Obama's healthcare plan. Is it scary? - Page 2

Nimrod's Son · 09-12-2008, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Debaser

oh so pbs frontline is partisan now? evidence, please.

Wait, what? You're right, Bill Moyers, the symbol of PBS journalism, perfectly non-partisan.

Debaser · 07:23 PM

Bill Moyers has nothing to do with Frontline.

next excuse, please.

or how about some evidence?

or how about watching it first and pointing out the bias with your great skill?

rolmos · 09-12-2008, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

America spends the money because we allow the uninsured and illegal people to get free healthcare.

Illegal immigration exists outside of the US as well. Take Spain as an example, for instance. Universal health care is just that: Universal. And NO, not all illegal immigrants mow lawns.

Nimrod's Son · 09-12-2008, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rolmos

Illegal immigration exists outside of the US as well. Take Spain as an example, for instance. Universal health care is just that: Universal. And NO, not all illegal immigrants mow lawns.

Some also pick lettuce and clean Wal-Marts and cook burgers

Nimrod's Son · 09-12-2008, 08:48 PM

Spain doesn't border a third world nation, you know.

rolmos · 09-12-2008, 08:50 PM

No, it's only the main entrance of almost all of Latin America and Northern Africa's European immigration.

rolmos · 09-12-2008, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

Some also pick lettuce and clean Wal-Marts and cook burgers

...

Nimrod's Son · 09-12-2008, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rolmos

No, it's only the main entrance of almost all of Latin America and Northern Africa's European immigration.

You'd think Spain would do something about that.

rolmos · 09-12-2008, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

You'd think Spain would do something about that.

They do. But they are not as fear-driven as so many American leaders are, and they (as well as many other european countries) have come to accept their role in the impoverishment of third world countries.

Gish08 · 09-12-2008, 10:01 PM

Health care in its current state is a nightmare. We basically have nowhere to go but up from here. So no, it isn't scary.

sppunk · 09-12-2008, 10:04 PM

The healthcare in the U.S. is the best in the world.

Why exactly do people seem destined to fuck up a good thing? Insurance companies are what need replaced, not the healthcare system.

Gish08 · 09-12-2008, 10:09 PM

I prefer socialized health care myself. When I get old and are more likely to get serious complications or what have you, I'd then be willing to pay for my own because the expediency of it all truly is worth it then. For relatively healthy younger folks, though, I see nothing wrong with what Canada or the UK has.

But that's never going to happen here, so let's just fix all of the problems with the current system. It's better than nothing.

And I do not disagree with you about the insurance companies. They are retarded and could use some fixing.

sppunk · 09-12-2008, 10:14 PM

I've had to deal with socialized healthcare in four different countries. They all are shit compared to what we receive in the U.S., even at 'free' E.R.'s.

Gish08 · 09-12-2008, 10:19 PM

What countries, may I ask?

sppunk · 09-12-2008, 10:34 PM

England, Azerbaijan, Canada and Germany.

candycane · 09-13-2008, 12:43 AM

All in all that wasn't a bad program. Obviously, the reporter has his own agenda and some things were presented in what I feel was a biased way but it was worth watching.

He skipped Canada... I wonder why? I've heard some of the worst things about Canada and Britain. Even in this program, the British system had some serious problems and even admitted in the Japanese section of the program that technologies like MRI's are scarce in Britain.

He also admitted that while the Swiss drug companies have so far not had to cut back on research and development when they fixed drug prices, at least one third of the Swiss drug companies income comes from the United States and that could be the cause. I've wondered for a long time how much of the costs of these (Successful) programs have been partially supported by the US healthcare system. Many of the rising drug prices we've seen over the last decade or so could be costs being passed on to the only people still willing to pay.

I've never said we don't need to make signifcant changes. We need to get everyone covered and if that means the government has to help the poor to get covered and give tax credits to the middle class, I'm ok with that. (this coming from someone who never wants to see government get any bigger) Also, some form of price controls may be necessary mostly because other countries doing it forces our hand. Especially in regard to drug prices. If we let the market dictate those we'll be stuck paying substantially more than everyone else.

