Still Trying to Decode Obama

[TuTu Monroe]

LOL Classic AssHat.

He does have a way of really getting it out what he is thinking.

 

[Onceler]

Of course they haven't reverted back. Once a government gets it's grubby hands on people, it's there to stay.

Many of the countries you are talking about have deficits and they have to ration the health care. The older a person gets, the less care they receive. Hell, these old people are going to die anyway, so who cares is their attitude.

I am not going to allow the government to tell me what tests I can get and what tests I can't get and decide if I live or die.That's why I have always hated HMO's.

The majority of people in this country say we need health reform, but not Obama's government control program.

I'm betting that you have no idea what is in Obama's plan. None whatsoever.

You realize that most insurance companies have negative quotas, correct? (that's a quota they give to their reps for claims - in order to meet it, they have to turn down a certain # of claims each month, regardless of its merit)

 

[zappasguitar]

I'm betting that you have no idea what is in Obama's plan. None whatsoever.

You realize that most insurance companies have negative quotas, correct? (that's a quota they give to their reps for claims - in order to meet it, they have to turn down a certain # of claims each month, regardless of its merit)

Of course she doesn't.

Her entire post is just a combination of her regurgitating what Damo already posted, and the same old lies spewed every day on RightWing radio.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

I'm betting that you have no idea what is in Obama's plan. None whatsoever.

You realize that most insurance companies have negative quotas, correct? (that's a quota they give to their reps for claims - in order to meet it, they have to turn down a certain # of claims each month, regardless of its merit)

Yes. And letting government handle it will put the power of the state behind these decisioins. And make illegal the attempt to seek care in other ways.

It's a state enforced death sentence.

Prison Planet is coming. http://www.prisonplanet.com

 

[apple0154]

Right apple. Because once elitists control life and death, they will rarely give up that power..

A plethora of sucky systems is not good evidence of why we should reduce ours to such a state.

That's just nonsense. In not one country have the people suggested they return to the old system.

When was the last time you saw citizens demonstrating for a return to a "Pay or Suffer" system?

 

[TuTu Monroe]

Of course I know what's in Obama's plan. It's a bad plan and won't pass as presented.

I'm betting that you have no idea what is in Obama's plan. None whatsoever.

You realize that most insurance companies have negative quotas, correct? (that's a quota they give to their reps for claims - in order to meet it, they have to turn down a certain # of claims each month, regardless of its merit)

 

[Sammy Jankis]

That's just nonsense. In not one country have the people suggested they return to the old system.

When was the last time you saw citizens demonstrating for a return to a "Pay or Suffer" system?

Im sure someone has suggested it, but the leadership who loves power over life and death keep saying "NO".

 

[apple0154]

Seriously. This is what you have? None of them went "back"?

There is nothing man made that is more infinite than a government program. This isn't evidence that the systems are better, just that they are government programs. When government programs go bad, they just "tweak" them a little and pretend it fixes them or ignore it and say things like, "It won't fail for 20 years so there is no reason to fix it now!" We'll ignore that France is now showing signs of having to ration care in the near future, that Germany and Britain already do it... They didn't go "back" so it must mean that it is perfect and preferable.

I have to ask one more time. When have you seen citizens demonstrating for a return to the old way, the "Pay or Suffer" system? When was the last time you heard of a politician, in any country that has a universal medical plan, campaign on returning to the "Pay or Suffer" system?

So many different people in so many different countries. If universal medical care was bad surely ONE country would have changed back.

Of course people are talking about increased costs. The population is aging. The baby boomers are retiring. Just as we had to build new schools in the 50s and 60s to accommodate them no one suggested getting rid of public schools.

The money is there. It's simply a matter of channeling that money into medical care. How do other countries do it? The do it by making it a priority.

This is not a long term plan. Take the average baby boomer and start medical care at 65. Add 25 years and most will be dead! Not too many people live past 90.

The so-called "tweaking" the government does still has not prompted people to want to return to the "Pay or Suffer" system. Why? Why is there no outrage in the dozens of countries that have universal medical?

The arguments against universal medical don't hold water, Damocles. Some country, some peoples somewhere, would have voted to change it.

There's no lack of politicians just waiting to jump on a "cause". To my knowledge not one politician, in any country that has universal medical, has jumped. Surely you have to ask yourself, "Why not?"

 

[Damocles]

I have to ask one more time. When have you seen citizens demonstrating for a return to the old way, the "Pay or Suffer" system? When was the last time you heard of a politician, in any country that has a universal medical plan, campaign on returning to the "Pay or Suffer" system?

So many different people in so many different countries. If universal medical care was bad surely ONE country would have changed back.

