Obamacare prepping to ruin everything

[BigBallinStalin]

So your vote is already in the government's bag. Who's next?

Parochialism. Partisanship. Idiocracy. Go Amerika...

Ok

[thegreekdog]

I wanna spend time...write out an intellectual argument defending national healthcare and all.

Unfortunately Ive realized its pointless to argue at all with virtually any of those who are against it. And I will admit, the converse is true. You will not convince me that national healtcare is not a good thing.

Awesome. Great job giving up. C'mon, you know you want to type out an intellectual argument defending national healthcare. Maybe it will even be something we haven't heard before! Give it a shot.

Seriously. Explain to me how either the House plan or the Senate plan are good things, because your last post was worthless. Here I'll sum it up - "It's going to work well, there may be some kinks, but we really need it. Can't get into details because it's pointless to argue with anyone who is against it because they are either racist, pawns of the insurance company, or pawns of FoxNews." Sorry, I added that last part.

[ritz627]

Here I'll sum it up - "It's going to work well, there may be some kinks, but we really need it. Can't get into details because it's pointless to argue with anyone who is against it because they are either racist, pawns of the insurance company, or pawns of FoxNews." Sorry, I added that last part.

Ummm perhaps you didnt read my entire post. I said that there are misconceptions of opinions on both sides. For instance...the last part that you added was a "misconception" of my opinion. I understand that there are good reasons for and against the plan on both sides. Let me sum up my argument for you...because you apparently just skimmed it, decided it was against yours and wrote a quick, generic post attempting to refute me. What I was trying to say is that this a very passionate issue...and when you have a very passionate issue like this you are going to find a lot of trouble convincing someone who has already made up their mind. Exhibit A: you. Admittedly, I am one of those people as well.

Im fairly young, but I have spent a good amount of time performing community service in impoverished areas of America...namely in Boston and in the Bronx. Ive spoken with many people who struggle day to day to afford even the most minimal of lifestyles...and also with those who have been less successful and lost their homes. Without a doubt one of their largest concerns is "what if I have to go to the hospital?" Healthcare costs have forced countless amounts of people into homelessness. To be frank, people who live like this need a safety net, desperately. It is my experience with these people that has lead me to believe that this is a needed policy.

It isnt socialism, nobody is forcing anyone to switch healthcare plans, its simply an option. Specifically, it is an option for those who are less fortunate. It just doesn’t make sense that our lives are in the hands of corporations looking to just make a profit off us in nearly any way they can. One who lives in the middle to upper class of society may not see the repercussions of this, but it is the lower class who suffers...and suffers dearly from corporate health care.

I recur, there will be kinks in the plan. But a plan like this is just so complicated that we need to see it in action before we can truly pinpoint these problems and fix them. I have faith we can do it though, I mean if we can organize a national military (check that - global military ), something tells me we can organize a national healthcare plan.

[ritz627]

So your vote is already in the government's bag. Who's next?

Parochialism. Partisanship. Idiocracy. Go Amerika...

Explain to me how you can derive partisanship from one opinion? I didnt support any political party here...just stated my opinion on this issue. In fact, Im an independent. All I was saying is that with a passionate issue like this youre going to find difficulty convincing someone who has already made up their mind. I am no exception to this rule.

[thegreekdog]

Ritz627 - Sorry, my computer does crazy things when I try to quote too much.

Anyway, I do think there are people who do not get health care and who should get health care (or health insurance). I think when these people do not get preventative care and then go to the hospital when the issue is too much, they get "free" care which costs the rest of the people in this country a lot of money. Therefore, that has to be fixed. I actually think the fix for this is to provide health insurance to people who cannot afford health insurance. I also think such a program should be as effective as possible without stereotypical government waste (as seen in Medicare and Medicaid).

So, you may say that the current plans do this. And I agree, they do. Except they also do other things, as I've indicated in other threads, that have less to do with insuring those that cannot afford insurance than with promoting "competition" with the government, which will (will!) result in the gradual takeover of the healthcare industry by the US federal government (which some may think is a good thing; I think it's a horrible, horrible thing).