I fear that in the future, once the international drug companies can no longer exploit the US market, we will see R&D suffer.

Many of the health systems mentioned in the program used private insurers and did not go as far as Obama seems to want to go. I'm still scared Debaser.

Debaser · 01:53 AM

me, too.

but for the opposite reason (i don't think Obama will go far enough). at least all those healthcare systems cover 100% of their citizens. Obama's proposal will not. It still lacks a legal mandate for health insurance (similar to how all drivers must have car insurance) that Edwards and Hillary were pushing. So we still won't be spreading the risk as wide as possible, thus lowering the risk and overall lowering the cost.

and there's pretty much no fear of turning this country into a single payer Canada-like system because it's pretty unfeasible for the govt to suddenly outlaw a multi-million (billion?) dollar health insurance industry. The only realistic path to national healthcare must be a hybrid market + govt system.

candycane · 09-13-2008, 03:53 PM

At least we can agree that our healthcare system is in serious need of an overhaul. We still don't agree on the best way to do that but its a start.

I don't think John McCain is very popular around here but I'm much more comfortable with his kind of reform. I don't think either candidates plan is perfect but I'm more comfortable with tax credits and other forms of encouragement to get people covered. On principal I'm against forcing everyone to do anything but I think healthcare may be a special situation so I'm open to discussing manditory coverage. I think Most employers should be forced to provide coverage up to some minimum standard through private insurers. I think those not covered by employers should have to get coverage. Much of the middle class and everyone with low income should also have to be covered with the middle class getting tax credits to cover much of the cost as McCain proposes. In addition, some form of national coverage or nationally subsidised coverage for those who can't aford it. (mostly those who already don't pay any taxes)

I'm still comfortable with the insurance market dictating prices so long as we ensure they don't behave like a cartel. We need to monitor insurance companies and ensure fair competition but not in the manner proposed by Barack Obama.

There is no reason we can't cover 100% of the population without removing choice and free market principals from the equation.

candycane · 09-13-2008, 04:06 PM

I know there are horror stories about insurance companies but I've always thought my insurance companies have been awsome. I get great care and I think a lot of the stats Debaser and the PBS program quoted are mostly due to the uninsured while the countries cited all had 100% enrollemnt in the state run program. I think Americans who have insurance get some of the best medical care in the world. (possibly the best, money talks after all)

The biggest problem is that its too expensive. I've had lapses in my coverage becasue I just couldn't afford it and thats not good. Therin lies the problem. We need to make sure that the poor and even people just haveing financial troubles have coverage. Once that happens and we install some form of price monitoring regulations the situation will improve.

Lets have the least government interference possible. The government should be trying to figure out how to fix this in the least intrusive way possible.

Debaser · 07:13 PM

McCain's healthcare plan is not a plan at all. It's basically "here's $5,000, go knock yourself out". It sounds good to the uniinformed or to people that don't realize the $5,000 will not even cover half the cost of insurance for a typical family. It also will raise the price of insurance for everybody. Next, McCain is going to eliminate the tax break to employers that provide health coverage to their employees. Supposedly to "level the playing field". But all that does is force individuals to now go seek insurance on the open market, which are consistantly more expensive for less coverage than employer based insurance (big companies have much better bargaining position than individuals seeking insurance). Right now the average annual premium for employer based coverage is $12000. So McCain is going to take that away and instead give you $5000 tax credit.

The plan basically screws the shit out of anybody with employer based insurance. He's shifting more cost burden to you and hoping that prices will go down (as employers stop offering health insurance because the tax break is gone) as more people are forced to get individual coverage on their own and competition is supposedly increased.

and of course, no 100% mandate (like Obama).

http://www.factcheck.org/mccains_5000_promise.html

Debaser · 09-16-2008, 12:01 PM

McCain's Healthcare plan. scary.

Quote:

McCain’s Radical Agenda
By BOB HERBERT
Published: September 15, 2008

Talk about a shock to the system. Has anyone bothered to notice the radical changes that John McCain and Sarah Palin are planning for the nation’s health insurance system?

