Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Sooo...what's the problem?


IMO, the penality should be much higher. $3000.


Please convince me otherwise as I am usually very conservative on tax policy......the less, the better.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Sooo...what's the problem?


IMO, the penality should be much higher. $3000.

The problem is I might want to keep my health insurance, the one that wont say, "sorry, the government deems you too old and too unimportant to be given that treatment" and has provided well for me over the years.

But if I want to do this I will be forced to pay a FINE, on top of the taxes I will be paying to provide healthcare for other people.

And no, the penalty should not exist.

Originally posted by KidRock
The problem is I might want to keep my health insurance, the one that wont say, "sorry, the government deems you too old and too unimportant to be given that treatment" and has provided well for me over the years.

Private insurance agencies can (and do) refuse to pay people.

Originally posted by KidRock
But if I want to do this I will be forced to pay a FINE, on top of the taxes I will be paying to provide healthcare for other people.

And no, the penalty should not exist.

I agree with you, this seems ridiculous.

What's the source?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Private insurance agencies can (and do) refuse to pay people.



So? Mine hasn't done it to me, and I would like to stick with them. I have heard plenty of instance when this HAS happened with government run healthcare too.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

I agree with you, this seems ridiculous.

What's the source?

There is 0 point to this fine other then to force people to use the inferior government run healthcare and keep everyone on the same level and to be controlled by the government.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090702/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul

Originally posted by KidRock
The problem is I might want to keep my health insurance, the one that wont say, "sorry, the government deems you too old and too unimportant to be given that treatment" and has provided well for me over the years.

But if I want to do this I will be forced to pay a FINE, on top of the taxes I will be paying to provide healthcare for other people.

And no, the penalty should not exist.

Wait...



there's no "certified" equivalent healthcare plans?


With medicare, the private insurance companies offer plans that are officially designated after review, as "medicare replacement plans"


I don't see anything or any reason why they wouldn't do the same, sparring those people who want to keep their private insurance with "same as or better than" insurance.




Do you have a source that states that it wouldn't be the case? Is it really all inclusive? Meaning, I have to pay the penalty, regardless of having insurance already?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Wait...



there's no "certified" equivalent healthcare plans?


With medicare, the private insurance companies offer plans that are officially designated after review, as "medicare replacement plans"


I don't see anything or any reason why they wouldn't do the same, sparring those people who want to keep their private insurance with "same as or better than" insurance.




Do you have a source that states that it wouldn't be the case? Is it really all inclusive? Meaning, I have to pay the penalty, regardless of having insurance already?

I don't know what you're asking exactly or if this will answer it but the way I see it is:

The government will offer its health insurance plan for people. You can take this offer or you can "choose" to stay with your own private insurance provider (barring the government doesn't run them out of business) but you will be FORCED to pay an additional 1,000+ a year in penalties + the higher taxes.

Originally posted by KidRock
So much for having "choices". I guess the plan is use the government funded plan, or be forced to pay a 1,000 fine. So much for having the ability to choose which plan I want. This United States is a pathetic country.

Senate bill fines people refusing health coverage


America the home of the "free."

This is nothing less than treason.
This is unconstitutional, the government can't force their will upon the people.

The "change" you wanted.

It would be better to just socialize it. Healthcare is part of the commons and shouldn't be for profit. I've stated many times how retarded and unfair the current system is.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
It would be better to just socialize it. Healthcare is part of the commons and shouldn't be for profit. I've stated many times how retarded and unfair the current system is.

America needs to get rid of Socialism, not bring more in.

Socialism is for people who want a daddy to run their lives for them. baby

In other words, you don't know anything about history, political theory, or the definition of the word socialism

Originally posted by Darth Jello
In other words, you don't know anything about history, political theory, or the definition of the word socialism

I'll agree you don't.

Please define what socialism is, how america can become less socialized, what the commons is, and why our current, more or less completely unregulated health insurance industry is ideal.