Therefore, rather than just doing what it probably should do, the government is going above and beyond (and not in a good way in my opinion). This is why, while I agree that the health industry needs some changes, I don't support any of the plans thus far (and I have actually read them... as an aside, they are NOT that long, so people should read them).

In any event, in terms of fixing the problems of insurance with respect to non-payment and the like, I think people need to become more educated, there need to be less restrictions on health insurance across state lines. On a more "that crazy greekdog" note, I think we need to go back to the period where doctors could charge what they wanted to charge; so, when Dr. Smith went to see Mrs. Jones (a poor widower), he could provide care for free, and when he went to see Mr. Johnson (a rich man), he could charge his regular prices. When insurance came along, prices were knocked out of whack and Medicare and Medicaid did more to hurt medicine than help. Cynically, the government does not want to do these things because the government longs for power and control over people (as I've discussed in other threads), so the result is the current plans we have.

[Night Strike]

I mean, evidence has pretty clearly shown that when people pay for their care each time they go to the doctor (as opposed to having insurance and being free to go whenever they want) their choices are irrational and inefficient.

Since when? When people pay directly out of pocket for their care, they are more selective in what drugs and procedures they're going to pay for. True cost-cutting happens when people make their own purchases, not when a different organization (insurance or government) makes the bulk of the purchase after you pay a premium/co-pay.

It isnt socialism, nobody is forcing anyone to switch healthcare plans, its simply an option. Specifically, it is an option for those who are less fortunate. It just doesn’t make sense that our lives are in the hands of corporations looking to just make a profit off us in nearly any way they can. One who lives in the middle to upper class of society may not see the repercussions of this, but it is the lower class who suffers...and suffers dearly from corporate health care.

But that's the whole contention of the debate. Opponents are saying that a) we don't have the money to implement this massive project, and b) that once the government gets involved, they will force an uneven playing field that ends up forcing people off their current health care plans.

I recur, there will be kinks in the plan. But a plan like this is just so complicated that we need to see it in action before we can truly pinpoint these problems and fix them. I have faith we can do it though, I mean if we can organize a national military (check that - global military ), something tells me we can organize a national healthcare plan.

You have faith in the government? What the government gives, they can just as easily take away. So, if the kinks in the plan are that it becomes way over budget, is causing massive delays in care, and denying people life-saving treatments just because they are expensive (as has happened in any state or foreign run plan), will the government vote to end the failed program?? I wouldn't bet my money on it.

[beezer]

I mean, evidence has pretty clearly shown that when people pay for their care each time they go to the doctor (as opposed to having insurance and being free to go whenever they want) their choices are irrational and inefficient.

Oh, that made me laugh

What evidence would that be? Who did this study about irrational and inefficient health care choices?

[TeletubbyPrince]

denying people life-saving treatments just because they are expensive

Only a retard would think this is a bad thing. You want to save lives? Well donating money to third world countries is a much more efficient use of funds. Oops, I think I just made your entire argument invalid

[Night Strike]

denying people life-saving treatments just because they are expensive

Only a retard would think this is a bad thing. You want to save lives? Well donating money to third world countries is a much more efficient use of funds. Oops, I think I just made your entire argument invalid

So I guess when your father, grandfather, or uncle gets prostate cancer and the government refuses to pay for the $30,000 drug that will save his life (as Canada currently denies), you'll be rejoicing to know that the money is being sent to third world countries to save lives (which it wouldn't be)?

[TeletubbyPrince]

So I guess when your father, grandfather, or uncle gets prostate cancer

when

LOL more like if, right? That's a nice hypothetical situation and all, but hey, I've got a better one: what will you do when Hitler kills you? Who knows, he could rise from the dead any day now! Better get some premium life insurance, just in case

Oops I just ruined your argument again, silly me...

[Woodruff]

denying people life-saving treatments just because they are expensive

Only a retard would think this is a bad thing. You want to save lives? Well donating money to third world countries is a much more efficient use of funds. Oops, I think I just made your entire argument invalid

It's fascinating to think what must go on in what passes for your mind when you make statements like this.

