Curse

Eskimoz · Sep 07, 2009, 08:06 PM // 20:06

well with either option I'm going to get !%@$ed right?

I think I'd rather be screwed WITH health care then without.

Eskimoz · Sep 07, 2009, 08:08 PM // 20:08

Quote:

understand the feelings most United States Citizens feel about having their hard-earned money taken without cause or reason to pay bills for lazy sacks of shit sitting in trailer parks and housing projects, selling dope to grade schoolers, driving brand new Mercedes' on 24" chrome wheels all the while buying candy and cigarettes with Taxpayer-funded food stamps, starving their children forcing those children to go out and steal to survive.

Most of the uninsured are actually College students.

Taurean · Sep 07, 2009, 08:21 PM // 20:21

What's the working possibilities in USA?

Shursh · Sep 07, 2009, 08:35 PM // 20:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by ;

well with either option I'm going to get !%@$ed right?

I think I'd rather be screwed WITH health care then without.

That's kinda the heart of the debate - the "public option" would be funded by increased taxes, and no one wants to pay extra for someone who doesn't "put in" as much. Both sides argue over what is "fair".

Quote:

Originally Posted by ;

Most of the uninsured are actually College students.

What is your source on this?

imnotyourmother · Sep 08, 2009, 06:01 PM // 18:01

What the American people are up in arms about most...is simple. We do not like being told we MUST do this or else.

This legislation states that you must have insurance or pay a fine to well someone. Its not a choice if you can afford it or not.

No one has ever been refused treatment in the US. You can get treatment. If you were injured in a car wreak and you had no insurance and your leg is half severed off..you will get treatment no matter what your financial status. The debate here becomes how to pay for it.

So when the President says that you will be able to keep your current health care.. what if that is well, paying as you go?

What's wrong with paying as you go?

Look, I had an appointment at a hospital for a test that was refereed by a specialist. I went and had the test. The Hospital billed my insurance company 134.00 for the test. My insurance company payed the Hospital 134.00 and then billed me over 500 dollars and said..sorry that test is not covered by your "TYPE" of insurance???

I was like?? WTF. I said I am not paying that. You are a thief. I called my reps and the attorney General and guess what...I had to pay the bill that the insurance company sent me.

IF you want to reform the health insurance industry, start with the insurance companies. THEY are getting rich make no mistake.

In closing, Obama is pushing that the rich pay for the poor. Fine.. at the rate that Obama is going I will be the poor. I think that I should sell my house now, rent for 5 years and then WELFARE it is!!!

If on Welfare in the state of New York you will receive,
1) Excellent housing
2) A car to help you look for work
3) Gas to go in your car, over and above everything else,
4) Funding for insurance on said car
5) In most cases since shoveling snow is a hardship, a Garage to go with the car or snow plowing services.
6) 200 extra bucks for booze - or books for your kids over and above ..
7) 250 bucks in the spring for well, who knows.
8) A tax rebate check for filling your income tax.
Note: since you actally pay no income tax to the federal government unless you actually work you are not paying into the system. How can you get something back from which you never paid in?? Just say, "I'm to poor to work cause I got 4 Kids"
Oh you will get back almost 5,000 bucks!!! Of my money!

You see, us with morals were taught alllllllll wrong. All wrong. Here's the thing about Christians,

We are taught basic morals. If you have none of these morals the governemnt will lavish you with money, money and more money. Don't work, have children. The more you have.. the more you get.

I should have dropped out of school at 16, and had a child then... then at 17 another one and at 19 another one and at 21 had a forth. Then... at 26 had another one..making one 10 - for the baby sitter and then at 32 another and at 36 another. At 34 I still would have had 5 at home giving me more than 4500 a month + almost 6000 in the spring. Then at 40..go to adopt other children citing at how well a job I did with my 7 kids. Then at 44 adopt another child and BOOM...

I enter retirement at 62 with FULL Pension. Now this is what I should have done. Never worked a day in my life cause I was ENABLED by the system.

health care? who needs health care..I'm covered.. for life.

Rocky Raccoon · Sep 08, 2009, 06:30 PM // 18:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by imnotyourmother

What the American people are up in arms about most...is simple. We do not like being told we MUST do this or else.

IF you want to reform the health insurance industry, start with the insurance companies. THEY are getting rich make no mistake.