These are changes that will set in motion nothing less than the dismantling of the employer-based coverage that protects most American families.

A study coming out Tuesday from scholars at Columbia, Harvard, Purdue and Michigan projects that 20 million Americans who have employment-based health insurance would lose it under the McCain plan.

There is nothing secret about Senator McCain’s far-reaching proposals, but they haven’t gotten much attention because the chatter in this campaign has mostly been about nonsense — lipstick, celebrities and “Drill, baby, drill!”

For starters, the McCain health plan would treat employer-paid health benefits as income that employees would have to pay taxes on.

“It means your employer is going to have to make an estimate on how much the employer is paying for health insurance on your behalf, and you are going to have to pay taxes on that money,” said Sherry Glied, an economist who chairs the Department of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health.

Ms. Glied is one of the four scholars who have just completed an independent joint study of the plan. Their findings are being published on the Web site of the policy journal, Health Affairs.

According to the study: “The McCain plan will force millions of Americans into the weakest segment of the private insurance system — the nongroup market — where cost-sharing is high, covered services are limited and people will lose access to benefits they have now.”

The net effect of the plan, the study said, “almost certainly will be to increase family costs for medical care.”

Under the McCain plan (now the McCain-Palin plan) employees who continue to receive employer-paid health benefits would look at their pay stubs each week or each month and find that additional money had been withheld to cover the taxes on the value of their benefits.

While there might be less money in the paycheck, that would not be anything to worry about, according to Senator McCain. That’s because the government would be offering all taxpayers a refundable tax credit — $2,500 for a single worker and $5,000 per family — to be used “to help pay for your health care.”

You may think this is a good move or a bad one — but it’s a monumental change in the way health coverage would be provided to scores of millions of Americans. Why not more attention?

The whole idea of the McCain plan is to get families out of employer-paid health coverage and into the health insurance marketplace, where naked competition is supposed to take care of all ills. (We’re seeing in the Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch fiascos just how well the unfettered marketplace has been working.)

Taxing employer-paid health benefits is the first step in this transition, the equivalent of injecting poison into the system. It’s the beginning of the end.

When younger, healthier workers start seeing additional taxes taken out of their paychecks, some (perhaps many) will opt out of the employer-based plans — either to buy cheaper insurance on their own or to go without coverage.

That will leave employers with a pool of older, less healthy workers to cover. That coverage will necessarily be more expensive, which will encourage more and more employers to give up on the idea of providing coverage at all.

The upshot is that many more Americans — millions more — will find themselves on their own in the bewildering and often treacherous health insurance marketplace. As Senator McCain has said: “I believe the key to real reform is to restore control over our health care system to the patients themselves.”

Yet another radical element of McCain’s plan is his proposal to undermine state health insurance regulations by allowing consumers to buy insurance from sellers anywhere in the country. So a requirement in one state that insurers cover, for example, vaccinations, or annual physicals, or breast examinations, would essentially be meaningless.

In a refrain we’ve heard many times in recent years, Mr. McCain said he is committed to ridding the market of these “needless and costly” insurance regulations.

This entire McCain health insurance transformation is right out of the right-wing Republicans’ ideological playbook: fewer regulations; let the market decide; and send unsophisticated consumers into the crucible alone.

You would think that with some of the most venerable houses on Wall Street crumbling like sand castles right before our eyes, we’d be a little wary about spreading this toxic formula even further into the health care system.

But we’re not even paying much attention.

Nimrod's Son · 09-16-2008, 12:50 PM

Bob Herbert of the Times. Fair and balanced.

Debaser · 09-16-2008, 01:59 PM

Great rebuttal.

MinaLoi · 09-27-2008, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

Some also pick lettuce and clean Wal-Marts and cook burgers

...and then the rest build porches

MinaLoi · 09-27-2008, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sppunk

The healthcare in the U.S. is the best in the world.