Oh, and please, no quoting bible versus, there are already separate forums for religion, comic books, and literary fiction.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
It would be better to just socialize it. Healthcare is part of the commons and shouldn't be for profit. I've stated many times how retarded and unfair the current system is.

Where is the right to health care guaranteed in this country?

Clothes are part of the commons, cars are, living quarters are.

Socialize it all and give everyone clothing, a car and an apartment?

Life, Liberty, the pursuit of hapiness. It's the first one.

Originally posted by KidRock
Where is the right to health care guaranteed in this country?

Clothes are part of the commons, cars are, living quarters are.

Socialize it all and give everyone clothing, a car and an apartment?

You're correct, it's not a guaranteed right.

If they are going to start giving out homes I want to design it myself and I want it built on 60-100 acres.

I want healthcare for everybody and would even pay a small, reasonable share of taxes for it as long as it didn't sacrifice the quality of healthcare and that people who didn't pay into the system were not abusing it. I think these 2 things would most definitely happen though with a government run system.

Oh come ON, Kidrock, now you are just being hysterical.

The policy CLEARLY is that you get fined only if you have no insurance of any kind, not that you get fined because you don't want the Government option.

And in any case, if you erad the rest of the article, you would see that the preferred Government option now is to subsidise exisiting insurance arrangements, not completely replace. So your complaint would make absolutely no sense.

Originally posted by KidRock
The problem is I might want to keep my health insurance, the one that wont say, "sorry, the government deems you too old and too unimportant to be given that treatment" and has provided well for me over the years.

But if I want to do this I will be forced to pay a FINE, on top of the taxes I will be paying to provide healthcare for other people.

And no, the penalty should not exist. Seems incorrect. The first sentence specifies that it is just for people who refuse to buy affordable health care. Meaning if you already have a health care provider you will not have to pay.

I agree that it seems like a silly law, though, if I understood right it is not a fine as such, but a minimum payment for treatment that you would receive in case of emergency. Although this just seems hinted at in the article. It all seems like an unreasonably complicated plan anyways, easiest, and perhaps best, would be to install a system similarly to the German, where you have to be minimum covered by a government issued insurance but can opt out and not pay it but rather pay privately, with certain benefits, of course. That system, like all government health care systems of course has flaws, but it's certainly better than what the US has now.


Though I think that is kinda where that plan is going anyways, though with some oddities.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Oh come ON, Kidrock, now you are just being hysterical.

The policy CLEARLY is that you get fined only if you have no insurance of any kind, not that you get fined because you don't want the Government option.

And in any case, if you erad the rest of the article, you would see that the preferred Government option now is to subsidise exisiting insurance arrangements, not completely replace. So your complaint would make absolutely no sense.

If that is true it's my mistake and I misunderstood it.

I just figure that really doesn't make sense though.

Why force someone to have health insurance? Either people don't want it, in which case let them be, or they cannot afford it, in which case why give them a fine which they cannot afford?

Originally posted by KidRock
If that is true it's my mistake and I misunderstood it.

I just figure that really doesn't make sense though.

Why force someone to have health insurance? Either people don't want it, in which case let them be, or they cannot afford it, in which case why give them a fine which they cannot afford?

The people not able to afford it would be exempt.

The idea is to get everyone to be covered, so that no one has to worry about dying at 20 of something preventable because they don't have insurance. I agree with you in theory, that if they actively don't want it, why the hell force it on them, but that is just the mindset many people have, and it is not necessarily a bad one either. The fine is basically a way of making the people pay for the expenses that they might have at tax payers expense otherwise, if i understood the idea correctly.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The people not able to afford it would be exempt.

The idea is to get everyone to be covered, so that no one has to worry about dying at 20 of something preventable because they don't have insurance. I agree with you in theory, that if they actively don't want it, why the hell force it on them, but that is just the mindset many people have, and it is not necessarily a bad one either. The fine is basically a way of making the people pay for the expenses that they might have at tax payers expense otherwise, if i understood the idea correctly.