In Massachusetts we have a law stating you must have health insurance, only difference, there is no public option. Penalties if you don't. (Endorsed by a Republican governor)

Insurance and HMO reform is part of the health care plan.

As for the rest of your statement, it is mostly gross exaggeration.

A11Eur0 · Sep 09, 2009, 05:52 PM // 17:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Risky Ranger

In Massachusetts we have a law stating you must have health insurance, only difference, there is no public option. Penalties if you don't. (Endorsed by a Republican governor)

Insurance and HMO reform is part of the health care plan.

As for the rest of your statement, it is mostly gross exaggeration.

Exaggeration? Those are the numbers. You can look them up. The fact of the matter remains that those who work for a living get less than those who sit on their asses collecting welfare checks. Add into the equation a possibility that one or both of the adults collecting welfare sell drugs on the side, getting paid MORE THAN I DO Tax free, and able to afford expensive cars, clothes, and other luxuries that I have to save up or get a loan for. They avoid auditing because they find someone who makes money legitimately, makes friends with them, and puts the big stuff in their name. That person isn't going to take the stuff because they'll get shot if they try. That person won't refuse to do this for the banger because he'll get shot/robbed by all of the banger's homies. It's a win/win situation being on welfare in a city. You get all of the benefits of the American dream, but put in only a small fraction of the work. This isn't exaggeration, this is the REAL WORLD that you can see daily in the downtown areas of New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and this Socialist president is furthering the problem by increasing how much the White middle/upper class has to pay out of their pockets to support these "disenfranchised" hoodlums leeching off the government dime.

And I'm pretty sure Mass has a public option for health insurance.

Winterclaw · Sep 09, 2009, 07:59 PM // 19:59

Skuld: people becoming absolutely dependent on the government for their healthcare is a bad thing. It isn't about being selfish it's about keeping people from becoming dependent on the government... to keep them from becoming tools to be used and do everything the government says. That's what our founding fathers meant about liberty: freedom from government.

Fril: None of our systems here in the US work well, I don't see why this one would be any different. Another problem the US has is we get about 1 million illegal immigrants a year... which is 1 million extra people demanding free health care. Then you have those illegals having kids who need health care. Illegal aliens tend to have one of the highest birth rates in the US.

Another problem is the people who are pushing this system are looking to eliminate all insurance companies besides the government. So once they get their "option" in place, they are going to systematically destroy the system to make sure you are forced on to the government plan. It's a pretty common tactic in politics, throw a monkey wrench into the system, claim it doesn't work, and demand to put in your own plan.

A third problem is there's nothing in the current proposal to address the causes of high-health care. Throwing more money into the system will exasperate the problems.

Finally the US government is up to it's neck in debt. We can't afford to do it at all, much less do it well.

Burst: I agree that the emotions on both sides of the isles are a problem, but that's what happens when you encourage people to be feeling instead of thinking.

Eskimoz: right now the government is planning on making people pay $3800 if people don't buy health insurance. So no matter what, you've just mandated a middle class tax hike. I guess they should now put obama's picture next to the word liar in the dictionary.

Here's something else to think about for you pro-healthcareinducedslavery people. The US government is bound in what it is and isn't allowed to do by the Constitution. There's nothing in the Constitution which allows for public health care. What Obama and his Fasict Democratic party are trying to push on us is beyond what the government is unconstitutional. It doesn't matter how much you want Uncle Socialist to give you health care, he isn't allowed to. If they push this through, they are breaking with the constitution and essentially turning America into a tyranny.

America was specifically designed as a minimalist in terms of the role of the national government... it is not a service based system, it is a do it yourself system. This isn't to say it is impossible or bad in all cases to have a government health care system, but it is to say it is out of the scope and role of the federal government.

The constitution does not specifically permit the federal government to engage in being a health care provider. The constitution is the highest law in the land and must be followed to the letter according to its original meaning at the time of writing. Congress or the president are not above the constitution so they must comply with it. It should also be noted that the individual states are allowed to implement a health care system if they desire so if you want it, ask for it where it is allowed. Don't encourage those Fascists of Washington to break our fundamental laws.

Heed this warning: if you give the congress the permission to break the constitution in one case, they will break with it in any case that they please.

Eskimoz · Sep 12, 2009, 06:37 AM // 06:37

Eh, politicians lie. Gota learn to expect these things.