Why exactly do people seem destined to fuck up a good thing? Insurance companies are what need replaced, not the healthcare system.

precisely

those are the companies that the government needs to keep their eye on.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/indust...ealthnet_N.htm

MinaLoi · 09-28-2008, 12:58 AM

the price of employer sponsored insurance also depends greatly on your line of work and (drum-roll, please) your sex

take my case for example;

i am a female working in the healthcare, so i have two strikes against me
#1) working in healthcare, the chances of becoming sick or getting injured on the job are more than doubled.
#2) having a twat

because statiscally chicks go to their dr's more often then men do, and they can become pregnant. prenatal care costs big $$ and then there's another body that they have to pay for after it's all over...

these are just a few more ways the insurance companies are able to screw people.

my insurance premiums are 2.45 bi-weekly for an HMO, this is because i've been w/ my current employer for 5+ years and the ins. rate are discounted greatly for this service, less than 5yrs. it is probably 50.00 bi-weekly. this doesn't sound too bad, right? that is until i decide that i want to cover the rest of my family, i.e, my husband and son, then the rate hikes up to 194.83 every two weeks. that's damn near 400.00 a month for a HMO, i simply cannot afford this. my husband doesn't have insurance because his employer doesn't offer it to part-timers and won't make him full-time (the rat ass hole bastards!), and my son is covered by FAMIS, which is a step-up from MEDI-CAID, meaning i pay a certain amount for certain procedures and wot-not.

i think if the government is going to cover anyone 100% it should be children, seniors and war veterans. the exception w/ the children is of course is if the parents or other responsable party, makes enough money to pay for coverage themselves. this should also apply for seniors that are 'well off' or their grown children have the resources to care for them. people should take care of their parents if they are able to...
unless they were dead beats, run-offs or abusers, then just say FUCK 'EM!

some will argue that these things are already being done but they are not, unless, of course you quit or get yourself fired, never get another job and tell social services that 'you just can't find a one' and you have five kids *sobbity~sobbity*, then your set, you've got your healthcare and your welfare. FREE DOCTORS VISITS AND FOOD FOR ALL. i know so many people that have said to me 'it would be so easy if i just quit trying(to make it above the table)'. and sadly it's the truth, the lower class people have a better quality of life if they are workless, on welfare and do odd jobs where they are paid cash and don't report it. then there are people that receive disability benefits yet are fully capable of working, my sister's husband receives disabilty for having a 'chemical imbalance', and that's the only thing physically wrong with him, besides being a lazy, ingnorant and selfish. WTF?!

Sarcastic Smile · 09-28-2008, 06:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MinaLoi

some will argue that these things are already being done but they are not, unless, of course you quit or get yourself fired, never get another job and tell social services that 'you just can't find a one' and you have five kids *sobbity~sobbity*, then your set, you've got your healthcare and your welfare. FREE DOCTORS VISITS AND FOOD FOR ALL. i know so many people that have said to me 'it would be so easy if i just quit trying(to make it above the table)'. and sadly it's the truth, the lower class people have a better quality of life if they are workless, on welfare and do odd jobs where they are paid cash and don't report it. then there are people that receive disability benefits yet are fully capable of working, my sister's husband receives disabilty for having a 'chemical imbalance', and that's the only thing physically wrong with him, besides being a lazy, ingnorant and selfish. WTF?!

The only people I know on disability and unemployment have been lazy degenerate fuckers... I am sure not everyone is like this but I can think of at least 6 people..

Ol' Couch Ass · 09-28-2008, 10:17 PM

There are far too many Americans on disability. If you are truly and honestly unable to work I am all for assistance but I can tell you firsthand there are far too many people who abuse it and then live lives of sloth in decrepit HUD apartments. It isn't much of a life but they mostly seem content to sit at home watching the talkie box and scarfing down little debby snack cakes :/

Shawn Osmond · 09-29-2008, 11:02 AM

Eating right, not smoking, and spending as much time exercising as some of you spend on Netphoria....is the most effective and least expensive health care plan money can buy. Those of you who plan on relying on government health care rather than your own lifestyle to keep you healthy as you get older are going to be sorely disappointed. Putting government price caps on what doctors and hospitals can charge for services doesn't work when their costs go up year after year. Putting government caps on the hospital's medical suppliers won't work either because their costs go up year after year also. The government would just be capping doctors' abilities to do their best work while running them out of business.
No one here has explained why healthcare needs to be free, or "affordable for everyone". Why does it? Why are people not willing to understand that certain medical procedures are simply out of their reach financially, and that good doctors are never going to be willing to charge little or nothing for the work that they've spent 8 years or more training for?

