So people who do not want to buy health insurance are sponging off those that do, by not paying, but receiving care anyway?
Note: This is not an attack on people who cannot afford health care - that is a different question.
The OP was talking about those who do not want to buy it.
So people who do not want to buy health insurance are sponging off those that do, by not paying, but receiving care anyway?
Not really, because at the moment anyone who doesn’t have any health insurance can only get emergency treatment, unless they are poor enough to qualify for Medicaid.
The proposed fine is in the healthcare reform bill. The significance of this proposed fine is as follows:
Since it is said cases will be investigated and followed up by the Internal Revenue Service, this means the proposed healthcare charge is a form of tax.
Obama said taxes wouldn’t rise because of healthcare reform.
Cue right-wing fury.
It is taxation which pays for publicly provided healthcare insurance now. Privately insured citizens usually get their insurance from their employer, which depresses take-home salaries (effectively a tax equivalent) and means in some cases they get no choice.
That seems overharsh. That kind of measure should be reserved for multiple violations, not first time. It should also be rolled into another process (Like doing standard taxes) to relieve the burden on the thoughtless. I'm not terrible opposed to people having to have insurance, so long as the government insurance options truly are affordable at any level.
ShumaGorath wrote:That seems overharsh. That kind of measure should be reserved for multiple violations, not first time. It should also be rolled into another process (Like doing standard taxes) to relieve the burden on the thoughtless. I'm not terrible opposed to people having to have insurance, so long as the government insurance options truly are affordable at any level.
It is quite likely that jail sentences will be reserved for multiple-offences.
Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty
Certain peoples don't need car insurance (and no I don't mean individuals but more a select few "groups"), at least not in state of Mn.
Yeah, if this actually passes I will be sorely tempted to leave the country. What a bunch of crap. Even if they give you 3 chances to buy health care coverage it's still crap that you could possibly face a prison sentence.
How about the government worries about the unemployment issue and jobless rate first, worries about healthcare second? I run out of unemployment next week with no job in sight.
Ah well, maybe once I lose my car and internet and have to live on ramen noodles and sell aluminum cans i pick up on the side of the road for rent money I'll be able to afford insurance.
I am so glad I did not vote for Obama Hussein (or should that be Saddam Jr?) LOL
Kilkrazy wrote:Are you required by law to purchase car insurance? (If you drive a car, I mean.)
Usually you need to have Liability Insurance, which doesn't cover your car, but does cover the car of a person you crash into.
I'm not sure if the requirement is made at the federal or state level.
The state level, according to Wikipedia.
In essence, if you own a car, you are required by law to buy insurance so that when you crash into someone they can be compensated, or else you pay an annual tax instead, or in most cases you will be criminally prosecuted and fined or jailed for non-compliance.
The key difference between car insurance and the proposed mandatory government health insurance is that right wingers are against healthcare reform.
Labelling things as a tax or not is a red herring. What matters is how much of what you earn you are legally compelled to do something else with, and how much you can reserve and spend as you like.
Not sure what else to add really. I have no problems with everyone being covered, and if I am not mistaken this would only be applied to a small segment of the population; i.e. if fateweaver is broke as a joke, then he will not be forced to by insurance. In fact he would be eligible for something like medi-caid, which sucks, but at least it is insurance.
Kilkrazy wrote:Are you required by law to purchase car insurance? (If you drive a car, I mean.)
We are at the state level. Each state has its own requirements for car insurance, but you are not prosecuted for not having it. The most you get is a ticket. I have never heard of any case that involves jail time because of no car insurance. I am not a fan of mandated insurance anyway though, it artificially drives up insurance costs because the companies know that you have to buy it.
BlackSpike wrote:What happens to someone without health insurance who needs medical care?
Many private and/or religious hospitals will provide medical care free of charge. They subsist on charitable donations and the like, and let me tell you, some of this hospitals are fething amazing. Check out the medical center in Houston, it has to be the world's greatest medical district. Other than that, emergency room care is always free, but whether or not it is an emergency is at the doctor's discretion in some places. Honestly though, the doctor should be able to decide in all places. I have seen people take their kids to the emergency room over a cough.
Kilkrazy wrote:The key difference between car insurance and the proposed mandatory government health insurance is that right wingers are against healthcare reform.
That's hardly the only difference in play.
Liability insurance is mandated by the states, not the federal government, which means people have a greater degree of control concerning the how the law effects them.
Liability insurance is also only a requirement for driving a car on public roads. You don't have to pay it by default.
And the most significant difference is that liability insurance covers another person that you could potentially hurt. Forcing everyone to purchase health insurance is the equivalent of then forcing everyone to purchase full coverage for their car as well.
Many private and/or religious hospitals will provide medical care free of charge. They subsist on charitable donations and the like, and let me tell you, some of this hospitals are fething amazing. Check out the medical center in Houston, it has to be the world's greatest medical district. Other than that, emergency room care is always free, but whether or not it is an emergency is at the doctor's discretion in some places. Honestly though, the doctor should be able to decide in all places. I have seen people take their kids to the emergency room over a cough.
HOUSTON — Ijeoma Onye awoke one day last month short of breath, her head pounding. Her daughter, Ebere Hawkins, drove her 45 minutes from Katy, Texas, to Ben Taub General Hospital, where people without health insurance pay little or nothing for treatment.
Onye, 62, waited four hours to be seen. Still, going to the emergency room was faster than getting an appointment. For that, "you have to wait months," Hawkins says.
Ben Taub is the hub of the Harris County Hospital District, a network of hospitals and care centers serving the Houston area's 1.1 million uninsured residents and hundreds of thousands more with little coverage. Here, the national statistic of 45 million uninsured people is more than a number. It's a crisis.
Nationally, more than 15% are uninsured. In Texas it's nearly 24%, the Census Bureau says, the highest percentage among the states. Here in Harris County, it's 30%, according to state figures, the highest rate among the nation's top 10 metropolitan areas.
As the Houston area struggles to deal with a rising tide of uninsured, it offers a lesson for the nation: Let the problem get out of hand — to a point where nearly 1 in 3 people have no coverage — and you won't just have a less healthy population. You'll have an overwhelmed health care system.
"Texas is the case study for system implosion," says neurosurgeon Guy Clifton, founder of the Houston-area group Save Our ERs.
The problems here, as elsewhere, are many. Small employers are dropping health coverage. Federal and state subsidies don't make up the difference. Illegal immigrants represent 21% of the county's public caseload, even though they represent only about 6% of the area's population.
Compounding the problem, insurers are slashing hospitals' reimbursement rates, often leading the hospitals to reduce unprofitable services such as emergency rooms.
The huge number of uninsured residents here means that health officials must make tough decisions every day about who gets treated and when. "Does this mean rationing? You bet it does," says Kenneth Mattox, chief of staff at Ben Taub, the Houston area's pre-eminent trauma care facility.
Some states are trying to tackle the problem. The broadest solutions have been advanced in Massachusetts, Vermont and Maine. California, Illinois and Pennsylvania may not be far behind. Still more states are trying to insure all children as a first step toward insuring all residents. In most of those states, proposals range from increasing government subsidies to mandating that either employers offer or consumers buy coverage.
Then there's Texas, where the insurance crisis has multiple causes:
•Small businesses dominate the economy, but only 31% of those with 50 or fewer employees offer insurance in Texas, compared with 43% nationally. As a result, 48% of Texans are covered by employers, compared with 53% nationally.
•Income limits to qualify for Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance program for the poor and disabled, are among the lowest in the nation here. Texas has set a limit of $4,822 per year for a family of three, compared with nearly $10,000 in Florida, $18,000 in California and $25,000 in New York. Texas has no subsidized health insurance program for childless adults; 19 states and the District of Columbia offer some coverage.