But you already ARE paying for the expenses.

If I keep my private insurance, I am still paying for the public system. It's not like I can just say no to paying my taxes which pay for the public funded system.

So it's like you're making people pay twice almost with this fine.

Originally posted by KidRock
But you already ARE paying for the expenses.

If I keep my private insurance, I am still paying for the public system. It's not like I can just say no to paying my taxes which pay for the public funded system.

So it's like you're making people pay twice almost with this fine. I think they are only fining those that don't have public insurance nor private, i.e. the ones that if they do get help from a doctor or emergency room, might get help by the taxpayers without contributing any of their own.

This outta increase US taxes substantially in the future.

The 45 million uninsured number that is thrown around in the US to justify this measure it silly, not all 45 million are without the ability to insure themselves, a large portion choose to not purchase coverage.

I would like to see something where those with pre-existing conditions though can get some sort of coverage through private health insurance without charging them mortgage type payments for the insurance.

Originally posted by Chopsum
The 45 million uninsured number that is thrown around in the US to justify this measure it silly, not all 45 million are without the ability to insure themselves, a large portion choose to not purchase coverage.

What do you base that on?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The policy CLEARLY is that you get fined only if you have no insurance of any kind, not that you get fined because you don't want the Government option.

Why fine them? Where is that rule and law in the Constitution?

The government is overstepping their bounds once again.

Originally posted by KidRock
If that is true it's my mistake and I misunderstood it.

I just figure that really doesn't make sense though.

Why force someone to have health insurance? Either people don't want it, in which case let them be, or they cannot afford it, in which case why give them a fine which they cannot afford?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
What do you base that on?

His own crazy idea.

Originally posted by The Scribe
Why fine them? Where is that rule and law in the Constitution?

The government is overstepping their bounds once again.






So you're saying that requiring car insurance is unconstitutional?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
So you're saying that requiring car insurance is unconstitutional?

That too.

I'm sorry, where's the law in the constitution that there mustn't be laws not sppecifically mentioned in the constitution?

I think it's on the page that Ben Franklin got stuck to his shoe after he wiped his ass with it. Actually it says that those laws not specifically mentioned would be delegated to the federal government and the states. So if you get cancer, you won't have to bail yourself out and the hospital doesn't have to bail you out on the taxpayers dime and so you aren't left high and dry after some redneck totals your car spending your time in court trying to prove that he should very gradually have his paychecks garnished in order to pay for your new rascal scooter and speech therapy lessons.

I gotta say Scribe, based on everything I've seen you write you don't seem to have very much life experience. Like the joy of having to have surgery or being hit by an uninsured driver.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Seems incorrect. The first sentence specifies that it is just for people who refuse to buy affordable health care. Meaning if you already have a health care provider you will not have to pay.

I agree that it seems like a silly law, though, if I understood right it is not a fine as such, but a minimum payment for treatment that you would receive in case of emergency. Although this just seems hinted at in the article. It all seems like an unreasonably complicated plan anyways, easiest, and perhaps best, would be to install a system similarly to the German, where you have to be minimum covered by a government issued insurance but can opt out and not pay it but rather pay privately, with certain benefits, of course. That system, like all government health care systems of course has flaws, but it's certainly better than what the US has now.


Though I think that is kinda where that plan is going anyways, though with some oddities.

Yes, that's what I though. Kid Rock, I find myself agreeing with you much more than others here...but this time, I'm going to have to side with Bards. It would be retarded to penalize people with "equivalent" private plans."

Sounds like a good plan. I'd go for that. But, on top of that, I want a cap on the amount of money that can be paid out on malpractice suits and increase the harshness for something proven to be willful negligence (harsher criminal things like prison time, etc.).

Originally posted by Darth Jello

I gotta say Scribe, based on everything I've seen you write you don't seem to have very much life experience. Like the joy of having to have surgery or being hit by an uninsured driver.

