The Official Obama HealthCare Summit Thread

#153
#153
thekicker33 said:
That actually matter... and who are those?? Please tell me the people who matter???
Click to expand...

I can answer that.

People who work hard and bust their asses to make a way in this world for themselves. The people that dont rely on someone else to feed them, cloth them, provide daycare for their kids, educate them, and then spit in the faces of those people and ask for more.

People who go about their daily lives without being an economical burden on the taxpayers who work hard to have 40% of their salaries handed to the worthless, oxygen theives we have in this country
 
#154
#154
droski said:
the people who pay the vast majority of the taxes in this country are far more important than those who do not.
Click to expand...
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHA, that's too good...

Again, it doesn't matter... healthcare will happen eventually... if anything tells us about the history of this country is that social issues will always be passed. It will just take a while...
So have fun paying for the rest of us. HAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAH
 
#155
#155
CountVolcula said:
I can answer that.

People who work hard and bust their asses to make a way in this world for themselves. The people that dont rely on someone else to feed them, cloth them, provide daycare for their kids, educate them, and then spit in the faces of those people and ask for more.

People who go about their daily lives without being an economical burden on the taxpayers who work hard to have 40% of their salaries handed to the worthless, oxygen theives we have in this country
Click to expand...
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH. i love these elitist attitudes....

have fun paying for these people that don't matter... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAH
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHA
 
#157
#157
thekicker33 said:
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH. i love these elitist attitudes....

have fun paying for these people that don't matter... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAH
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHA
Click to expand...

so in your opinion those who take from society are just as important as those who give to society?
 
#164
#164
New rights.

Computer with innerweb access
Vehicle
Cellphone
Flat panel TV with cable
Wendy's Doublestacks
Beer - not Milwaukee's Best either
House
College education
Trip to Panama City Beach
etc.
 
#166
#166
volinbham said:
New rights.

Computer with innerweb access
Vehicle
Cellphone
Flat panel TV with cable
Wendy's Doublestacks
Beer - not Milwaukee's Best either
House
College education
Trip to Panama City Beach
etc.
Click to expand...

If only this were a joke
 
Last edited:
#168
#168
Let me guess, gay people don't have the right to get married???

hahahahhahahahah..... get to payin them taxes. since you elitists word harder than everybody, that won't be a problem for you.... hahahahhaha
 
#169
#169
volinbham said:
New rights.

Computer with innerweb access
Vehicle
Cellphone
Flat panel TV with cable
Wendy's Doublestacks
Beer - not Milwaukee's Best either
House
College education
Trip to Panama City Beach
etc.
Click to expand...

Even though this is pun, I think you are close to intertwining rights and commodities. I find my self questioning whether health care is a right, even me, but that does not change the fact that everyone deserves some sort of access to health care, even those who at times don't seem to deserve it.

The problem with the entire system it seems, is differentiating between those who need help and those who abuse the system. Republicans think everyone is a bum, and Democrats think everyone is hard-working, unlucky person who really needs help. We don't need social Darwinism nor socialism.

I think Republicans and Democrats can both agree that health care reform is needed, even though I question what the Republican leadership is exactly offering.
 
#170
#170
bam15 said:
Even though this is pun, I think you are close to intertwining rights and commodities. I find my self questioning whether health care is a right, even me, but that does not change the fact that everyone deserves some sort of access to health care, even those who at times don't seem to deserve it.

The problem with the entire system it seems, is differentiating between those who need help and those who abuse the system. Republicans think everyone is a bum, and Democrats think everyone is hard-working, unlucky person who really needs help. We don't need social Darwinism nor socialism.

I think Republicans and Democrats can both agree that health care reform is needed, even though I question what the Republican leadership is exactly offering.
Click to expand...

Hands down, your best post ever. :good!:
 
#171
#171
bam15 said:
Even though this is pun, I think you are close to intertwining rights and commodities. I find my self questioning whether health care is a right, even me, but that does not change the fact that everyone deserves some sort of access to health care, even those who at times don't seem to deserve it.

Lot's of wiggle words there. What does quality care mean? What is the minimum standard of care that meets the term quality? What does access mean? We have access to jobs but that doesn't mean we are a good fit for the job or should automatically get the job.

I can find no basis in our system for labeling healthcare as a "right". Should we try to enable access? You bet. Are the rights of the uninsured being violated right now? Nope.

This is a societal choice. It is not a matter of ending the denial of rights to certain people in the country.