[Night Strike]

denying people life-saving treatments just because they are expensive

Only a retard would think this is a bad thing. You want to save lives? Well donating money to third world countries is a much more efficient use of funds. Oops, I think I just made your entire argument invalid

It's fascinating to think what must go on in what passes for your mind when you make statements like this.

No, it's amazing to think that he believes his statements are actually winning an argument.


Yes, I know my scenario was just as facetious as his......which was done on purpose.

[xelabale]

So your vote is already in the government's bag. Who's next?

Parochialism. Partisanship. Idiocracy. Go Amerika...

Explain to me how you can derive partisanship from one opinion? I didnt support any political party here...just stated my opinion on this issue. In fact, Im an independent. All I was saying is that with a passionate issue like this youre going to find difficulty convincing someone who has already made up their mind. I am no exception to this rule.

Oh my aching sides!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Snorri1234]

I mean, evidence has pretty clearly shown that when people pay for their care each time they go to the doctor (as opposed to having insurance and being free to go whenever they want) their choices are irrational and inefficient.

Oh, that made me laugh

What evidence would that be? Who did this study about irrational and inefficient health care choices?

Not only is there evidence, it's also fucking obvious.

[ritz627]

So your vote is already in the government's bag. Who's next?

Parochialism. Partisanship. Idiocracy. Go Amerika...

Explain to me how you can derive partisanship from one opinion? I didnt support any political party here...just stated my opinion on this issue. In fact, Im an independent. All I was saying is that with a passionate issue like this youre going to find difficulty convincing someone who has already made up their mind. I am no exception to this rule.

Oh my aching sides!!!!!!!!!!!!

Apparently you need to find a dictionary and look up partisanship dumbass. Making up my mind on one single issue without referencing any political group does not make me partisan. Stubborn maybe...partisan no.

[ritz627]

Ritz627 - Sorry, my computer does crazy things when I try to quote too much.

Anyway, I do think there are people who do not get health care and who should get health care (or health insurance). I think when these people do not get preventative care and then go to the hospital when the issue is too much, they get "free" care which costs the rest of the people in this country a lot of money. Therefore, that has to be fixed. I actually think the fix for this is to provide health insurance to people who cannot afford health insurance. I also think such a program should be as effective as possible without stereotypical government waste (as seen in Medicare and Medicaid).

So, you may say that the current plans do this. And I agree, they do. Except they also do other things, as I've indicated in other threads, that have less to do with insuring those that cannot afford insurance than with promoting "competition" with the government, which will (will!) result in the gradual takeover of the healthcare industry by the US federal government (which some may think is a good thing; I think it's a horrible, horrible thing).

Therefore, rather than just doing what it probably should do, the government is going above and beyond (and not in a good way in my opinion). This is why, while I agree that the health industry needs some changes, I don't support any of the plans thus far (and I have actually read them... as an aside, they are NOT that long, so people should read them).

In any event, in terms of fixing the problems of insurance with respect to non-payment and the like, I think people need to become more educated, there need to be less restrictions on health insurance across state lines. On a more "that crazy greekdog" note, I think we need to go back to the period where doctors could charge what they wanted to charge; so, when Dr. Smith went to see Mrs. Jones (a poor widower), he could provide care for free, and when he went to see Mr. Johnson (a rich man), he could charge his regular prices. When insurance came along, prices were knocked out of whack and Medicare and Medicaid did more to hurt medicine than help. Cynically, the government does not want to do these things because the government longs for power and control over people (as I've discussed in other threads), so the result is the current plans we have.