I have had plenty.
That's why the police can be called and they can write down the information.

It's not like they do much. I saw one sitting in his squad car yesterday sleeping. That's not even close to the first time either.

ok, then what?

Originally posted by The Scribe
America needs to get rid of Socialism, not bring more in.

Socialism is for people who want a daddy to run their lives for them. baby

I thought that was religion.

Originally posted by grimify
I thought that was religion.

Not even close.

Originally posted by grimify
I thought that was religion. Who told you you could think?

Originally posted by Mindset
Who told you you could think?

I did.

Stay away from my "jib."

Originally posted by KidRock
But you already ARE paying for the expenses.

If I keep my private insurance, I am still paying for the public system. It's not like I can just say no to paying my taxes which pay for the public funded system.

So it's like you're making people pay twice almost with this fine.

You really have to read this more carefully.

The aim of the plan is to make health insurance affordable to everyone.

The ONLY penalty system is if you COULD have afforded it, didn't get it and then requires hospital treatment. The fine covers your uninsured cost of treatment.

This has nothing to do with a taxation argument whatsoever. It is still people's insusrance that is paying the money for their treatment, not taxes,

You should note, btw, that in most social health systems, the healthcare is still paid out of insurance, except that it is a mandatory national insurance rather than a private option. Still not part of general taxation.

Anyway, this proposal looks like a bit of a hotch-potch mess to me, but it is an improvement on the originak.

Fact is, the US will move to socialised health care eventually. The great inequities caused by a private system are just too shaming to keep when virtually the rest of the civilised world has moved on.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
the originak.


KFC's one and only originak recipe.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
What do you base that on?


Rather your question should be, where did the elected officials that pawn that number constantly get it from.

It's a crap number.

And if you just feel an itch to read, The Kaiser Family Foundation regularly keeps up numbers on the uninsured.

Originally posted by Chopsum
Rather your question should be, where did the elected officials that pawn that number constantly get it from.

It's a crap number.

And if you just feel an itch to read, The Kaiser Family Foundation regularly keeps up numbers on the uninsured.

Well according to the Kaiser Foundation there were 46.1 million unisured in the US as of 2005 (not counting old people). So I would guess the elected officials got "45 million" via rounding.

Citation: http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/7613.pdf

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Well according to the Kaiser Foundation there were 46.1 million unisured in the US as of 2005 (not counting old people). So I would guess the elected officials got "45 million" via rounding.



Yes and Kiaser has broken that number down to about 8.5 million out of 45 million (Kaiser has also identified roughly 10 million of the 45 million are illegal aliens.) Actually are the only ones able to receive no coverage due to whatever reason.


So 8.5 million are not getting affordable coverage in the USA that are American, per Kaiser's numbers.

Like I said its a bloated crap number to get your attention at 45 million.

Originally posted by Chopsum
Yes and Kiaser has broken that number down to about 8.5 million out of 45 million (Kaiser has also identified roughly 10 million of the 45 million are illegal aliens.) Actually are the only ones able to receive no coverage due to whatever reason.


So 8.5 million are not getting affordable coverage in the USA that are American, per Kaiser's numbers.

Like I said its a bloated crap number to get your attention at 45 million.

There are still (according to your own source) 45 million uninsured people in the US.

That only 9 million are ineligible might be a better statistic but it doesn't make the other one false or even particularly misleading.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There are still (according to your own source) 45 million uninsured people in the US.

That only 9 million are ineligible might be a better statistic but it doesn't make the other one false or even particularly misleading.


Use the Kaiser source at a little over 46million.

The reality of that number is it's not a good indicator to use for justifying the cost and purpose of "affordable" health care unless we know who really needs affordable healthcare to create a national healthcare system to further increase deficit is bad.


That only 9 million are ineligible might be a better statistic but it doesn't make the other one false or even particularly misleading.