hnibos · 09-29-2008, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawn Osmond

No one here has explained why healthcare needs to be free, or "affordable for everyone". Why does it? Why are people not willing to understand that certain medical procedures are simply out of their reach financially, and that good doctors are never going to be willing to charge little or nothing for the work that they've spent 8 years or more training for?

This cant be serious

09-12-2008, 06:30 PM	#32
Debaser ghost Location: @SactoMacto Posts: 12,201	Bill Moyers has nothing to do with Frontline. next excuse, please. or how about some evidence? or how about watching it first and pointing out the bias with your great skill? Last edited by Debaser : 09-12-2008 at 07:23 PM.

09-13-2008, 01:43 AM	#47
Debaser ghost Location: @SactoMacto Posts: 12,201	me, too. but for the opposite reason (i don't think Obama will go far enough). at least all those healthcare systems cover 100% of their citizens. Obama's proposal will not. It still lacks a legal mandate for health insurance (similar to how all drivers must have car insurance) that Edwards and Hillary were pushing. So we still won't be spreading the risk as wide as possible, thus lowering the risk and overall lowering the cost. and there's pretty much no fear of turning this country into a single payer Canada-like system because it's pretty unfeasible for the govt to suddenly outlaw a multi-million (billion?) dollar health insurance industry. The only realistic path to national healthcare must be a hybrid market + govt system. Last edited by Debaser : 09-13-2008 at 01:53 AM.

09-13-2008, 07:02 PM	#50
Debaser ghost Location: @SactoMacto Posts: 12,201	McCain's healthcare plan is not a plan at all. It's basically "here's $5,000, go knock yourself out". It sounds good to the uniinformed or to people that don't realize the $5,000 will not even cover half the cost of insurance for a typical family. It also will raise the price of insurance for everybody. Next, McCain is going to eliminate the tax break to employers that provide health coverage to their employees. Supposedly to "level the playing field". But all that does is force individuals to now go seek insurance on the open market, which are consistantly more expensive for less coverage than employer based insurance (big companies have much better bargaining position than individuals seeking insurance). Right now the average annual premium for employer based coverage is $12000. So McCain is going to take that away and instead give you $5000 tax credit. The plan basically screws the shit out of anybody with employer based insurance. He's shifting more cost burden to you and hoping that prices will go down (as employers stop offering health insurance because the tax break is gone) as more people are forced to get individual coverage on their own and competition is supposedly increased. and of course, no 100% mandate (like Obama). http://www.factcheck.org/mccains_5000_promise.html Last edited by Debaser : 09-13-2008 at 07:13 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Lindsay Lohan Polishes Her Resume	Screwjack	General Chat Archive	48	05-12-2007 03:06 AM

09-12-2008, 08:48 PM	#35
Nimrod's Son Master of Karate and Friendship Location: in your butt Posts: 72,943	Spain doesn't border a third world nation, you know.

09-12-2008, 08:50 PM	#36
rolmos Apocalyptic Poster Posts: 2,351	No, it's only the main entrance of almost all of Latin America and Northern Africa's European immigration.

09-12-2008, 10:01 PM	#40
Gish08 Apocalyptic Poster Posts: 2,560	Health care in its current state is a nightmare. We basically have nowhere to go but up from here. So no, it isn't scary.

09-12-2008, 10:04 PM	#41
sppunk Netphoria's George Will Location: Fenway Park Posts: 37,125	The healthcare in the U.S. is the best in the world. Why exactly do people seem destined to fuck up a good thing? Insurance companies are what need replaced, not the healthcare system.