Of course people are talking about increased costs. The population is aging. The baby boomers are retiring. Just as we had to build new schools in the 50s and 60s to accommodate them no one suggested getting rid of public schools.

The money is there. It's simply a matter of channeling that money into medical care. How do other countries do it? The do it by making it a priority.

This is not a long term plan. Take the average baby boomer and start medical care at 65. Add 25 years and most will be dead! Not too many people live past 90.

The so-called "tweaking" the government does still has not prompted people to want to return to the "Pay or Suffer" system. Why? Why is there no outrage in the dozens of countries that have universal medical?

The arguments against universal medical don't hold water, Damocles. Some country, some peoples somewhere, would have voted to change it.

There's no lack of politicians just waiting to jump on a "cause". To my knowledge not one politician, in any country that has universal medical, has jumped. Surely you have to ask yourself, "Why not?"

When have conservatives ever controlled the streets?

Nobody is "outraged" because the rich buy supplemental insurance and get great care, it is only the poor who suffer the outrage of rationing. Spread the misery healthcare should be fixed before we try to implement it here.

 

[apple0154]

Of course they haven't reverted back. Once a government gets it's grubby hands on people, it's there to stay.

Many of the countries you are talking about have deficits and they have to ration the health care. The older a person gets, the less care they receive. Hell, these old people are going to die anyway, so who cares is their attitude.

I am not going to allow the government to tell me what tests I can get and what tests I can't get and decide if I live or die.That's why I have always hated HMO's.

The majority of people in this country say we need health reform, but not Obama's government control program.

Universal medical does not mean the government makes individual, medical decisions. The doctor decides what needs to be done. It is not the same as insurance companies.

If one requires an operation and the doctor recommends it then the person has the operation. If the procedure is covered, it's covered, whether you need it or I need it or the guy next door needs it. The person's doctor decides.

The government pays for public schools. When people go to public school the government does not decide who will get text books or where they'll sit or what extracurricular activities one may participate in. If an activity is available the school decides.

The same principal applies to universal medical. If appendectomies are covered then anyone whose doctor recommends one will get one. The government does not make those decisions.

 

[apple0154]

When have conservatives ever controlled the streets?

Nobody is "outraged" because the rich buy supplemental insurance and get great care, it is only the poor who suffer the outrage of rationing. Spread the misery healthcare should be fixed before we try to implement it here.

How many years have they had to "fix" health care? When Hillary brought it up 15 years ago what happened? What did the Cons do over the last 15 years?

Obama's plan probably won't be perfect but as he said we've waited long enough. The cost, the program, accepting the idea.....these things have to be instilled now because nothing is ever done.

When it's budget time rather than pass the money out and then say, "Oops, we don't have enough for medical", the tune will be, "These funds are for medical. We don't have enough for something else."

It's all about a change in priorities. It has nothing to do with a lack of money.

 

[Damocles]

How many years have they had to "fix" health care? When Hillary brought it up 15 years ago what happened? What did the Cons do over the last 15 years?

Obama's plan probably won't be perfect but as he said we've waited long enough. The cost, the program, accepting the idea.....these things have to be instilled now because nothing is ever done.

When it's budget time rather than pass the money out and then say, "Oops, we don't have enough for medical", the tune will be, "These funds are for medical. We don't have enough for something else."

It's all about a change in priorities. It has nothing to do with a lack of money.

When HillBillary brought it up, they put forward a horrific idea that would have overcost and again did nothing to fix the problems that are in other systems.

I believe that the US can do better than that. Again, we have 50 states, let's let them create programs and implement the best of the best rather than implement without benefit of testing. We can do this, and do it well. Instead we promote the "benefits" of the spread the misery systems that are elsewhere and have people excusing short-sightedness rather than working to do it right the first time instead of implementing across the board change that will always be patched and never be sufficient.

 

[meme]

I have family members who are well educated and successful who have voted for Republicans in the past, voted for Obama and will probably vote for Republicans again at some point in the future. Saying people are nuts who voted for Obama is just as dumb as an idiot like uscitizen saying everyone who voted for Bush is stupid.

why is saying they're dumb such a big deal? that is what we were told all the time by you libbes for voting for Bush..sheeesh

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

When HillBillary brought it up, they put forward a horrific idea that would have overcost and again did nothing to fix the problems that are in other systems.

I believe that the US can do better than that. Again, we have 50 states, let's let them create programs and implement the best of the best rather than implement without benefit of testing. We can do this, and do it well. Instead we promote the "benefits" of the spread the misery systems that are elsewhere and have people excusing short-sightedness rather than working to do it right the first time instead of implementing across the board change that will always be patched and never be sufficient.

First of all, the federal government has regulationary power to change many things the states don't have real power too.