•The state has forfeited more than $900 million in federal money under the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) during the past six years because it wouldn't put up 28 cents for each 72 cents in federal aid. Restrictions put in place in 2003 cut about 200,000 children from the program in a state with the highest percentage of uninsured children, nearly twice the national average. "It's a horrible scandal," says Jeffrey Starke, chief of pediatrics at Ben Taub.
State officials say the biggest problem in Texas is a surging population: about 23.5 million in 2006, up 12.7% from 2000, about twice the national growth rate. Texas' increase has continued to be fueled by immigrants who cross the nation's longest border with Mexico.
"We have tremendous population growth, and we have to try to keep up with that," says Nora Belcher, senior health adviser to Gov. Rick Perry.
The state's Medicaid program has doubled in cost in 10 years despite its low income limits, Belcher says. CHIP money was left on the table because the program started late and could not be fully funded during a 2003 budget shortfall.
"Others would call us cheap," she says. "We think we're prudent."
'This system is broken'
The growth of the nation's uninsured population has stretched hospital emergency departments to the breaking point.
Nationally, ER visits rose from 93 million to 110 million from 1994 to 2004, an 18% jump, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Texas experienced a 33% increase; in the Houston area, it was more than 50%, according to the Texas Hospital Association. The number of hospital emergency departments dropped by more than 12% in the USA in the same period.
Emergency rooms here are routinely overcrowded. "When I came in this morning, there were people waiting from yesterday," says Kellie Manger, a triage nurse at Ben Taub, on a recent weekday.
About half of the people going to emergency rooms here just need primary care, a percentage that's similar elsewhere. "We see lots of patients here who haven't seen a doctor in years," says Katherine King-Casas, an emergency room physician at Ben Taub.
Packed emergency rooms also are caused by overcrowded hospitals in general. At Ben Taub, Mattox gets calls from area business leaders and politicians seeking to "sneak in the back door a maid, a nanny." Doctors, frustrated by long delays for surgeries, try getting patients admitted to the hospital to move them ahead in line.
"Safety-net facilities were never designed to handle one-third of a population," says George Masi, Ben Taub's chief operating officer. "I don't think this is unique to Texas. Something's got to be done. This system is broken."
Crowding leads hospitals to send patients elsewhere.
In the Houston area, hospitals divert patients about 20% of the time, says Charles Begley of the University of Texas School of Public Health. Ambulances pile up outside emergency rooms, often waiting an hour or two to get their patients in for treatment. David Persse, the Houston Fire Department's medical director, says the area record is six hours. The situation is so bad that patients have called 911 from one ER to get to another.
Doctors here cite horror stories, such as the patient who died after being diverted by helicopter from a Houston hospital to one in Austin. "Diversion kills you," Clifton says.
Long waits, packed corridors
The greatest demand for health care isn't in emergency rooms. It's at the clinics and health centers designed to relieve them.
Maria Gutierrez came to Ben Taub's orthopedics clinic one day last month to have her ankle checked after surgery and to fill some prescriptions. The visit took 8½ hours. A week later she was back, in a corridor where as many as 350 people with specialty clinic appointments wait for hours. "Sometimes you don't want to be in the hospital all day," she says.
Bartolome Martinez arrived at the Strawberry Health Center in Pasadena, just outside Houston, at 4 one recent morning to be first in line for the few walk-in slots allotted. The 70-year-old native of Cuba waited outside until the center opened at 7:30 and was still waiting inside at 9 to have the pain in his side analyzed. Still, he says, that was better than waiting three months for an appointment.
Joyce Heifner, 54, discovered the San Jose Clinic, the nation's oldest charity care clinic, five years ago after struggling for about 15 years with the effects of polio she contracted as a child. The clinic, booked like all the others, is a 70-mile drive for her from Livingston, Texas, which has no public hospitals or clinics for the uninsured.
San Jose tries to fill the gap between primary and hospital care with its own specialists, but the wait can take months. "We have one rheumatologist who comes here," says Rosanne Popp, a primary care physician. "There's not an appointment until next year."
For the working poor, waiting for treatment means less time on the job. Angel Martinez, 20, broke his ankle last month and was taken to a private hospital, which put on a cast and billed him $4,500. "That's money that I don't have," he says. He had surgery at Ben Taub and is eager to get his stitches out so he can go back to work as a driver. "This is the foot I use for the gas and the brakes," he says.
The large numbers of uninsured and overburdened health care system have consequences: Studies done during the past 25 years indicate that being uninsured is hazardous to your health.
The uninsured are more likely to have high infant mortality rates. They are more likely to develop high blood pressure and hypertension. They are less likely to get treatment for trauma. They are less likely to receive timely cancer diagnoses. They are more likely to die from heart attacks.
'They die sooner'
Among the states, Texas has the highest percentage of uninsured adults — 27.6% — who say they are in poor or fair health, rather than good or excellent health, the American Hospital Association says.
Even when the uninsured see doctors, they often can't afford drugs. "You prescribe, you send them home, they don't get well," says Efrain Garcia, a cardiologist who volunteers at San Jose. "They die sooner. They have more complications. They are more disabled."
Cora Sylvester, 50, of La Porte, about 25 miles east of Houston, waited about a year after noticing a lump on her breast because she was poor, uninsured — and busy. Eventually she came to The Rose, a women's diagnostic center. She has since had chemotherapy, surgery and radiation, but her long-term prognosis is questionable.
"It's always an issue to not have any type of insurance," she says. "You feel like you just fell in a hole."
Faced with the onslaught of uninsured patients, Texas is taking steps to rework some of its policies.
Late last month, the Legislature changed its rules to add more than 127,000 children to the 300,000 now covered by the Children's Health Insurance Program. Asset tests were eased, enrollment periods extended and waiting periods eliminated for many clients. The Legislature also paved the way for a new program that will subsidize insurance for 200,000 adults.
'We make a little dent'
Still, there is nothing being proposed on the scale of Massachusetts' fledgling program to insure all residents. "There is not going to be a Massachusetts-mandate, one-size-fits-all solution for Texas. We're just too big," Belcher says. To do that here, says Camille Miller, president of the Texas Health Institute, would cost $6 billion.
In the meantime, Houston's health care system is doing what it can. The Harris County Hospital District is educating patients about when to use clinics, not emergency rooms. The Harris County health care Alliance is trying to develop less costly insurance products, especially for small employers.
"Gateway to Care" navigators help uninsured people find primary or specialty care at area clinics. "We're touching thousands of people, but there are a million people without insurance," says Sandy Steigerwald, patient care coordination manager for Gateway to Care.
An "Ask Your Nurse" program offers phone advice to ease the burden on emergency rooms. "We make a little dent," says the nursing program's Titiana Grossley-Brown.
For all their efforts, Houston-area health officials have been unable to reduce the numbers of uninsured.
"Our problems are horrible and embarrassing, but everybody's aware of them," Begley says. "What we're struggling with is what can we do about them."
Kilkrazy wrote:The key difference between car insurance and the proposed mandatory government health insurance is that right wingers are against healthcare reform.
That's hardly the only difference in play.
...
...
.
I said "key", not "only".
We are discussing the reaction to the original report, not the fine details of motor and health insurance schemes.
It is fairly well known that conservatives are against the proposed health insurance scheme. Tagging the insurance as tax, due to the proposed execution method of the non-compliance penalty, is an obvious buzz word attack.
When someone is fined for not having car insurance, and they refuse to pay the fine, are they let off?
Not sure what else to add really. I have no problems with everyone being covered, and if I am not mistaken this would only be applied to a small segment of the population; i.e. if fateweaver is broke as a joke, then he will not be forced to by insurance. In fact he would be eligible for something like medi-caid, which sucks, but at least it is insurance.
Yea Im with you on that one WREX. I think that it will be limited to how much you make yearly. Just like every government help program. Obviously if you make decent amount of money, you cant get a food card. I bet the fines and penalties are for those that are OVER the line.