Dude where do you live, that makes the number that they use to base their new policy on, thats a huge discrepency.

Originally posted by Chopsum

Dude where do you live, that makes the number that they use to base their new policy on, thats a huge discrepency.

rather, it is a stat politicians use in a way to convince people to support their policy options.

the figure of 45m is still accurate and is entirely representative of what it is describing. Someone who would jump from that number to "45 million people are ineligible" is where this issue is.

Originally posted by inimalist
rather, it is a stat politicians use in a way to convince people to support their policy options.

the figure of 45m is still accurate and is entirely representative of what it is describing. Someone who would jump from that number to "45 million people are ineligible" is where this issue is.


Its a deceptive number when used to describe the purpose and value of the system he is proposing.

A large portion of that number won't even be eligible for what he is proposing, they are illegal immigrants.

Maybe we can have another medicare/social security issue

Originally posted by Chopsum
Its a deceptive number when used to describe the purpose and value of the system he is proposing.

A large portion of that number won't even be eligible for what he is proposing, they are illegal immigrants.

Maybe we can have another medicare/social security issue

indeed

yet the fact remains, 45 million people is an accurate and valid stat

its use for something it does not describe does not make it less accurate

Originally posted by inimalist
indeed

yet the fact remains, 45 million people is an accurate and valid stat

its use for something it does not describe does not make it less accurate


Its an accurate statistic when used in the context of 45 million uninsured people in the United States.

It becomes a deceptive number when its used in the context to push public policy.

It is deceptive, 45 million people won't be "affected" by the policy in that they would magically get "affordable" coverage.

It assists in once again creating public policy that is just as bad as bush's fear mongering.

Originally posted by Chopsum
It assists in once again creating public policy that is just as bad as bush's fear mongering.

It will displace millions of people from their homes, kill hundreds of thousands of others, and radicalize a large portion of the international community against America?

Originally posted by Chopsum
It is deceptive, 45 million people won't be "affected" by the policy in that they would magically get "affordable" coverage.B]

Actually, you're incorrect here. It really would give them affordable coverage...unless they make some sort of non-citizen stipulation, it's whole point is to cover the vast majority of those 46.1 million and then cover more gaps for others who are insured.

Originally posted by inimalist
It will displace millions of people from their homes, kill hundreds of thousands of others, and radicalize a large portion of the international community against America?

He said fear mongering, not Bush's actual policy.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
He said fear mongering, not Bush's actual policy.

lol

whatever, they are related enough

cause -> effect

Originally posted by dadudemon
Actually, you're incorrect here. It really would give them affordable coverage...unless they make some sort of non-citizen stipulation, it's whole point is to cover the vast majority of those 46.1 million and then cover more gaps for others who are insured.


I'm so incorrect, ok.

Tell me what is your affordable coverage, how much does it cost, what does it provide.

Because everyone country creates a single payer plan and invites non tax paying illegal immigrants into their plan...............lol.

How can you even tell me what the goal of Obama's plan is when he hasn't said what it is yet and its not even on his website.

This whole plan is garbage atm based on more garbage numbers, politicians are as bad or worse then lawyers I swear lol.

Originally posted by Chopsum
Tell me what is your affordable coverage, how much does it cost, what does it provide.

No.

Originally posted by Chopsum
Because everyone country creates a single payer plan and invites non tax paying illegal immigrants into their plan...............lol.

No, not everybody.

Originally posted by Chopsum
How can you even tell me what the goal of Obama's plan is when he hasn't said what it is yet and its not even on his website.

If we are referring to a single payer system, then it is obvious...no thinking required.

Originally posted by Chopsum
This whole plan is garbage atm based on more garbage numbers, politicians are as bad or worse then lawyers I swear lol.

Logical fallacy. You just said above that you couldn't find the goal of the plan. Therefore, you cannot conclude that it is garbage at the moment.