Second of all, are you really going to utterly bullshit me Damo, and tell me that when the states raise taxes to pay for the uninsured who are currently dying, you aren't going to protest and raise all kinds of hell over it? It's a 1 or 2 percent tax rise for the feds. A much larger "rise" for the states for the same effective purpose. And then again, you have the black people dying in Mississippi that the white people are utterly uninterested in providing insurance for, and uninsured in Massachusettes who are getting effective treatment. That's unfairness. Why should richer areas of the US get better healthcare, and poorer areas get worse, because they can't pay for it. Does that seem sensible to you?

 

[apple0154]

When HillBillary brought it up, they put forward a horrific idea that would have overcost and again did nothing to fix the problems that are in other systems.

I believe that the US can do better than that. Again, we have 50 states, let's let them create programs and implement the best of the best rather than implement without benefit of testing. We can do this, and do it well. Instead we promote the "benefits" of the spread the misery systems that are elsewhere and have people excusing short-sightedness rather than working to do it right the first time instead of implementing across the board change that will always be patched and never be sufficient.

First, imagine the nightmare if each state had it's own plan. The paperwork would be formidable. People who live near a metropolitan area in another state wouldn't be able to use the facilities unless they had supplementary insurance. Visiting friends and family in another state would require a form of travel insurance.

Second, trying to find the best of the best has been going on for a generation or longer and nothing has come of it. Any system, regardless of how it's run, will prompt the people to work on it and fix it. That's why Obama is going ahead with it. He knows that unless some form of medical is in place nothing will happen.

It's not the perfect way to do it and with the economy it may not be the best time to do it but it's the only way as has been shown by the constant delays.

We've waited long enough. It should have been done a long time ago. The ones to blame are the ones who continually fought against it.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

First, imagine the nightmare if each state had it's own plan. The paperwork would be formidable. People who live near a metropolitan area in another state wouldn't be able to use the facilities unless they had supplementary insurance. Visiting friends and family in another state would require a form of travel insurance.

Second, trying to find the best of the best has been going on for a generation or longer and nothing has come of it. Any system, regardless of how it's run, will prompt the people to work on it and fix it. That's why Obama is going ahead with it. He knows that unless some form of medical is in place nothing will happen.

It's not the perfect way to do it and with the economy it may not be the best time to do it but it's the only way as has been shown by the constant delays.

We've waited long enough. It should have been done a long time ago. The ones to blame are the ones who continually fought against it.

Totalitarianism can be efficient, for sure, but the benefits of efficiency are not given to consumers in any way, because it's a monopoly condition and they don't have to consumers anything.

 

[Damocles]

First of all, the federal government has regulationary power to change many things the states don't have real power too.

Second of all, are you really going to utterly bullshit me Damo, and tell me that when the states raise taxes to pay for the uninsured who are currently dying, you aren't going to protest and raise all kinds of hell over it? It's a 1 or 2 percent tax rise for the feds. A much larger "rise" for the states for the same effective purpose. And then again, you have the black people dying in Mississippi that the white people are utterly uninterested in providing insurance for, and uninsured in Massachusettes who are getting effective treatment. That's unfairness. Why should richer areas of the US get better healthcare, and poorer areas get worse, because they can't pay for it. Does that seem sensible to you?

However, one can create such a system where the states would have the ability to work with each other to create competing systems and we could select the one that worked the best to implement nationally. The poorer areas could work together, and it may be that those areas may come up with that cheaper option that serves us the best.

 

[Damocles]

First, imagine the nightmare if each state had it's own plan. The paperwork would be formidable. People who live near a metropolitan area in another state wouldn't be able to use the facilities unless they had supplementary insurance. Visiting friends and family in another state would require a form of travel insurance.

Second, trying to find the best of the best has been going on for a generation or longer and nothing has come of it. Any system, regardless of how it's run, will prompt the people to work on it and fix it. That's why Obama is going ahead with it. He knows that unless some form of medical is in place nothing will happen.

It's not the perfect way to do it and with the economy it may not be the best time to do it but it's the only way as has been shown by the constant delays.

We've waited long enough. It should have been done a long time ago. The ones to blame are the ones who continually fought against it.

The paperwork would be no more formidable than it is when states have different insurance requirements, which they do. This is a strawman argument and an excuse to implement without thought, to decry other ideas, and to work to implement what can be, through unintended consequences, a mistake that will ever be patched, and as I said before, never sufficient. Whatever we finally implement on the Federal scale is going to be there forever, I'd prefer we do it wisely.

 

[apple0154]

Totalitarianism can be efficient, for sure, but the benefits of efficiency are not given to consumers in any way, because it's a monopoly condition and they don't have to consumers anything.

That is a concern only when involving profit motivated individuals/companies.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

That is a concern only when involving profit motivated individuals/companies.

No it's not.