Medi-caid really is a joke insurance tho lol. I had it while installing cable (before my REAL insurance kicked in) and I had an "Accident" where I kicked a drill bit threw my foot. I stated that on the forms in the hospital, but apprently I had the wrong phone number on the form, and it was denied. I didnt know about the denial until over a year later when a debt collector called wanting to know why I was being an immature child and not paying on my $900 debt. I laughed and hung the phone up on him lol.
But at least medi caid works most the time
This article that you put up has nothing to do with the quality and amount of care provided by the Texas Medical Center. Have you any idea just how immense and incredible this place is? This is one story, and as I already noted, it doesn't describe the quality of the center, it only describes its capacity. But I guess since it has patients from nearly every country on the planet, not just the Houston area, or even just the US for that matter, it should always have an empty bed for everyone. Please, read the article and how it is applicable before posting. It is widely agreed, by professionals both in and out of the medical industry, that the Texas Medical Center in Houston is one of the, if not THE, greatest medical district in the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Medical_Center
One can link to an article without reprinting the whole thing.
The idea behind mandatory insurance is that it will lower the risk pool for the population as a whole. If the non-discrimination (rejection for pre-existing conditions, family history, etc) clauses are in the final bill this sounds good. However, if there are no cost controls or regulations that prevent private insurance from charging whatever they want, then all the plan is is a giveaway to private insurance companies very similar to how Medicare Part D is a giveaway to the pharmacy companies. Nevermind the philosophical ramifications among much of the population.
For those who continually trot out the 9th and 10th amendments, you may want to also trot out the US Civil War which had a big impact on how those amendments have been interpreted.
Right now, the philosophy in the US is that you choose to get your own insurance or not, which insurance companies are free to accept or reject. That hasn’t worked. The combination of a profit incentive among insurance companies and the idea that you can be rejected if you have a pre-existing medical condition has resulted in a lot of people being rejected for coverage because of something an insurer considered a pre-existing condition. That has resulted in medical debt being the primary cause of bankruptcy in the US.
Now, between the amount of insurance dollars being pumped into both parties and the level of panic we’ve seen over this minor level of reform, you simply aren’t going to get reform that removes the profit motive from private insurers (the idea that it has to be either the government option or private insurers operating for profit is an odd one, no-one seems to have even considered the idea of member oriented insurance schemes). So that leaves you with the idea of removing the ability of insurance companies to not insure someone.
It doesn’t take long, of course, for people to realise that if an insurance company can’t reject them then they can just wait until they’re sick before they get insurance. So you put in place a requirement that says if you’re wealthy enough to afford insurance but don’t get insurance then you have to pay something (you can call it a levy, a tax, a contribution or whatever, it’s just a word). That way you build a system where people aren’t booted out of their insurance because they just found out they’re going to need a lot of chemotherapy to stay alive, and that eight years earlier they ticked the wrong box on their insurance, but where everyone stays insured, spreading the costs out over everyone.
It does mean that if you don’t get insurance, get fined and don’t pay that fine, don’t make any allowance to pay that fine in future, and don’t submit to a payment plan structured by arbitration or by the courts, then a court might order you to spend some time in jail. That’s the price you pay for fighting socialist oppression.
JEB_Stuart wrote:This article that you put up has nothing to do with the quality and amount of care provided by the Texas Medical Center.
The fact that the hospital is world-renowned makes the failure to provide adequate healthcare to the populace that much worse.
The quote you have is taken out of context. You neglected to add on the next sentence which describes the criticism more accurately directed against the hospital's capacity, not its quality of care. The idea that any hospital should have enough room and staff to service any amount of people at all times is unrealistic and absurd. Especially, as I said, since people come all across the globe to receive treatment there. And don't forget, this is only 1 of 13 hospitals in the Medical Center. On top of that it is a county hospital, which in my experience have always been inferior to private ones.
Oh, and I just got back word from my former roommate whose parents work as nursing and maintenance staff in the Medical Center, and they were both shocked that someone claimed it took months to see a doctor. They called this story a flat out lie and are in the process of writing an angry letter to USA Today. I personally have also never heard of anyone having to wait months to see a doctor, and my family isn't even insured!
JEB_Stuart wrote:
The quote you have is taken out of context. You neglected to add on the next sentence which describes the criticism more accurately directed against the hospital's capacity, not its quality of care.
I omitted the second sentence because it seemed to contradict the first. You are correct that quality was not touched on in the article, but capacity is certainly connected to the amount of care provided.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
The idea that any hospital should have enough room and staff to service any amount of people at all times is unrealistic and absurd.
Which explains why no one has claimed anything close to that affect.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Especially, as I said, since people come all across the globe to receive treatment there. And don't forget, this is only 1 of 13 hospitals in the Medical Center. On top of that it is a county hospital, which in my experience have always been inferior to private ones.
The county hospital was a specific example designed to make a point about the state of healthcare in Texas as a whole. It also doesn't really matter if the hospital's shortcomings are justified by circumstance when the purpose of the article is to support an initiative predicated on changing that circumstance.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Oh, and I just got back word from my former roommate whose parents work as nursing and maintenance staff in the Medical Center, and they were both shocked that someone claimed it took months to see a doctor. They called this story a flat out lie and are in the process of writing an angry letter to USA Today. I personally have also never heard of anyone having to wait months to see a doctor, and my family isn't even insured!
I don't see anything in there about waiting times in excess of a month. I see a lot of statistics that are designed to support the argument that the current system is overburdened correlated with another bunch of statistics relating to low rates of insurance. I assume the point is intended to be that low rates of insurance are putting too much strain on emergency and clinical services.
For what its worth, the problem isn't one of wait time (and the article only claimed that to be the case in a tangential fashion), but the ability to obtain actual treatment in the form of drugs, surgery, etc.
HOUSTON — Ijeoma Onye awoke one day last month short of breath, her head pounding. Her daughter, Ebere Hawkins, drove her 45 minutes from Katy, Texas, to Ben Taub General Hospital, where people without health insurance pay little or nothing for treatment. Onye, 62, waited four hours to be seen. Still, going to the emergency room was faster than getting an appointment. For that, "you have to wait months," Hawkins says.
Ben Taub is the hub of the Harris County Hospital District, a network of hospitals and care centers serving the Houston area's 1.1 million uninsured residents and hundreds of thousands more with little coverage. Here, the national statistic of 45 million uninsured people is more than a number. It's a crisis.
dogma wrote:I omitted the second sentence because it seemed to contradict the first. You are correct that quality was not touched on in the article, but capacity is certainly connected to the amount of care provided.
I don't see how it is contradictory, but I think your statement is rather redundant.
dogma wrote:Which explains why no one has claimed anything close to that affect.
Sorry if I was a little touchy, but Shuma intentionally posted that in order to try and show that the TMC was not that great. Cheap shots annoy me, and I had to put some stupid points to rest before they were brought up.
dogma wrote:The county hospital was a specific example designed to make a point about the state of health care in Texas as a whole. It also doesn't really matter if the hospital's shortcomings are justified by circumstance when the purpose of the article is to support an initiative predicated on changing that circumstance.
Well they do point out that the main driving factor behind higher uninsured rate is because of the booming illegal immigrant population. Other then tort reform, I see illegal immigration as one of the main problems behind the health care issue. They don't pay taxes, they use up social services, at least here in California they do, and they use the ERs for free. And before people start hammering me as some sort of racist or bigot, I will say this: my grandfather was an illegal immigrant from Mexico, and he never did any of those things.
Oh and the point you made about you not seeing anywhere in article about it taking months, is at the top of this post Dogma.
I would like to know how this affects the majority of people without healthcare insurance (being as that was the main point of this whole conversation) when you have people literally flocking to this one hospital for services.