Quote:

Fril: None of our systems here in the US work well, I don't see why this one would be any different. Another problem the US has is we get about 1 million illegal immigrants a year... which is 1 million extra people demanding free health care. Then you have those illegals having kids who need health care. Illegal aliens tend to have one of the highest birth rates in the US.

Illegals won't be covered by it.

Quote:

Another problem is the people who are pushing this system are looking to eliminate all insurance companies besides the government. So once they get their "option" in place, they are going to systematically destroy the system to make sure you are forced on to the government plan. It's a pretty common tactic in politics, throw a monkey wrench into the system, claim it doesn't work, and demand to put in your own plan.

And for that bottom half....they can change the constitution you know.

like they did for slavery, prohibition, that sort of thing.

Eskimoz · Sep 12, 2009, 07:05 AM // 07:05

Quote:

In spite of government intrusion we still manage to have the best damn health care in the world.

I dare say you'll love this video.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/dead...eck-healthcare

**cosyfiep** · Sep 12, 2009, 07:22 AM // 07:22

what will come of this is not the final solution, but it is a step away from the current system which is not working very well (yeah I have insurance if you can call it that----huge deductibles and an insurance company that only cares about how to make money for itself)......we have to start somewhere.
and if you stop to think about it---yes we give health care to ANY one--that INCLUDES illegals....who will NEVER EVER EVER pay it back---so who pays for it now????
yep tax payers...so we are already paying for it, might as well try to get something better (yes change is scary and might not be right the first time....but we really do have to start somewhere).

Eskimoz · Sep 12, 2009, 07:26 AM // 07:26

So many people vote for change and then they go and let (some of) the Republicans scare the sense out of them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONKxGko-JNI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qf_3o...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2fST...eature=related <------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGsH3...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gM_K6...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeSQA...eature=related

Obama's health care speech.

Worth the listen, even if you don't care about the health care debate. I for one found it refreshing to see a president talking with actual words.

note: read the comments, see what side of the fence you're on.

Snow Bunny · Sep 12, 2009, 03:20 PM // 15:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosyfiep

what will come of this is not the final solution, but it is a step away from the current system which is not working very well (yeah I have insurance if you can call it that----huge deductibles and an insurance company that only cares about how to make money for itself)......we have to start somewhere.
and if you stop to think about it---yes we give health care to ANY one--that INCLUDES illegals....who will NEVER EVER EVER pay it back---so who pays for it now????
yep tax payers...so we are already paying for it, might as well try to get something better (yes change is scary and might not be right the first time....but we really do have to start somewhere).

Except that the upper classes will end up shouldering 80% of the burden....like always.

Eskimoz · Sep 12, 2009, 05:22 PM // 17:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snow Bunny

Except that the upper classes will end up shouldering 80% of the burden....like always.

You would rather have the middle and lower class do it?

The guys who don't have enough cash to get (good) health care in the first place?

It's not like the government enjoys taxing the wealthy....it's just the best place to get the $ from.

Shursh · Sep 12, 2009, 05:50 PM // 17:50

^ I'd rather have people pay for what they use, and not ask me to foot a large portion of the bill. Also, I doubt that you are in any position to say what the government enjoys doing - just because the wealthy have more money, doesn't mean that it is right to take it from them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eskimoz

Illegals won't be covered by it.

"You lie!!"

A11Eur0 · Sep 12, 2009, 06:15 PM // 18:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eskimoz

You would rather have the middle and lower class do it?

The guys who don't have enough cash to get (good) health care in the first place?

It's not like the government enjoys taxing the wealthy....it's just the best place to get the $ from.

I would rather everyone carry their own damn weight. There's no reason for those who worked hard to get to the top to pay out of pocket to support those who don't have the same drive, ambition and intestinal fortitude to put it all on the line. You can't get rich by sitting on your ass.

The SOLUTION to the health care issue in the US is not a public option. The solution is to allow existing insurance companies to work across state boundaries, so the thousands of insurance companies across the country can compete to lower prices and increase quality of service across the board, increasing the number of people buying insurance by allowing for numerous levels of coverage. Right now, each state has like 2-6 insurance companies that can work within its borders, and they're all limited to their states' populations. Having cheaper options won't work to cover their overhead. If they're allowed to compete across the country, they can afford to have cheaper options because of the bulk effect. It'll essentially Wal-Mart the insurance market. The quality of health care is not dependent on the insurance policy, but the hospitals. More people with insurance will allow a hospital to be paid for their services, hire more doctors and increase quality of health care across the board. It's a win-win for all. Insurance companies that can't hack it get bought up. It's the American Way. Free market economy. Socialized economies do not work at this scale.

