we can take the same or less money to achieve affordability if we remove exorbitant waste. As it is Medicare is preyed upon by shysters because we lack serious enforcement. Let's bust the cheats and dead wood.
The adage, "Follow the Money" should be our rallying cry because if you look at who Hospital Corporations, personal injury lawyers and Big Pharma contribute to you will see Congress with full healthcare coverage trading cash for a continuance of a broken unaffordable system.
__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2011, 03:09 PM  
mohel
 
blucher's Avatar

Keizer, OR
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,383 | Kudos: +123
Images: 99
"I believe that we are a type of people that can take care of our own without the governments help."

We sure had the govmint's help making healthcare unaffordable. Remember when seniors began taking buses to Canada to buy affordable drugs? Those drugs would be affordable if purchased by a pool.
The drug companies would lose the millions they spend on advertising and kickbacks to physicians who promote their wares.

In law one recuses themself if there is a conflict of interest. In Government we entrust the hen house to the fox. I don't see how we can get honest legislation without removing the lobbiests from the equation.
__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2011, 04:49 PM  
Junior Member

brigham city, utah
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 21 | Kudos: +11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicinabottle View Post
The fact of the matter is, that people didn't get their underwear all bunched up when states began manditory auto insurance. Principles is principles. Get pissed about the mandatory auto insurance too America!
As a note auto insurance is dramatically different. It may be a requirement to have liability insurance when you drive a car/motorcycle ect. But not everyone is required to have a car.
Having a car is a choice but if you have a car you have several requirements you have to pay to get it registered every year, you have to maintain insurance on it, you have to put gas in it, ect ect.
The only way the auto insurance arguement of yours becomes valid is if the government required everyone in the country to have a car it would be good for the economy, it would help the auto industry and since the government still has a large stake in GM it politically makes sense.
But.... not everyone can afford a car so then the government would have to give all the people that cant afford a car one, and since they cant afford a car they probably cant afford to pay auto insurance on it either so the government will pick up the bill on that one too.
As for the people that can use public transportation all the time and dont want or need a car, they dont want to pay to maintain the car and they dont want to pay for storage of the car, (this is becoming more prevelant in the big cities as it is europe/asia). So these people who are not in need of a car and probably have a better life for themselves because they dont need a car, they can be fined every year because they dont have a government required car, with government required auto insurance on it.

So tell me my next door neighbor in his 80's doesnt own a car neither does his blind son, they walk down to the corner together every morning and get on the bus and go do what they need to do without having one. So should they be required to have auto insurance they are both of legal age? Sorry if you dont agree with that part of the arguement but it is in retrospect a direct following of your premise.

So in turn all I hear is people yelling ME ME ME ME I want something so everyone should want it too!!!
One thing people fail to see is the other side of the story in this. So what about all the people that shun all forms of modern medicine? The herbalists that will not go see a doctor, the people that self heal through faith in their god/gods. Isnt this supposed to be a seperation between a church and state? Their religeon states no modern medicine practices so we are going to force them to pay for it and use the system even though its against their religeon?

When you give somebody something for free you have to take it away from someone else, anyone including small children can see the obviousnes of this premise.
Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2011, 05:57 PM  
Traveler

Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,452 | Kudos: +43
True. But then not everyone gets sick either with long term illness. The health care thing is the equivilient of everyone having a car aaaaaaand..... if you happen to have a car, you are STILL being forced to buy something. My point was simply that I understand the thinking behind the law. It protects everyone. If you are a living breathing human, you essentially are a car owner. You put others at risk, when you wipe out. Crash your car and cause damage with no insurance. Someone else picks up the tab. Get chronically ill with no insurance........Someone pickes up the tab. Insurance keeps everyone else from picking up the tab, is the premise here. No surprises.
Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2011, 03:03 AM  
Junior Member

brigham city, utah
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 21 | Kudos: +11
Your arguement isnt working that well with me...

Of course I had an Illegal immigrant do an illegal U turn in front of me causing me to t-bone his lowrider with my jeep and my mandatory liability insurance laughed as the idiot was deported leaving me with a $7000 bill on a car I still owed money on. So even though I followed my legal obligations it was the person that did not have legal obligations to follow cause the most damage and those of us doing what we should ended up with the short end of the stick.

So what makes you think this will be any different if they mandated that all the people in the US legally were required insurance? Would that stop the system from providing free healthcare to all the illegal immigrants rasing the cost of healthcare for all of the middle class that much more, because they are carrying the majority of the burden weather they want too or not.

Rising health care costs put focus on illegal immigrants - USATODAY.com

But this begs the question if only 14% of US citizens (according to the 2008 article) and 25% on average of the Legal immigrants all maintain health care. But on average 53% of the illegal immigrants children and 59% of the illegal immigrant adults do not have insurance but still recieve free coverage from hostpitals. Who is currently eating that cost? Better yet why are we being forced to eat that cost? Why cant their country of origon? How much of our national debt would go away and the associated costs in healthcare could actually be put towards our own citizens.(but that brings up a completely different issue that many people get their panties in a bunch about)

If you actually want to go to a national healthcare system why dont you talk to some of or neighbors to the north. The ones who have to make appointments 6 months in advance to see a doctor, any doctor, and the higher taxation rate to fund the costs.
Their are pros and cons to either method and if you add it up over time the higher taxation and the associated costs even though initially lower with a national healthcare plan still equates to more money over a lifetime period then the current system we have now, the difference is everyone is paying more money not just the ones with specific high dollar ailments.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > National Politics / Debate
Bookmark this Page!

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Suggested Threads

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.