Personally I would not trust my neighbor to do anything besides watch me end up in the streets from their window. This is not to say their are not good neighbors in this world, just that is both unrealistic and unfair to expect hospitals of that nature to really pick up the slack.
I can handle someone saying we cannot help these people because we are unable to. What I cannot understand though, is how in the feth expecting so much out of so little makes any sense at all?
BTW, how did your Grandfather manage to pay taxes as an illegal immigrant? This is not a jab Jeb, this is just a question.
We can go on to talk about how this whole crisis is contrived, and plenty of people are happy; but that hardly addresses the issue.
Wrexasaur wrote:I would like to know how this affects the majority of people without healthcare insurance (being as that was the main point of this whole conversation) when you have people literally flocking to this one hospital for services.
Well, seeing as how my family and I are uninsured, I think I can help with this. If we have a medical need, we go to the doctor and say, "I have this problem, but I also have this money. If I give you some of this money will you fix my problem?" My family has a history of taking pride in ourselves as human beings, and we don't want someone else to take care of us. If we don't get everything we want then that's just fine. I don't know how else to put it other then the fact that we are incredibly independent.
Wrexasaur wrote:Personally I would not trust my neighbor to do anything besides watch me end up in the streets from their window. This is not to say there are not good neighbors in this world, just that is both unrealistic and unfair to expect hospitals of that nature to really pick up the slack.
Agreed.
Wrexasaur wrote:I can handle someone saying we cannot help these people because we are unable to. What I cannot understand though, is how in the feth expecting so much out of so little makes any sense at all?
I agree with that Wrex as well. I am against government involvement in health care because we are so fething broke it isn't a joke. If we were flush with extra cash and could afford a good sensible plan I would probably support it. But I cannot in good conscience support a plan that will ultimately help to bankrupt our country...well according to the CBO, which I trust.
Wrexasaur wrote:BTW, how did your Grandfather manage to pay taxes as an illegal immigrant? This is not a jab Jeb, this is just a question.
Easy: he was married to an American citizen, and he worked a blue collar job where they deducted most of his taxes automatically. In a strange twist of irony my grandparents hosted a voting station at their house, despite my grandfather's rather questionable legal status. That story always makes me laugh. It wasn't until the 1990's that my mom made my grandfather get his green card, because for some strange reason the marriage rule did not apply to him.
Wait so they suggested it becomes: "I have an apple, if you do not buy it, you go to jail"?
But, wait they have to pay $1900 if they don't buy it first, but go to jail if they don't pay it or pay $25000.
Wow, that's just great over there. This Thomas A. Barthold, sounds like an idiot.
If they can't afford the Health Insurance are they really going to be able to afford the $1,900 not to go to jail? Sounds like someone wants to throw the poor people into jail.
It is a bad idea to be sure, but it doesn't affect the lower classes. Perhaps the middle-lower classes, but even then I doubt how much of a problem it would cause.
The intent (imho at least) is to put enough pressure on people that can afford health insurance, but choose not to do so. This is a great idea in essence, not at all in practice though.
I am in favor of the public option, but it does have it's flaws. The possibility of bankrupting the country is coming from all sorts of places, health care reform being only one. We have been racking up a serious problem for a very long time... as in a verrrrry long time. I am not saying this to merit stupid spending, and certainly not to encourage stupid ideas like this topics gem of stupidity.
Bottom line is that this whole idea lacks any grounding in reality, and it is a sure fire way to anger a lot of people. I would like to see some serious reform pass, but expecting anything besides the most basic of changes (most of which should just be passed on their own imho), would be a whole new level of optimism for me at this point. The dance and song has worn thin, and the Dems (all counter, the Reps are totally evil, totally aside) have shown the lack of spine for the last time. It is sink or swim, and trust me when I say that this boat has long since been sunk.
It is liked watching a choreographed dance sometimes, this stuff just makes way too much sense. Not to go into conspiracy theories of course, just the mechanics in Washington that drive this kind of ludicrous madness home. I could care less who gets paid what, as long as elected officials do what they set out to. That is the only stick that I measure any of these politicians by.
JEB_Stuart wrote:It wasn't until the 1990's that my mom made my grandfather get his green card, because for some strange reason the marriage rule did not apply to him.
Technicalities and loopholes... like a game of freaking snakes and ladders sometimes. I do get quite angry when I hear about this kind of stuff, mainly because I know that your Grandfather was probably in between a rock and a hard place in terms of his options. So, a really simple fix because of some damn bureaucratic decision, becomes a politically fueled nightmare. Your Grandad sounds like a good man, and a far cry from the lot of U.S. citizens I encounter on a daily basis. Always a problem with something (and they are most likely right in some way), but the perspective on the outside world astounds me. I will try not to go too deep into this as I know I will offend someone, but you live in California JEB, you know what it is like .
Mr. Honda told The Washington Times that he's not pushing for illegal immigrants to gain access to taxpayer-subsidized benefits. "That's an argument that's been done already," he said.
That is the magic word... There is absolutely no problem with immigrants (legal or illegal) being able to obtain paid insurance. If they do not have insurance, they end up in the E.R. when it gets really bad, and we pay for it plus some.
Some types of doctors are fleeing to Texas now. They are leaving places like NY, NJ and FL where they can't make ends meet. They are talking about it as the place to go
I guess the growing demand (as the population grows) is currently creating good conditions for them. So hopefully this will help alleviate some of the capacity issues in that state.
In my region, we have too much hospital capacity. One hospital closed down. The biggest "university" hospital wanted to buy up its facilities and a third hospital was reaching atempting to get the populace to block them because there is "too much capacity around" and it's hurting the other hospitals in the area. I haven't heard from the fourth and fifth hospitals in the area have to say about it...
Too bad we have too many lawyers involved in government to get tort reform or "loser pays" to help keep malpractice costs in line. One of the biggest taxes we pay in the US is to the organized crime bosses we call lawyers.
Kilkrazy wrote:Are you required by law to purchase car insurance? (If you drive a car, I mean.)
Liability insurance is required in most, if not all, states. Meaning that if we cause an accident, there will be money to pay for it. Full coverage for everything else, is not a requirement. Health Insurance doesn't work like that. My health insurance won't pay for you getting sick (just my taxes).
And auto insurance is a STATE law. Not Federal. The Federal government really has no power to mandate such a thing, and many could (succesfully IMO) argue that the Federal Government has no legal power to do what their trying to do right now as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
utan wrote:Some types of doctors are fleeing to Texas now. They are leaving places like NY, NJ and FL where they can't make ends meet. They are talking about it as the place to go
I guess the growing demand (as the population grows) is currently creating good conditions for them. So hopefully this will help alleviate some of the capacity issues in that state.
In my region, we have too much hospital capacity. One hospital closed down. The biggest "university" hospital wanted to buy up its facilities and a third hospital was reaching atempting to get the populace to block them because there is "too much capacity around" and it's hurting the other hospitals in the area. I haven't heard from the fourth and fifth hospitals in the area have to say about it...
Too bad we have too many lawyers involved in government to get tort reform or "loser pays" to help keep malpractice costs in line. One of the biggest taxes we pay in the US is to the organized crime bosses we call lawyers.
Might have something to do with the succesful Tort reform that took place in Texas as well. Our Pres said he'd like to see some working models of Tort reform before they considered it in the bill. I suggest he take a look at Texas and California. I've seen number of up to 40% decrease in health insurance costs in Texas due to the reforms. Half a million previously uninsured Texans where now able to afford insurance.
So I'm trying to figure out why we need to spend a trillion dollars to enact something like this that has proven to be succesful.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orkeosaurus wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:Are you required by law to purchase car insurance? (If you drive a car, I mean.)
Usually you need to have Liability Insurance, which doesn't cover your car, but does cover the car of a person you crash into.
I'm not sure if the requirement is made at the federal or state level.