The problem with the entire system it seems, is differentiating between those who need help and those who abuse the system. Republicans think everyone is a bum, and Democrats think everyone is hard-working, unlucky person who really needs help. We don't need social Darwinism nor socialism.

Way too over the top. I don't believe this is what Republicans or Democrats think. A non-starter for moving forward.

I think Republicans and Democrats can both agree that health care reform is needed, even though I question what the Republican leadership is exactly offering.
Click to expand...

Have you bothered to read any of the plans they've put forth?
 
#172
#172
bam15 said:
Even though this is pun, I think you are close to intertwining rights and commodities. I find my self questioning whether health care is a right, even me, but that does not change the fact that everyone deserves some sort of access to health care, even those who at times don't seem to deserve it.

The problem with the entire system it seems, is differentiating between those who need help and those who abuse the system. Republicans think everyone is a bum, and Democrats think everyone is hard-working, unlucky person who really needs help. We don't need social Darwinism nor socialism.

I think Republicans and Democrats can both agree that health care reform is needed, even though I question what the Republican leadership is exactly offering.
Click to expand...

Remind me what democrats are offering?
 
#173
#173
volinbham said:
Have you bothered to read any of the plans they've put forth?
Click to expand...

Your questions show that you're a professor, but I enjoy the dialogue nevertheless. :thumbsup:

You ask a interesting question. What is quality care? I think the questions are these: Does everyone deserve the same quality of care? Should healthcare be considered like a commodity? Do you deserve better health care quality if you have more money?

I think every individual deserves some access to health care, I'm not exactly sure of the minimum standard, but people should not die/suffer because they cannot afford health insurance and/or denied because of preexisting conditions. I think that health care is much more serious than say, buying a car or a computer. I can chose not to drive a car and therefore not buy car insurance. I cannot chose not to live and/or take risks. You buy a car and/or insurance based on how much money you have or if you can afford the vehicle, health care is something entirely different, something that can be life or death.

Is it a societal choice when people cannot afford health care? Does Medicaid do enough?

Human nature tells us that yes, the uninsured deserve the same quality of care as the wealthier more insured or those who can afford higher quality of care. But common sense also tells us that the quality of health care will be reduced if everyone has the same health care, and after deliberation I think the Canada-USA comparisons are unfair.

The fundamental problem is the quality of health care and whether our current system is effective. You must also take into effect the contributing factor of those who can easily afford health insurance and don't bother to buy it. I have a Government teacher who can easily afford health insurance but doesn't. Should they be penalized? I don't think so, and that is something I certainly don't agree with in the current plan.

I don't think I'm over the top in regard to Bum/SD, Reagan won in the eighties by portraying social programs this way. This fundamental question plagues our country, I know people that are hard-working, struggling, and desperate for help. I also know people that draw checks, abuse the system, and aren't worth anything. Contrary to popular belief, I am not a socialist, and I think Welfare to Work, drug-testing, etc. are excellent ideas. I also know that say, no government intervention would backfire. In any system business/healthcare etc. someone has to manipulate it, and things go wrong quick. The reason I appear to be so adamantly in favor of social programs in their current state is the economic implications, I think domestic program reforms must eventually be accomplished because I'm quickly seeing the implications of a "serfish" state, where people are expected to receive things as a right. That said, I can't see a laisezz-faire/social darwinism system that some posters on this board are advocating.

Back to health care; our current system is quickly deteriorating - premiums, preexisting, deductibles are all problems that must be fixed.

Yes, I have looked at GOP solutions, and I don't think they can completely fix the problem, or rather the fact that the gov't would be attempting to fix the system again in a short time. Tort reform only does so much, for example Texas capped non economic medical malpractice damages to $250,00 in 2003. Not too long ago, Texas was still at the top of health care spending.

I completely agree with selling insurance across state lines, even the president mentioned this as an excellent idea today.

Using high-risk pools could be extremely expensive—on the order of $1 trillion over ten years given projected health care costs. Nationwide, high-risk pools cover fewer than 200,000 people, factoring in high premiums and denied benefits for treatments related to their preexisting conditions.

We need change, the current system is unsustainable, and all we are seeing is arguing and delays, no wonder the average person is becoming more and more apolitical. The summit was a step in a right direction.

Thanks
 
#175
#175
bam15 said:
Your questions show that you're a professor, but I enjoy the dialogue nevertheless. :thumbsup:

You ask a interesting question. What is quality care? I think the questions are these: Does everyone deserve the same quality of care? Should healthcare be considered like a commodity? Do you deserve better health care quality if you have more money?