Now let me put things into perspective for you:


I'd rather have NO government involvement into healthcare, above and beyond setting laws. No programs. No assistance programs. Etc. Just laws that are enforced with fines and criminal charges.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No.



No, not everybody.



If we are referring to a single payer system, then it is obvious...no thinking required.

Logical fallacy. You just said above that you couldn't find the goal of the plan. Therefore, you cannot conclude that it is garbage at the moment.



There is no logical fallacy, he hasn't posted what it will provide or do just that he wants it and will charge Americans for it based on numbers that are garbage.

Hence basing the plan on numbers that don't make sense the actual non posted plan is trash. No different then Bush in his fear mongering.

That should put things in perspective for you.

Originally posted by Chopsum
No different then Bush in his fear mongering.

were you in a coma for 8 years?

Originally posted by Chopsum
There is no logical fallacy, he hasn't posted what it will provide or do just that he wants it and will charge Americans for it based on numbers that are garbage.

You cannot claim to know nothing of the plan and then call it garbage. That is just as retarded as being a blind straight ticket republican: the most ignorant and rabid type of person I've met when it comes to politics.

Originally posted by Chopsum
Hence basing the plan on numbers that don't make sense

STOP!


Hammer time:


They don't make sense to you, but it would seem that everyone else here understands them just fine.

Originally posted by Chopsum
the actual non posted plan is trash. No different then Bush in his fear mongering.

Again, you can't claim it is trash when you yourself claim that the plan doesn't exist in detail.

Originally posted by Chopsum
That should put things in perspective for you.


I didn't need any perspective. But, obviously, you did.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You cannot claim to know nothing of the plan and then call it garbage. That is just as retarded as being a blind straight ticket republican: the most ignorant and rabid type of person I've met when it comes to politics.

Incorrect, he is basing his policy on invalid numbers to justify his position, so how can that create a valid program, its as bad as medicare which when Govt once again projected numbers were a little off..........



Everyone you say, thats funny I don't see everyone responding and acknowledging the millions as a valid number to produce solid policy. Well maybe to you it makes sense since you apparently still listen to Mc Hammer.




The plan doesn't have to exist to know its garbage when they use numbers to validate their policy on trash numbers, once again you need to review the Kaiser numbers to better understand what Obama's magic numbers mean.




Oh I know you have a perspective but its skewed based on irrational numbers thrown to you that apparently you like to defend and attempt to justify.

Originally posted by Chopsum
Incorrect, he is basing his policy on invalid numbers to justify his position, so how can that create a valid program, its as bad as medicare which when Govt once again projected numbers were a little off..........



Everyone you say, thats funny I don't see everyone responding and acknowledging the millions as a valid number to produce solid policy. Well maybe to you it makes sense since you apparently still listen to Mc Hammer.




The plan doesn't have to exist to know its garbage when they use numbers to validate their policy on trash numbers, once again you need to review the Kaiser numbers to better understand what Obama's magic numbers mean.




Oh I know you have a perspective but its skewed based on irrational numbers thrown to you that apparently you like to defend and attempt to justify.

Erm:

a) you don't actually know the numbers they're using because you don't know the plan, you know the numbers they're using the sell the plan to people
b) it is a logical fallacy to say that inaccurate in puts must lead to an inaccurate conclusion, though of course accurate inputs are much more reliable

Originally posted by Chopsum
Incorrect, he is basing his policy on invalid numbers to justify his position, so how can that create a valid program, its as bad as medicare which when Govt once again projected numbers were a little off..........

You've concluded that they are invalid, but that could very well be the primary target demographic for the plan. In fact, that's all we can conclude if that's what "they" are citing.



Originally posted by Chopsum
Everyone you say, thats funny I don't see everyone responding and acknowledging the millions as a valid number to produce solid policy. Well maybe to you it makes sense since you apparently still listen to Mc Hammer.

Understanding the numbers being used /= "everyone responding and acknowledging the millions as a valid number to produce solid policy."