09-12-2008, 10:09 PM	#42
Gish08 Apocalyptic Poster Posts: 2,560	I prefer socialized health care myself. When I get old and are more likely to get serious complications or what have you, I'd then be willing to pay for my own because the expediency of it all truly is worth it then. For relatively healthy younger folks, though, I see nothing wrong with what Canada or the UK has. But that's never going to happen here, so let's just fix all of the problems with the current system. It's better than nothing. And I do not disagree with you about the insurance companies. They are retarded and could use some fixing.

09-12-2008, 10:14 PM	#43
sppunk Netphoria's George Will Location: Fenway Park Posts: 37,125	I've had to deal with socialized healthcare in four different countries. They all are shit compared to what we receive in the U.S., even at 'free' E.R.'s.

09-12-2008, 10:19 PM	#44
Gish08 Apocalyptic Poster Posts: 2,560	What countries, may I ask?

09-12-2008, 10:34 PM	#45
sppunk Netphoria's George Will Location: Fenway Park Posts: 37,125	England, Azerbaijan, Canada and Germany.

09-13-2008, 12:43 AM	#46
candycane Demi-God Posts: 404	All in all that wasn't a bad program. Obviously, the reporter has his own agenda and some things were presented in what I feel was a biased way but it was worth watching. He skipped Canada... I wonder why? I've heard some of the worst things about Canada and Britain. Even in this program, the British system had some serious problems and even admitted in the Japanese section of the program that technologies like MRI's are scarce in Britain. He also admitted that while the Swiss drug companies have so far not had to cut back on research and development when they fixed drug prices, at least one third of the Swiss drug companies income comes from the United States and that could be the cause. I've wondered for a long time how much of the costs of these (Successful) programs have been partially supported by the US healthcare system. Many of the rising drug prices we've seen over the last decade or so could be costs being passed on to the only people still willing to pay. I've never said we don't need to make signifcant changes. We need to get everyone covered and if that means the government has to help the poor to get covered and give tax credits to the middle class, I'm ok with that. (this coming from someone who never wants to see government get any bigger) Also, some form of price controls may be necessary mostly because other countries doing it forces our hand. Especially in regard to drug prices. If we let the market dictate those we'll be stuck paying substantially more than everyone else. I fear that in the future, once the international drug companies can no longer exploit the US market, we will see R&D suffer. Many of the health systems mentioned in the program used private insurers and did not go as far as Obama seems to want to go. I'm still scared Debaser.

09-13-2008, 03:53 PM	#48
candycane Demi-God Posts: 404	At least we can agree that our healthcare system is in serious need of an overhaul. We still don't agree on the best way to do that but its a start. I don't think John McCain is very popular around here but I'm much more comfortable with his kind of reform. I don't think either candidates plan is perfect but I'm more comfortable with tax credits and other forms of encouragement to get people covered. On principal I'm against forcing everyone to do anything but I think healthcare may be a special situation so I'm open to discussing manditory coverage. I think Most employers should be forced to provide coverage up to some minimum standard through private insurers. I think those not covered by employers should have to get coverage. Much of the middle class and everyone with low income should also have to be covered with the middle class getting tax credits to cover much of the cost as McCain proposes. In addition, some form of national coverage or nationally subsidised coverage for those who can't aford it. (mostly those who already don't pay any taxes) I'm still comfortable with the insurance market dictating prices so long as we ensure they don't behave like a cartel. We need to monitor insurance companies and ensure fair competition but not in the manner proposed by Barack Obama. There is no reason we can't cover 100% of the population without removing choice and free market principals from the equation.

09-13-2008, 04:06 PM	#49
candycane Demi-God Posts: 404	I know there are horror stories about insurance companies but I've always thought my insurance companies have been awsome. I get great care and I think a lot of the stats Debaser and the PBS program quoted are mostly due to the uninsured while the countries cited all had 100% enrollemnt in the state run program. I think Americans who have insurance get some of the best medical care in the world. (possibly the best, money talks after all) The biggest problem is that its too expensive. I've had lapses in my coverage becasue I just couldn't afford it and thats not good. Therin lies the problem. We need to make sure that the poor and even people just haveing financial troubles have coverage. Once that happens and we install some form of price monitoring regulations the situation will improve. Lets have the least government interference possible. The government should be trying to figure out how to fix this in the least intrusive way possible.

