Punishing families who can't afford health care to begin with just doesn't make sense

TurdFerguson said:
I hear that Simon fellow is quite tough. He slates everyone for death.
Click to expand...

He is harsh but he's not all bad.

It was him who approved mother's triple heart bypass actually. Simon even said she did amazingly well, for an arthritic 70 year old, to keep her balance on the unicycle while she was juggling the chainsaws.
 
TurdFerguson said:
And I'd add that not only has Baucus received shitloads from insurers, drug companies and the like, but a look at the metadata on the bill released reveals that the bill was primarily authored by Liz Fowler, a senior staffer of his the focuses on health policy. Prior to working with Baucus on this bill, Fowler served as Vice President for Public Policy and External Affairs at WellPoint, Inc. This WellPoint:

http://www.wellpoint.com/business/default.asp
Click to expand...

Baucus should be placed squarely in the spotlight. The master he serves should be revealed.

On healthcare, republicans are not the problem.
 
TheHappyHippo said:
Tinfuck, you don't understand anything about this issue, and that is clear, so there's no reason to debate you on this.
Click to expand...
Translation: I haven't read the talking points memo on how to answer this question with actual information so I will try an insult to distract from the fact that I don't really have any ideas of my own.
 
Damocles said:
Translation: I haven't read the talking points memo on how to answer this question with actual information so I will try an insult to distract from the fact that I don't really have any ideas of my own.
Click to expand...

That would only make sense if posters were required to converse with people they believe to be morons. Responding to posters is a choice and how one responds to a particular poster is a choice .. and your defense of an admitted racist is bizarre and really fucking stupid.
 
charver said:
And all we ask in return is that people attend yearly assessment centres after the age of 40 to justify their existence in front of our new, improved, celebrity death panels.
Click to expand...


Socialism! <rolls eyes>. Thanks for reminding why I think health insurance should strictly be run on a for-profit basis, because I believe in free markets.
 
Cypress said:
Socialism! <rolls eyes>. Thanks for reminding why I think health insurance should strictly be run on a for-profit basis, because I believe in free markets.
Click to expand...
If he chose not to answer he could have simply not answered. And tin's racist remarks have nothing to do with the news story he linked to.
 
Damocles said:
Translation: I haven't read the talking points memo on how to answer this question with actual information so I will try an insult to distract from the fact that I don't really have any ideas of my own.
Click to expand...

You've seen tinfoil's posts on this topic. Do you really think he has a solid understanding of it?
 
Damocles said:
If he chose not to answer he could have simply not answered. And tin's racist remarks have nothing to do with the news story he linked to.
Click to expand...

And how posters respond to morons and racists is their choice, not yours. You didn't do anything about their racist remarks, so you should back the fuck up when others respond to them as they see fit.
 
uscitizen said:
Yep, but not in France.
Click to expand...
Not true at all. The high copays create a group of people who are listed as "covered" who can't afford the copays or the gap insurance that would help cover them. While officially they are "covered" they either go broke paying for care or they don't get care.
 
Damocles said:
Not true at all. The high copays create a group of people who are listed as "covered" who can't afford the copays or the gap insurance that would help cover them. While officially they are "covered" they either go broke paying for care or they don't get care.
Click to expand...


Source?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
k, lets try this again. it's not the insurance that is shitty, because it's really not bad insurance. the problem is actually dealing with the health issues. most of the meds are on the 20/40 copay, but there are some that insurance won't cover (and this gov plan won't either) because of the type of med, so I have to pay full price for that. To add insult to injury on it all, the surgery that was performed didn't do as well as was hoped, so now we're trying to get on the transplant list. more appointments, more surgeries, and more meds. do you not see where this is going?
Click to expand...

If you or someone in your family is trying to get on the transplant list, you'll become real familiar with "death panels", i.e. UNOS.
 
TurdFerguson said:
Source?
Click to expand...

you know, I think that's the same thing you said the last time the issue was raised about co-pay....I recall providing it.....you didn't even bother to respond....what does "source" mean to you, simply an excuse not to reply?.....HR 3200 provides that the government exchange option is a 30/70 copay structure with a $5000 deductible.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
you know, I think that's the same thing you said the last time the issue was raised about co-pay....I recall providing it.....you didn't even bother to respond....what does "source" mean to you, simply an excuse not to reply?.....HR 3200 provides that the government exchange option is a 30/70 copay structure with a $5000 deductible.....
Click to expand...


You may want to recheck that thread. As I told you, the 30/70 structure is a minimum. Insurers can offer more generous co-pay structures if they wish.
 
blackascoal said:
You've just explained the reason why REAL heathcare reform in critically needed in the US.

You've just defined those who stand against it as the morons that they are.
Click to expand...

so the real healthcare reform you're talking about is price controls, not better healthcare. and that makes ME the moron? pffft. I realize that your socialist viewpoint colors your outlook, but what you're talking about implementing isn't socialism, it's outright communism.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
how do you account for the fact that most of the health insurance in this country is already provided by non-profit corporations like BC/BS....
Click to expand...

"Non-profit" does not mean less expensive brother. "Profit" is determined by what's left over from expenses .. which includes CEO salaries and all manner of amenities.

In many ways, non-profit insurance can be more "profitable" than for-profit insurance because they get tax breaks from the IRS, yet they often don't provide any less insurance costs than for-profit plans.

Almost 50% of Americans are enrolled in "non-profit" plans .. which has no effect on the hold insurance companies have on our healthcare system.

"Non-profit" health insurance is a serious misnomer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top