State level. The Federal Government has no legal Constitutional powers to mandate such a thing.
There's another law that has "Willful failure" written into it regarding the selective service and a *Very* similar fine and jail time.
The legal onus of proving a willful failure is significant enough to make i unlikely to be prosecuted. Additionally, even if the IRS is reporting payments on this, had the OP taken a moment out of his busy troll to look at a paystub and see the other things the IRS reports payments regarding the OP likely wouldn't be wetting his trousers about health insurance.
Take economy101 people. This change will create jobs. Jobs mean more people working. More people working means more money flowing in the economy. Healthcare is something everyone wants and needs.
Every citizen gets a service they need. Noncitizens are removed from the economy returning resources to citizens. Participants in finding solutions can tell their voters they did them a good turn. Medical professionals can stop worrying about bureaucracy and hopefully get people healed rather than treated.
Looks to me like a good idea getting shouted down by the ignorant and rude simply because they haven't the good sense to put down labels (liberal, conservative, democrat, republican) and fix a problem rather than complain no one has yet.
Maybe i'm infected by being near the capitol and having the perspective of a technical profession:
A problem needs to be fixed.
Someone will get left out, they need recourse.
Funding has to come from somewhere.
How do we make this happen?
How is this so hard?
Edit:
The more I read this thread, and even my response, I wonder if IHBT. Well played, sir.
utan wrote:Some types of doctors are fleeing to Texas now. They are leaving places like NY, NJ and FL where they can't make ends meet. They are talking about it as the place to go
I guess the growing demand (as the population grows) is currently creating good conditions for them. So hopefully this will help alleviate some of the capacity issues in that state.
Too bad we have too many lawyers involved in government to get tort reform or "loser pays" to help keep malpractice costs in line. One of the biggest taxes we pay in the US is to the organized crime bosses we call lawyers.
I think the one of the reason for doctors moving to Texas is that malpractice for doctors is capped at $250,000. When this legislation was passed many malpractice attorneys moved out of Texas. Now, I know most of you are going to say that's a good thing. But consider if a doctor was negligent during your operation and caused a lifelong health issue for you, would a settlement of $250,000 be enough for your pains and suffering for the rest of your life?
Oldgrue wrote:There's another law that has "Willful failure" written into it regarding the selective service and a *Very* similar fine and jail time.
The legal onus of proving a willful failure is significant enough to make i unlikely to be prosecuted. Additionally, even if the IRS is reporting payments on this, had the OP taken a moment out of his busy troll to look at a paystub and see the other things the IRS reports payments regarding the OP likely wouldn't be wetting his trousers about health insurance.
Take economy101 people. This change will create jobs. Jobs mean more people working. More people working means more money flowing in the economy. Healthcare is something everyone wants and needs.
Every citizen gets a service they need. Noncitizens are removed from the economy returning resources to citizens. Participants in finding solutions can tell their voters they did them a good turn. Medical professionals can stop worrying about bureaucracy and hopefully get people healed rather than treated.
Looks to me like a good idea getting shouted down by the ignorant and rude simply because they haven't the good sense to put down labels (liberal, conservative, democrat, republican) and fix a problem rather than complain no one has yet.
Maybe i'm infected by being near the capitol and having the perspective of a technical profession:
A problem needs to be fixed.
Someone will get left out, they need recourse.
Funding has to come from somewhere.
How do we make this happen?
How is this so hard?
Edit:
The more I read this thread, and even my response, I wonder if IHBT. Well played, sir.
Tort reform alone in Texas created half a million jobs. Think about what it would do nation wide. A hell of a lot more then the epic failure called the Stimulus Bill.
djones520 wrote:
State level. The Federal Government has no legal Constitutional powers to mandate such a thing.
Um, I keep forgetting my Constitution, but
Constitution wrote:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States
Medical insurance helps keep me healthy. Auto Insurance protects others from me - ensuring their welfare.
www.webster.com wrote:
Welfare
-noun
1 : the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity <must look out for your own welfare>
2 a : aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need b : an agency or program through which such aid is distributed
Sure as heck they do.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Tort reform is another public works project we need on a national level!
Here's a problem comparing Car Insurance to Health Insurance.
You don't expect Car Insurance to pay for oil changes. But, if you don't ever change the oil and the engine siezes up, your Insurance still won't cover it.
We should stop talking about Insurance and talk about the Health Care System.
I have health insurance. And my family pays for it. And, if we don't use a doctor at all that year, that's money that doesn't benefit us. If we have major bills, we come out of the deal with more benefits than we paid in. Now, I shouldn't complain, because we've benefited from it the past few years. But, it's a flawed system.
Car insurance covers for the occasional event. For most of us, we have a handful of accidents in our entire life. Paying some money each month to cover in the event of a catastrophic accident is acceptable. But, it's totally different than health insurance.
What the US needs to decide is whether or not we consider health care a fundamental right. If we do, then it should be subsidized and 'paid for' by all of us. How we pay for it has many options. If it's not a fundamental right, then the government should get out of the debate and (in liberterian fashion) leave us to our own devices.
R3con wrote:I pay cash for my health care....havent found a doctor or hospital that refuses to accept it yet.
Hah, your cash spending ways are at an end HAHAHAH!
Yep I know....which is funny because i set a portion of my paycheck aside for health care expenses....and I every year I end up saving over what I would have paid in premiums.
All health insurance is, is a way to make the healthy pay for the unhealthy....thats it. Its no big secret.
HOUSTON — Ijeoma Onye awoke one day last month short of breath, her head pounding. Her daughter, Ebere Hawkins, drove her 45 minutes from Katy, Texas, to Ben Taub General Hospital, where people without health insurance pay little or nothing for treatment.
Onye, 62, waited four hours to be seen. Still, going to the emergency room was faster than getting an appointment. For that, "you have to wait months," Hawkins says.
Missed that on the first read through. I'm not sure that its a lie though. Around me it unusual to wait less than 2 weeks to see a doctor, so a month or more doesn't seem out of the question. Especially if she's talking about a clinic appointment. When I was out of state at school (where my insurance didn't apply) the clinic up the street had an average wait list of 6-7 weeks.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
I don't see how it is contradictory, but I think your statement is rather redundant.
You claimed I quoted you out of context, so I explained why I chose to present the quote that way. It doesn't make sense to say that the amount of care provided by a given institution was not discussed, and then say that the capacity of that institution was discussed. Unless you're trying to quantify care in terms of some abstract unit of benefit like 'hedons'.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Other then tort reform, I see illegal immigration as one of the main problems behind the health care issue. They don't pay taxes, they use up social services, at least here in California they do, and they use the ERs for free. And before people start hammering me as some sort of racist or bigot, I will say this: my grandfather was an illegal immigrant from Mexico, and he never did any of those things.
That makes sense, given that you've lived in Texas and California. Its not nearly as a much of a factor in Yankee land.
Of course, addressing immigration is a separate issue. Though I think the level of anger that would come about if Obama were to connect it to healthcare would be absolutely hilarious. Beck's head would explode.
As noted, some members of Congress are trying to do just that, which would kill it completely. Throwing seniors under the bus to get the hispanic vote will backfire.
Frazzled wrote:As noted, some members of Congress are trying to do just that, which would kill it completely. Throwing seniors under the bus to get the hispanic vote will backfire.
djones520 wrote:Might have something to do with the succesful Tort reform that took place in Texas as well. Our Pres said he'd like to see some working models of Tort reform before they considered it in the bill. I suggest he take a look at Texas and California. I've seen number of up to 40% decrease in health insurance costs in Texas due to the reforms. Half a million previously uninsured Texans where now able to afford insurance.
I think that's most of the reason, actually. We're losing doctors in PA mostly because of high malpractice insurance rates.
I don't want to see the rights of individuals to sue doctors and corporate entities curtailed severely, but I think there needs to be some balance in the system given that the issue is healthcare.