That is another logical fallacy. "They" call it strawman.




Originally posted by Chopsum
The plan doesn't have to exist to know its garbage when they use numbers to validate their policy on trash numbers, once again you need to review the Kaiser numbers to better understand what Obama's magic numbers mean.

Why would I need to review the numbers when it is you who doesn't understand them? Does that even make sense to you? (Obviously, it does...and that was a rhetorical question.)




Originally posted by Chopsum
Oh I know you have a perspective but its skewed based on irrational numbers thrown to you that apparently you like to defend and attempt to justify.
Not once has my goal in this conversation been an attempt to defend the numbers. It has always been to correct you and your fallacious interpretations/conclusions. That's it. In fact, I've even expressed a dislike for said plan. Did you read that or are you ignoring for the sake of trolling?

Originally posted by KidRock
The problem is I might want to keep my health insurance, the one that wont say, "sorry, the government deems you too old and too unimportant to be given that treatment" and has provided well for me over the years.

But if I want to do this I will be forced to pay a FINE, on top of the taxes I will be paying to provide healthcare for other people.

And no, the penalty should not exist.


Yeah, i think being able to choose your Dr. rather than being assigned a physician based on area is nice too.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You've concluded that they are invalid, but that could very well be the primary target demographic for the plan. In fact, that's all we can conclude if that's what "they" are citing.





Understanding the numbers being used /= "everyone responding and acknowledging the millions as a valid number to produce solid policy."

That is another logical fallacy. "They" call it strawman.






Why would I need to review the numbers when it is you who doesn't understand them? Does that even make sense to you? (Obviously, it does...and that was a rhetorical question.)





Not once has my goal in this conversation been an attempt to defend the numbers. It has always been to correct you and your fallacious interpretations/conclusions. That's it. In fact, I've even expressed a dislike for said plan. Did you read that or are you ignoring for the sake of trolling?

oh, ok thanks....

Originally posted by Chopsum
oh, ok thanks....


Well, that was a quick turn around.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, that was a quick turn around.

Nope, it's a reality, if you want to retort to my specific responses as opposed to what the value of said official statements mean then yes it is.

I still stand by by my valid point in that this public system is based on public appeal using crap numbers to justify it.

We already have a hybrid system if you don't know that then shame on anyone in particular for allowing a justification of this to occur.

Make insurance carriers nonprofit in the private sector and that is part of the solution. Using numbers that are unjustified occur is bad, hence Obama's use to justify his policy.

Obama has no released plan to provide to the single payer system, so my thoughts are just that, thoughts.

Originally posted by Chopsum
Nope, it's a reality, if you want to retort to my specific responses as opposed to what the value of said official statements mean then yes it is.

I still stand by by my valid point in that this public system is based on public appeal using crap numbers to justify it.

We already have a hybrid system if you don't know that then shame on anyone in particular for allowing a justification of this to occur.

Make insurance carriers nonprofit in the private sector and that is part of the solution. Using numbers that are unjustified occur is bad, hence Obama's use to justify his policy.

Obama has no released plan to provide to the single payer system, so my thoughts are just that, thoughts.

I would be interested in his single payer system idea. I'd definitely like to look over it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I would be interested in his single payer system idea. I'd definitely like to look over it.

We have a hybrid system currently most states have insurance plans for those with low income (which when we say low income it has alot of room what is low income)

But seriously unless we monitor or restrict what we call "profit" and malpractice insurance to create crap testing practices for Doc's we'll see.

We'll see indeed. I do welcome something to monitor whats happening now but until its in place it's speculation as we both said.

ps did I mention I disagree with how they try to garner support.

(let's hope they provide some value because what they propose is just govt bloat, electronic records have been around for a decade already.)

Originally posted by Chopsum
We have a hybrid system currently most states have insurance plans for those with low income (which when we say low income it has alot of room what is low income)

But seriously unless we monitor or restrict what we call "profit" and malpractice insurance to create crap testing practices for Doc's we'll see.