Eskimoz · Sep 12, 2009, 11:23 PM // 23:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shursh

^ I'd rather have people pay for what they use, and not ask me to foot a large portion of the bill. Also, I doubt that you are in any position to say what the government enjoys doing - just because the wealthy have more money, doesn't mean that it is right to take it from them.

It may not be right but it's still the best place to get the cash =\

Hmm...on a related note didn't Bush give the rich a tax cut back during his term? wouldn't this just reverse that?

Quote:

"You lie!!"

*Boo!* *hiss*

Eskimoz · Sep 12, 2009, 11:25 PM // 23:25

It is....difficult to carry your "own damn weight" when you don't have the means to carry it.

Also

the bill isn't just about giving health care to those without, It's about cutting the fat out of the current system and making so that your insurance company can't $!@# you over for having a preexisting condition and other good things like that.

bold: I'm surprised that was the correct spelling.

Burst Cancel · Sep 13, 2009, 03:36 AM // 03:36

There are sound economic reasons for denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions; it is for the same reasons that people that live in disaster-prone areas tend to pay higher premiums on their homeowners insurance, why car insurance premiums increase with accident frequency, and why loan interest rates are higher for those with lower credit scores. To wit, it's the accurate pricing of risk. Forcing insurance companies to cover those with preexisting conditions is tantamount to forcing the company to take a loss on that policy; this will be passed on as higher premiums for everyone else to offset that cost.

The wealthy may be "the best place to get the cash", but the fact that it "may not be right", as you say, would suggest that the cash shouldn't be gotten in the first place. One of the fundamental questions of the health care debate is whether someone who doesn't have the means to pay for a good/service should have it paid for by others. This question is at the heart of all arguments over government entitlement programs, not just health care.

Rushin Roulette · Sep 13, 2009, 07:30 AM // 07:30

From what I hear from US friends living here in Germany, is that the US healthcare mentality of the citizens would have to change before anything can be done to the system.

Americans don't seem to have any preventative treatments at all. The US medicine composes of nearly 100% Emergency medicine. People don't go to the doctors if they have a deep cut in their arms if they can help it.

They treat it themselves because they are scared of their own medical insurance raising their premiums and from having to pay the USD 200 or 20% deductible for a minor injury which would cost maybe USD 250 on medical bills. Instead, they try to treat themselves and only go to the doctor when the wound had become infectious which needs some serious ER medicine.

The resulting bill of USD 2000 is then sent to the Insurance company and the guy has to pay USD 400 for the 20% deductible. After that the Insurance company calls the patient and asks some really stupid questions about every single point on the bill (like "are anaesthetics really needed for surgery"). Every question that cant be answered 100% is classed as unnecessary costs and the patient has to pay them.

Now, if the patient had gone to the doc to clean out the wound in the first place and get a Tetanus shot, he would have had to pay max USD 250 if the insurance company had refused all costs.

As long as the US medicine is all about ER medicine and not enough about preventative medicine, no changes have a chance.

In Germany, we have a mixture between private and social medical care. The standard social medical care is already pretty good I think, and you can basically buy extra coverage or services with the private medical care. All necessary and normal preventative care is covered with the social health care aspect with no questions asked and no deductible minimum or percentage. If I need a chemotherapy, then I would get it. All I have to do is get a doc to diagnose the cancer and test if chemo is what I would need. After the chemo is done I don't get a bill or call from my insurance company to check all points of a bill for which Id need a medical degree to understand what they are.

If I had a cough that I couldn't get rid of, Id also go to the docs and get some specialized medicine to help me clear out the cough faster than waiting it out for a month or so it would usually take. This means im 100% fit for work faster and still don't have any extra costs.

The "down side" of social coverage is you have to pay if you are sick or not. But I know that, even if I should loose my job, I am still covered and can therefore stay healthy and can find a new job easier (nothing worse than turning up for a Job interview with Gangrene is there

).