Not really sure how we can compare car insurance to health insurance?
Car insurance system is flawed too. In Mn the minorities are not required to have car insurance so if I get into an accident and it's the other drivers fault I have to hope it's a Caucasian driver I hit or a minority driver that decided to get car insurance (good luck with that).
Unless the Feds can make a Healthcare Reform bill loophole free (and being a member of dakka and having read/posted in YMDC) I have learned most people that want to cheat the system will look for loopholes and ambiguous wording in laws, rules and regulations so going by my experience over something as trivial as toy soldiers someone WILL find loopholes in the Healthcare laws should our new overlords pass it.
If a bunch of nerds with nothing to gain except bragging rights can find ways to get around certain rules in a game of toy soldiers, ie "cheat", than what is to say someone or someones won't try the same with a major nationwide issue like healthcare?
After all, I bet people could even pick apart great playwrights and poets like Shakespeare or Aristotle.
Seniors already get a damn good state sponsored health system. They've got no reason to change.
On to another topic, how is it legal in Mn (Minnesota?) that minorities don't have to get car insurance? That's clearly racist as well as violating equality before the law.
How is a minority decided, for the purposes of the law? Is it done on a state wide basis, or per city or something?
Why doesn't the majority use its voting muscle to overturn the law?
Kilkrazy wrote:Seniors already get a damn good state sponsored health system. They've got no reason to change.
On to another topic, how is it legal in Mn (Minnesota?) that minorities don't have to get car insurance? That's clearly racist as well as violating equality before the law.
How is a minority decided, for the purposes of the law? Is it done on a state wide basis, or per city or something?
Why doesn't the majority use its voting muscle to overturn the law?
Wo, wait you may be misinterpreting. Minors in this context likely means GW target audience-those under 18.
Per that article, the verdict appears inconclusive. Things will change if legislation is passed, but its difficult to say whether that change will be for better, worse, or little practical difference. Hardly being 'thrown under the bus'.
That's too bad, but support for legislation has nothing to do with the actual affect of that legislation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Wo, wait you may be misinterpreting. Minors in this context likely means GW target audience-those under 18.
He isn't
Fateweaver wrote:
Car insurance system is flawed too. In Mn the minorities are not required to have car insurance so if I get into an accident and it's the other drivers fault I have to hope it's a Caucasian driver I hit or a minority driver that decided to get car insurance (good luck with that).
Yeah, some people's benefits will be cut, but they can also be replaced through other programs.
Mmm...yes, but theyn you wouldn't be cutting the money out now would you. There will be no replacement. Seniors aren't idiots. They see what it is.
Time of life sickness and morbidity rates are well know thanks to huge amounts of actuarial data.
People in the prime of life only get ill or hurt if they are unlucky. Serious illness is concentrated in the early years and by definition towards the end of life.
A public insurance scheme which covered the healthy population would not necessarily cost more than the current system, so there is no logical reason for seniors to worry.
If they are directly CUTTING the funds from the programs for SENIORS, yes there is an abolsute reason to worry. Seniors are covered under Medicare. Cutting hundreds of billions from Medicare means Seniors get worse care. Period, end of story. Its simple math.
These funds are not being replaced. New programs for Seniors are not being put in place. They are going to get hammered. Thats why they are against it.
R3con wrote:I'll go for universal health care if its illegal to get above 25% body fat.......
If its illegal to smoke, drink, or suntan excessively.
Basically I dont want to pay for everyone else s poor decisions when I dont use Health Care much because I make sound healthy decisions
This is the reason I'm against Universal healthcare. Once Big Brother is 'paying' for all our healthcare, then it's just another excuse to deny us the ability to make our own health related decisions. I think that Healthcare for any and all Minors should be universal and free; Children often have no control over the healthfulness of their lifestyle. In accordance with this, I wouldn't mind that healthcare choices for children be mandated and regulated till the cows come home, but adults should be able, no, required to make heir own lifestyle choices, and live with the consequences. The upshot to this, is that the general health levels of the country would rise as children are brought up learning healthy lifestyles and are taught to make good choices, and as it will always be cheaper to have the entire household on the same diet, adults will tend to be healthier just 'by association'.
Our government is here to encourage its citizens to make the proper choices about themselves, not to force them.
Frazzled wrote:
Mmm...yes, but theyn you wouldn't be cutting the money out now would you. There will be no replacement. Seniors aren't idiots. They see what it is.
Sure you would. Its possible to cut money from one program in order to fund another while losing nothing with respect aggregated standards of care; especially if we're looking at a system that subsidizes care as a matter of course.
You're seeing cuts to Medicare in isolation from all the other elements of every proposed reform package. Many of which are designed to expand the availability of care for all citizens; including seniors. In no way can you come to conclusion that there will be no replacement.
Kilkrazy wrote:It is cheaper in all other comparable 1st world countries.
Thats still apples to oranges and not relevant to old farts. Old farts have $XXX now for healthcare. The various proposals would cut $yyy, leaving $zzz. Its a magnificently lower amount. No one having skin in the game or whio doesn't have a dog in the hunt thinks its not a cut.
Besides healthcare #s between countries are erroneous. We could spend $27.00 only and say we have the cheapest healthcare on the planet. People would be dying left and right, but our spending would be nil.
Frazzled wrote:If they are directly CUTTING the funds from the programs for SENIORS, yes there is an abolsute reason to worry. Seniors are covered under Medicare. Cutting hundreds of billions from Medicare means Seniors get worse care. Period, end of story. Its simple math.
No, not the end of the story. Not even close. Unless you're attempting to be deliberately obtuse that conclusion is ridiculous. It is possible for seniors to derive care from sources other than those intended only for seniors; especially when exclusion for preexisting conditions is no longer legal.
Frazzled wrote:
These funds are not being replaced. New programs for Seniors are not being put in place. They are going to get hammered. Thats why they are against it.
Guess all those elderly people with private insurance plans are languishing away due to sub-standard care as provided by their carriers.
Frazzled wrote:
Mmm...yes, but theyn you wouldn't be cutting the money out now would you. There will be no replacement. Seniors aren't idiots. They see what it is.
Sure you would. Its possible to cut money from one program in order to fund another while losing nothing with respect aggregated standards of care; especially if we're looking at a system that subsidizes care as a matter of course.
You're seeing cuts to Medicare in isolation from all the other elements of every proposed reform package. Many of which are designed to expand the availability of care for all citizens; including seniors. In no way can you come to conclusion that there will be no replacement.
Not in government baby. thats blinding fantasy world. If you cut $100Bn from seniors and provide no additioanl benefits from other program,s they are losing $100Bn. Its simple math. the rest is just nonsense and obfiscation. Fortunately seniors are seeing through it now. here's the fun part. THEY VOTE.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:If they are directly CUTTING the funds from the programs for SENIORS, yes there is an abolsute reason to worry. Seniors are covered under Medicare. Cutting hundreds of billions from Medicare means Seniors get worse care. Period, end of story. Its simple math.
No, not the end of the story. Not even close. Unless you're attempting to be deliberately obtuse that conclusion is ridiculous. It is possible for seniors to derive care from sources other than those intended only for seniors; especially when exclusion for preexisting conditions is no longer legal.
Frazzled wrote:
These funds are not being replaced. New programs for Seniors are not being put in place. They are going to get hammered. Thats why they are against it.
Guess all those elderly people with private insurance plans are languishing away due to sub-standard care as provided by their carriers.
Bulls t.
If the plans they get are Medicare and you cut Medicare they lose.
If they are on Medicare THEY CAN'T AFFORD PRIVATE COVERAGE.
Frazzled wrote:
Not in government baby. thats blinding fantasy world. If you cut $100Bn from seniors and provide no additioanl benefits from other program,s they are losing $100Bn. Its simple math. the rest is just nonsense and obfiscation. Fortunately seniors are seeing through it now. here's the fun part. THEY VOTE.