09-16-2008, 12:50 PM	#52
Nimrod's Son Master of Karate and Friendship Location: in your butt Posts: 72,943	Bob Herbert of the Times. Fair and balanced.

09-16-2008, 01:59 PM	#53
Debaser ghost Location: @SactoMacto Posts: 12,201	Great rebuttal.

09-28-2008, 12:58 AM	#56
MinaLoi Amish Rake Fighter Location: Locust Grove, Va Posts: 11	the price of employer sponsored insurance also depends greatly on your line of work and (drum-roll, please) your sex take my case for example; i am a female working in the healthcare, so i have two strikes against me #1) working in healthcare, the chances of becoming sick or getting injured on the job are more than doubled. #2) having a twat because statiscally chicks go to their dr's more often then men do, and they can become pregnant. prenatal care costs big $$ and then there's another body that they have to pay for after it's all over... these are just a few more ways the insurance companies are able to screw people. my insurance premiums are 2.45 bi-weekly for an HMO, this is because i've been w/ my current employer for 5+ years and the ins. rate are discounted greatly for this service, less than 5yrs. it is probably 50.00 bi-weekly. this doesn't sound too bad, right? that is until i decide that i want to cover the rest of my family, i.e, my husband and son, then the rate hikes up to 194.83 every two weeks. that's damn near 400.00 a month for a HMO, i simply cannot afford this. my husband doesn't have insurance because his employer doesn't offer it to part-timers and won't make him full-time (the rat ass hole bastards!), and my son is covered by FAMIS, which is a step-up from MEDI-CAID, meaning i pay a certain amount for certain procedures and wot-not. i think if the government is going to cover anyone 100% it should be children, seniors and war veterans. the exception w/ the children is of course is if the parents or other responsable party, makes enough money to pay for coverage themselves. this should also apply for seniors that are 'well off' or their grown children have the resources to care for them. people should take care of their parents if they are able to... unless they were dead beats, run-offs or abusers, then just say FUCK 'EM! some will argue that these things are already being done but they are not, unless, of course you quit or get yourself fired, never get another job and tell social services that 'you just can't find a one' and you have five kids sobbity~sobbity, then your set, you've got your healthcare and your welfare. FREE DOCTORS VISITS AND FOOD FOR ALL. i know so many people that have said to me 'it would be so easy if i just quit trying(to make it above the table)'. and sadly it's the truth, the lower class people have a better quality of life if they are workless, on welfare and do odd jobs where they are paid cash and don't report it. then there are people that receive disability benefits yet are fully capable of working, my sister's husband receives disabilty for having a 'chemical imbalance', and that's the only thing physically wrong with him, besides being a lazy, ingnorant and selfish. WTF?!

09-28-2008, 10:17 PM	#58
Ol' Couch Ass Socialphobic Location: The Filthy South Posts: 11,261	There are far too many Americans on disability. If you are truly and honestly unable to work I am all for assistance but I can tell you firsthand there are far too many people who abuse it and then live lives of sloth in decrepit HUD apartments. It isn't much of a life but they mostly seem content to sit at home watching the talkie box and scarfing down little debby snack cakes :/

09-29-2008, 11:02 AM	#59
Shawn Osmond Banned Location: USA, North America, Earth, Milky Way 90210 Posts: 726	Eating right, not smoking, and spending as much time exercising as some of you spend on Netphoria....is the most effective and least expensive health care plan money can buy. Those of you who plan on relying on government health care rather than your own lifestyle to keep you healthy as you get older are going to be sorely disappointed. Putting government price caps on what doctors and hospitals can charge for services doesn't work when their costs go up year after year. Putting government caps on the hospital's medical suppliers won't work either because their costs go up year after year also. The government would just be capping doctors' abilities to do their best work while running them out of business. No one here has explained why healthcare needs to be free, or "affordable for everyone". Why does it? Why are people not willing to understand that certain medical procedures are simply out of their reach financially, and that good doctors are never going to be willing to charge little or nothing for the work that they've spent 8 years or more training for?