It's good to know that there are some rational people on both sides of the argument. But you said it right there...Some people think government take over of the healthcare industry would be a good thing, some people think its a bad thing. Personally I could not be happier if I saw the government takeover the healthcare, and thats where we differ. I don't think youre crazy and I hope you dont think I am either haha. Honestly it would be nice to see us go back to those days...just so could be closer to healthcare for all...but I don't think thats a realistic possibility looking at where we are now. I also don't think the government is looking to have control over people, in fact compared to other countries our government is fairly intrusive on our lives (minus all that Patriot Act crap...hah just kidding). What I think our government is trying to do here is make sure the health and welfare of its people are protected. I think this a good thing, others don't see it the same way, and I can understand that...I just don't agree. Due to many misquoted aspects of the plan many people are getting the feeling that this is not what the plan is doing. To me, I don't see Obamacare passing, there's just too much anti-national healthcare sentiment right now. That said, this is the second time weve seen our government try to do this and I dont think it will be the last. To me, its just a matter of time.

[beezer]

I mean, evidence has pretty clearly shown that when people pay for their care each time they go to the doctor (as opposed to having insurance and being free to go whenever they want) their choices are irrational and inefficient.

Oh, that made me laugh

What evidence would that be? Who did this study about irrational and inefficient health care choices?

Not only is there evidence, it's also fucking obvious.

Let's see it then

[AAFitz]

I mean, evidence has pretty clearly shown that when people pay for their care each time they go to the doctor (as opposed to having insurance and being free to go whenever they want) their choices are irrational and inefficient.

Oh, that made me laugh

What evidence would that be? Who did this study about irrational and inefficient health care choices?

Not only is there evidence, it's also fucking obvious.

Let's see it then

What he is saying, is that obviously if people are actually paying for their doctors visits and paying for tests and procedures....they are of course going to be more rational and efficient than if there is no real financial constraint.

Yes, it is written conversely, but it is done so with sarcastic intent, because the situation speaks for itself...and no one could possibly misunderstand it.

[Phatscotty]

The whole of the reform is intended specifically for the SEIU

[AAFitz]

I dont see what the big deal is... If a person doesnt have cancer, why would you want to routinely check for it?

[Night Strike]

I dont see what the big deal is... If a person doesnt have cancer, why would you want to routinely check for it?

Because it's the exact same prevention and early detection that they're preaching will save billions of dollars in the system, but then they have government organizations put out recommendations that current early screenings aren't necessary. They're trying to see us one thing, but actually putting out another thing. The Democrats' claims do not match the reality of their actions or bills.

[beezer]

What he is saying, is that obviously if people are actually paying for their doctors visits and paying for tests and procedures....they are of course going to be more rational and efficient than if there is no real financial constraint.

Yes, it is written conversely, but it is done so with sarcastic intent, because the situation speaks for itself...and no one could possibly misunderstand it.

This wouldn't be the first time I've heard that excuse used whenever proof is asked to back up a claim.

[AAFitz]

What he is saying, is that obviously if people are actually paying for their doctors visits and paying for tests and procedures....they are of course going to be more rational and efficient than if there is no real financial constraint.

Yes, it is written conversely, but it is done so with sarcastic intent, because the situation speaks for itself...and no one could possibly misunderstand it.

This wouldn't be the first time I've heard that excuse used whenever proof is asked to back up a claim.

Are you saying you cant see the sarcasm still????

[AAFitz]

I dont see what the big deal is... If a person doesnt have cancer, why would you want to routinely check for it?

Because it's the exact same prevention and early detection that they're preaching will save billions of dollars in the system, but then they have government organizations put out recommendations that current early screenings aren't necessary. They're trying to see us one thing, but actually putting out another thing. The Democrats' claims do not match the reality of their actions or bills.

I think more importantly... How do you know someone doesn't have cancer...if you dont check for it? And not checking for cancer will save billions. But its because people will realize too late that they have cancer, and the treatment options will be much more limited, ie cheaper in the long run. Its the treatment of cancer that is expensive...not the dying from it.

There is always a fine line between being thorough and safe, and being beyond overly cautious...then again as they say... even paranoid people sometimes have people watching them. Hypo-condriacs get sick too.

I

[Phatscotty]

I dont see what the big deal is... If a person doesnt have cancer, why would you want to routinely check for it?

I dont know, but he news on cervical, breast, and prostate cancer limitation reccomendations......does not quite fit into the whole "preventative medicine" could save billions......

All for the SEIU, get it thru your heads