Except they are providing benefits from other programs. There is no magic cut-off age anywhere in any of the proposed bills. The insurance exchange will apply to people over 55. The prohibition of preexisting exclusions won't stop at age 55. The proposed coverage subsidies won't stop at age 55.
You're jumping up and down yelling "See, there's nothing about seniors in any of these bills!" when almost every provision is designed to cover all people, regardless of age. You wanna talk about obfuscation? Revisit your argument before going that route.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
If they are on Medicare THEY CAN'T AFFORD PRIVATE COVERAGE.
Uh, no, wrong. All of my elderly relatives use Medicare. All of my elderly relatives also have private insurance. They can afford better coverage, but don't purchase it because they can bill Advantage instead. Its a complete joke of system.
Regardless, if someone can't afford private insurance the subsidy programs designed to help them purchase it will kick in to rectify the problem.
dogma wrote:Missed that on the first read through. I'm not sure that its a lie though. Around me it unusual to wait less than 2 weeks to see a doctor, so a month or more doesn't seem out of the question. Especially if she's talking about a clinic appointment. When I was out of state at school (where my insurance didn't apply) the clinic up the street had an average wait list of 6-7 weeks.
That sucks if you had that experience, but I have never had anything remotely like that happen to me. If I need to see a doctor, the most I have ever had to wait was just 3 days. The Cash For Care program is a true wonder.
dogma wrote:You claimed I quoted you out of context, so I explained why I chose to present the quote that way. It doesn't make sense to say that the amount of care provided by a given institution was not discussed, and then say that the capacity of that institution was discussed. Unless you're trying to quantify care in terms of some abstract unit of benefit like 'hedons'.
Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear in my initial statement. The article was a direct attempt to undermine my claim that the Texas Medical Center provides some of the, if not the, greatest medical care in the world. Quality is not directly linked to capacity, which is what the article was about. Is that more clear?
dogma wrote:That makes sense, given that you've lived in Texas and California. Its not nearly as a much of a factor in Yankee land.
Of course, addressing immigration is a separate issue. Though I think the level of anger that would come about if Obama were to connect it to healthcare would be absolutely hilarious. Beck's head would explode.
I would pay to see that! All of you damn Yanks don't see how much of a problem illegal immigration is, or how even I am feeling like a foreigner in my own country. Illegal immigration is hands down the largest problem our country is facing. And yes I am completely aware of the irony my life holds. As a direct descendant of an illegal immigrant I am against illegal immigration. I guess the rule of law is more important to me. But I am also a romanticist, so I might change....
Frazzled wrote:If they are directly CUTTING the funds from the programs for SENIORS, yes there is an abolsute reason to worry. Seniors are covered under Medicare. Cutting hundreds of billions from Medicare means Seniors get worse care. Period, end of story. Its simple math.
What special status makes senior citizens eligible for this "subsidized" healthcare that shouldn't apply to everyone else in the nation?
In short, I don't see internal consistency within your argument. Either everybody including seniors are entitled to "subsidized" healthcare, or nobody is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JEB_Stuart wrote:I would pay to see that! All of you damn Yanks don't see how much of a problem illegal immigration is, or how even I am feeling like a foreigner in my own country. Illegal immigration is hands down the largest problem our country is facing.
The source of illegal immigration is unscrupulous business practices that profit off of cheap labor. In the depths of the '08 Recession when the Dow was lurking around 7k looking to head to 5k, we actually had emigration discovered analogously by the impact on the Mexican economy; the income sent from the U.S. to Mexico by migrant labor declined to the point where it had an impact on domestic consumer spending within Mexico. With a poor job market, migrant workers had no need to be here and shifted back across the border.
Eliminate the jobs by enforcing labor laws and you remove the demand for illegal immigrant labor.
Of course, your cost of services increases accordingly when you have to get teenagers to be janitors for $12 an hour.
Personally, I turn a blind eye to such things and quietly profit off of my cheaper cost of living. I can see why you'd take the moral high road and pay more out of your pocket to have a nation that felt like your own, though.
JEB_Stuart wrote: Illegal immigration is hands down the largest problem our country is facing.
I think that's a bit hyperbolic, but it is certainly a significant issue. Though I suspect that my reasons for believing that are significantly different from yours.
sourclams wrote:What special status makes senior citizens eligible for this "subsidized" healthcare that shouldn't apply to everyone else in the nation?
In short, I don't see internal consistency within your argument. Either everybody including seniors are entitled to "subsidized" healthcare, or nobody is.
It is a work to live system. So, the underlying assumption is that you have worked enough, and put enough into the system to be eligible for "free" healthcare.
That is the main problem and the main solution with this system. I have no guesses about us being pretty damn broke as a nation, and that most definitely plays a role in shifting funds that we don't really have, to cover people that may or may not need it. There is a lot more too it of course, but that is the general idea behind it.
JEB_Stuart wrote: Illegal immigration is hands down the largest problem our country is facing.
I think that's a bit hyperbolic, but it is certainly a significant issue. Though I suspect that my reasons for believing that are significantly different from yours.
Someday the right wing rank and file will understand that the interests that fund the right wing are making way too much money off of illegal immigration to ever allow a crack down. All of those illegals are working somewhere, crack down on demand and the supply will dwindle. Good luck waiting for the GOP to get tough on farms and small businesses.
Of course, if I had a dollar for every time I've marveled at the PR efforts of the right wing, I'd be a wealthy man.
Close the borders. Easy peasy. Round up all illegals, send them packing and then close our borders and station armed guards every 50yards along the southern border with orders to shoot to kill.
Hell, I'd do that for just 3 square meals a day and a 12pack every evening after sundown. Nothing like trying to shoot a moving human when you see 3 of everything.
I bet I wouldn't be the only volunteer with those 2 demands.
Fateweaver wrote:Close the borders. Easy peasy. Round up all illegals, send them packing and then close our borders and station armed guards every 50yards along the southern border with orders to shoot to kill.
Hell, I'd do that for just 3 square meals a day and a 12pack every evening after sundown. Nothing like trying to shoot a moving human when you see 3 of everything.
I bet I wouldn't be the only volunteer with those 2 demands.
Ever considered what it's like for the illegals trying to escape the terrible conditions in their countries? It's saddening to see that such bloodthirsty and arrogant barbarians still exist in such a civilised nation.
They should at least be given a modicum of kindness and respect. They don't have to be let into your country, but it's the responsibility of developed nations to help those less fortunate. Hell, I think America should out Mexico's government and take charge. That way, you wouldn't have to worry about illegals, and conditions would greatly improve.
n0t_u wrote:Wait so they suggested it becomes: "I have an apple, if you do not buy it, you go to jail"?
But, wait they have to pay $1900 if they don't buy it first, but go to jail if they don't pay it or pay $25000.
Wow, that's just great over there. This Thomas A. Barthold, sounds like an idiot.
If they can't afford the Health Insurance are they really going to be able to afford the $1,900 not to go to jail? Sounds like someone wants to throw the poor people into jail.
No. That's not even close. Medicare is being expanded, if a person is poor they will be covered there. People who aren't covered by medicare are required to get health insurance. This is because there are new laws being introduced banning insurance companies from rejecting a person who has a pre-existing condition. Obviously the net result of this that people, unless required to get insurance, would simply not bother until they got sick. So if you're a middle class person who can't access medicare, you're required to get healthcare.
It's one of those things that sounds bad when given in a single sentence 'they will fine you for not getting insurance'. But the smallest amount of reading on . The smallest amount of reading appears to be far too much for some, though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
R3con wrote:I pay cash for my health care....havent found a doctor or hospital that refuses to accept it yet.