I think every individual deserves some access to health care, I'm not exactly sure of the minimum standard, but people should not die/suffer because they cannot afford health insurance and/or denied because of preexisting conditions. I think that health care is much more serious than say, buying a car or a computer. I can chose not to drive a car and therefore not buy car insurance. I cannot chose not to live and/or take risks. You buy a car and/or insurance based on how much money you have or if you can afford the vehicle, health care is something entirely different, something that can be life or death.

I agree - it is different than general products.

Is it a societal choice when people cannot afford health care? Does Medicaid do enough?

Yes to the first. Our Constitution does not mandate affordable care. We can choose as a country to address the issue. Medicaid does well for some people. Some do not avail themselves of Medicaid and are thus uninsured unecessarily.

Human nature tells us that yes, the uninsured deserve the same quality of care as the wealthier more insured or those who can afford higher quality of care. But common sense also tells us that the quality of health care will be reduced if everyone has the same health care, and after deliberation I think the Canada-USA comparisons are unfair.

Not sure I agree that all deserve the same quality of care. For a given covered procedure (either via insurance or govt) treatment should be equal at a minimum but surely those with means shouldn't be barred from buying higher quality no? As you suggest, the only way to equalize quality is to reduce it for most.

The fundamental problem is the quality of health care and whether our current system is effective. You must also take into effect the contributing factor of those who can easily afford health insurance and don't bother to buy it. I have a Government teacher who can easily afford health insurance but doesn't. Should they be penalized? I don't think so, and that is something I certainly don't agree with in the current plan.

I don't think I'm over the top in regard to Bum/SD, Reagan won in the eighties by portraying social programs this way. This fundamental question plagues our country, I know people that are hard-working, struggling, and desperate for help. I also know people that draw checks, abuse the system, and aren't worth anything. Contrary to popular belief, I am not a socialist, and I think Welfare to Work, drug-testing, etc. are excellent ideas. I also know that say, no government intervention would backfire. In any system business/healthcare etc. someone has to manipulate it, and things go wrong quick. The reason I appear to be so adamantly in favor of social programs in their current state is the economic implications, I think domestic program reforms must eventually be accomplished because I'm quickly seeing the implications of a "serfish" state, where people are expected to receive things as a right. That said, I can't see a laisezz-faire/social darwinism system that some posters on this board are advocating.

Here's why I say the all or nothing statement is over the top. You are a Democrat but don't fit the stereotype you portrayed. Why do you think other Dems or Reps are so unidimensional? In truth no one (or very few) fit the stereotype you present so why use it. Dems may lean one way and Reps the other but that's quite different.

Back to health care; our current system is quickly deteriorating - premiums, preexisting, deductibles are all problems that must be fixed.

Agreed

Yes, I have looked at GOP solutions, and I don't think they can completely fix the problem, or rather the fact that the gov't would be attempting to fix the system again in a short time. Tort reform only does so much, for example Texas capped non economic medical malpractice damages to $250,00 in 2003. Not too long ago, Texas was still at the top of health care spending.

What in the Dem plan doesn't suffer the same fate? The Dem plan does not bend the cost curve. Worse it avoids actions that connect patients with costs. On that level, HSAs are far superior and have shown real cost containment potential. The Dem plan diminishes HSAs.

I think the start over is the best approach. There are numerous areas that can be handled one at a time that both parties would like to see.

I completely agree with selling insurance across state lines, even the president mentioned this as an excellent idea today.

Only to a minimal degree in the exchanges and he completely dissed the idea of below 60% actuarial policies. The federally mandated minimum will raise premiums and utilization not lower them.

Using high-risk pools could be extremely expensive—on the order of $1 trillion over ten years given projected health care costs. Nationwide, high-risk pools cover fewer than 200,000 people, factoring in high premiums and denied benefits for treatments related to their preexisting conditions.

HRPs as presented have problems for sure.

We need change, the current system is unsustainable, and all we are seeing is arguing and delays, no wonder the average person is becoming more and more apolitical. The summit was a step in a right direction.

Thanks
Click to expand...

Agree that arguing and delays are present but it's a two way street on that. Just like the stimulus had an underlying philosophy so does the Dem plan. Jettison the underlying philosophy as a prerequisite and attack each issue with a best of breed approach and we might get somewhere.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top