We'll see indeed. I do welcome something to monitor whats happening now but until its in place it's speculation as we both said.

ps did I mention I disagree with how they try to garner support.

(let's hope they provide some value because what they propose is just govt bloat, electronic records have been around for a decade already.)

I.....used to work in insurance. The rabbit hole probably goes deeper than even you think.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I.....used to work in insurance. The rabbit hole probably goes deeper than even you think.

I do work in insurance so the hole isn't very deep unless you want to tell me your experience.

That isn't to question your validity simply a question as to what you provided in insurance, what did you do?

I helped creat "single payer" health care systems statewide in purchasing pools and small employers (which didn't always get to praticipate) and as an employer I know the costs.

Originally posted by Chopsum
I do work in insurance so the hole isn't very deep unless you want to tell me your experience.

That isn't to question your validity simply a question as to what you provided in insurance, what did you do?


Insurance agent for Secure Horizons. Paid like shit, considering all the work I did, which is why I changed over to IT.



The experience had me working very closely with Medicare, medicaid, and coordination of benefits with other medicare replacement insurance programs, as well as commercial insurance from employers.


I would say that working with a medicare replacement plan is actually the most complicated insurance can get. I worked, before that, for Met-Life dental, and I was told that Dental plans can get just as complicated as anything else out there, but I found medicare replacement plans to be the most complex type of insurance out there.


When I quit, my official title was "SME" or "Subject Matter Expert" which is a broad title that basically means "if no one else can figure it out, ask him."

Why make a thread if you haven't read the entire article facepalm

Originally posted by Kris Blaze
Why make a thread if you haven't read the entire article facepalm

Because he's a "not a republican". Also the wording was sort of awkward.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Because he's a "not a republican". Also the wording was sort of awkward.

mmm

Kudos for not changing your sig is such a long time.

From what i read, Obama's trying to get this passed asap.

I'm curious. If Obama does get this passed, how soon will those people who will benefit from it begin to see results and get their treatment?

This is kind of in between. I believe America should have either gone for Universal healthcare or not. All this in betweeny bits are not going to end well.

On the other hand - I seriously doubt Obama could have ever in a million years passed a universal healthcare system.
Seriously people, universal healthcare it is not all bad.

Universal Healthcare is a great thing. We had this for years in Canada and in Quebec. In Quebec tought, we begin to have a "Two Speed Healthcare Systeme". It's a hybrid. We have some, not a lot, but some private clinics now.

I think that a hybrid system would be the best thing for you.

btw, I don't understand what's the problem with the fact that you'll pay more tax. In Canada, and mostly in Quebec, we pay a lot of it, but on the other hand, we have a shitload of public services.
That's society choices.

Or you could stabilize the economy by socializing medicine and making the top 1% pay no less than 50% of their income in taxes and no less than 70% in capital gains. Both economic theory and practice prove that you have depressions, excesses, and eventual collapses and social catastrophes if you don't. The problem is that it's never gonna happen as long as this country that used to be pretty great is subverted into a kleptocratic plutocracy by bankers, monopolistic cartels pretending to be competing industries, and politicians who rely solely on private cash to get reelected and the whims of their corporate masters to make policy.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Or you could stabilize the economy by socializing medicine and making the top 1% pay no less than 50% of their income in taxes and no less than 70% in capital gains. Both economic theory and practice prove that you have depressions, excesses, and eventual collapses and social catastrophes if you don't. The problem is that it's never gonna happen as long as this country that used to be pretty great is subverted into a kleptocratic plutocracy by bankers, monopolistic cartels pretending to be competing industries, and politicians who rely solely on private cash to get reelected and the whims of their corporate masters to make policy.
To be fair america kind of brought it on itself by buying into all the anti-socialist propaganda.

http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2009/07/28/tomo/story.jpg