Do you have enough stored under the mattress to pay for 12 months of cancer treatment?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fateweaver wrote:Not really sure how we can compare car insurance to health insurance?
Car insurance system is flawed too. In Mn the minorities are not required to have car insurance so if I get into an accident and it's the other drivers fault I have to hope it's a Caucasian driver I hit or a minority driver that decided to get car insurance (good luck with that).
Well that's probably the most racist thing I've heard on this board. Dude, you have issues.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote:
dogma wrote:
JEB_Stuart wrote: Illegal immigration is hands down the largest problem our country is facing.
I think that's a bit hyperbolic, but it is certainly a significant issue. Though I suspect that my reasons for believing that are significantly different from yours.
Someday the right wing rank and file will understand that the interests that fund the right wing are making way too much money off of illegal immigration to ever allow a crack down. All of those illegals are working somewhere, crack down on demand and the supply will dwindle. Good luck waiting for the GOP to get tough on farms and small businesses.
Of course, if I had a dollar for every time I've marveled at the PR efforts of the right wing, I'd be a wealthy man.
Yeah, this. Remove the economic opportunities (by increasing penalties for employing illegal aliens, and actually enforce these laws) and there will be no incentive to cross the border. If you can't get a job you won't risk your life crossing the border.
Or you can drag up illegal aliens whenever you need a real and secret reason that some other program isn't working.
Kilkrazy wrote:The key difference between car insurance and the proposed mandatory government health insurance is that right wingers are against healthcare reform.
That's hardly the only difference in play.
...
...
.
I said "key", not "only".
We are discussing the reaction to the original report, not the fine details of motor and health insurance schemes.
It is fairly well known that conservatives are against the proposed health insurance scheme. Tagging the insurance as tax, due to the proposed execution method of the non-compliance penalty, is an obvious buzz word attack.
When someone is fined for not having car insurance, and they refuse to pay the fine, are they let off?
Methinks you might be slightly confused.
Mandatory, universal health care != health care reform.
I think conservatives want health care reform. One that will work.
Illegal migrant workers are employed mainly by California and Texas, this is where a lot of that cheap labor is "needed". You will find that people who are desperate make the most reliable workers. This is not some sort of phenomena by any means, it is common place hiring practice. You want someone who is that needy, someone who wouldn't complain because you lose money on addressing those complaints.
Do I think that unions should be able to run amok and take control of every industry in the U.S.? Hell frakking no. When it comes to job opportunity, I cannot find a single job that is not well below my skill level without competition from immigrants. This is both illegal and legal immigrants mind you. Instead of markets, you get corner stores, and instead of landscaping services, you get mow and blow gotta go services.
This is indicative of what people want as consumers, not what "race" works best at any given job. If Mexicans happen to be from such poor socioeconomic conditions, along with all of the other immigrants that have "infiltrated" our society (this is a laughable notion BTW, people want these services, and they want them damn cheap); all it adds up to is better workers, and in essence much better services.
You do get a homogenization of these services, but yet again, this is what consumers (and employers) want in the long run. On top of which, it has little to nothing to do with immigration, more so to do with consumer demand.
BTW, the whole lock the borders down thing is... well, man that has to be one of the silliest notions I have ever freaking heard. Never heard of the Great Wall of China? That worked out damn well... right?
sourclams wrote:What special status makes senior citizens eligible for this "subsidized" healthcare that shouldn't apply to everyone else in the nation?
In short, I don't see internal consistency within your argument. Either everybody including seniors are entitled to "subsidized" healthcare, or nobody is.
Not that I necessarily disagree with you, but if you are 65 or older, 'regular' health insurance companies simply won't cover you. Seniors don't get any private options. Since there was no health insurance available, the government stepped in.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cheese Elemental wrote:but it's the responsibility of developed nations to help those less fortunate.
What? It's the responsibility of developed nations? Really?
And I suppose since the developed nations have to do this, they get to do it any way they see fit?
Paradoxically, the wall wasn't a fully effective line of defense. Various invaders managed to breach the barrier. Every sentry was a potential weak spot, because sentries could be bribed. In the mid-1600s at a well-fortified mountain pass near the Yellow Sea, a turncoat general simply let Manchu horse soldiers ride through. The invaders marched into Beijing, established a new dynasty, and did no further work on the Great Wall -- which had, after all, failed to hinder their invasion. During the next three centuries, much of the wall crumbled or was overgrown.
"Great idea of China" number one... and after all of that blood, sweat, and tears... it still failed . Quite an epic failure though.
Cheese Elemental wrote:but it's the responsibility of developed nations to help those less fortunate.
What? It's the responsibility of developed nations? Really?
And I suppose since the developed nations have to do this, they get to do it any way they see fit?
Stuff that in your pipe and smoke it.
I hardly see how shooting anyone who tries to enter America looking for a better life is helping them.
They're humans too.
It saves them the trauma of being harassed for being illegal, Mexican, too fat, too skinny; whatever gak people will come up with to make fun of that person because he is not of this country.
I really honestly don't see why people from Mexico can't just enter like normal. So you stand in line for 30 minutes trying to explain why you should be allowed to enter. It's akin to standing in line at the theatre. You will eventually get in but you might miss the previews.
Cheese Elemental wrote:I hardly see how shooting anyone who tries to enter America looking for a better life is helping them.
They're humans too.
Ahhh...
I see. So developed nations have no say whatsoever. We are supposed to open our borders, wallets, homes, hospitals, insurance, social programs, etc. to potentially an unlimited amount of people at their whim and get nothing in return.
Wow. It's all so clear to me now.
You left a small but important word out of your sentence there.
Of course The Great Wall failed a lot. It was a wall built across the top half of a nation that lasted for thousands of years. You can't keep out an empire that has gone to war with you by building a wall around your country's borders.
Overall it was quite a success though. Primarily as a means of turning back small raiding parties, and serving as a forewarning against most large attacks. It was never going to be the perfect defense, that's simply not possible. However, the fact that the wall was maintained and rebuilt into the 17th century proves that it was a good investment overall.
Fateweaver wrote:I really honestly don't see why people from Mexico can't just enter like normal. So you stand in line for 30 minutes trying to explain why you should be allowed to enter. It's akin to standing in line at the theatre. You will eventually get in but you might miss the previews.
If they do that, the employers would have to follow a few rules though... damn, that would be terrible.
Orkeosaurus wrote:However, the fact that the wall was maintained and rebuilt into the 17th century proves that it was a good investment overall.
The amount of energy required to tackle such a task is simply mindboggling to me. The Great Wall is no more or less effective at stopping invaders than the Pyramids were to immortalizing the Egyptians. We remember both for many reasons, accomplishing immortality (different ways for each culture) was simply not done. Big balls break walls, and the big balls that broke that wall, were not all that big after all.
There are a thousand better ways to defend against small bands of invaders, a super giant wall that costs enormous amounts of effort and supplies, in no way being chief among them. If anything the best effect provided by the wall, was a pretty false sense of security, and "national" unity.
That doesn't mean the Great Wall wasn't an effective one. As I said, it was never going to hold back invading armies. What it did was stop raiders from coming through.
China had an enormous amount of effort and supplies to put into such projects. How else do you expect to stop raiders from getting in? Standing armies? They have to be able to react fast enough, to stop the horses from breaking through their lines. Watch towers? A necessity, but something already built into the wall. There would need to be a line of towers across the border in any situation, so connecting the towers with a wall is hardly unreasonable.
The Wall was also an added protection against invasion during the civil wars of ancient China. A standing army could easily be recalled from the border to be used against the commander's enemies, but at least the wall won't turn (although if it doesn't have any sentries, it still won't be doing much, it takes less soldiers to man a wall than defeat the same enemy in an open field).
Of course, a sense of national security (false or not) was also part of it. The Mandate of Heaven made it hard to hold on to power a lot of the time, acting weak in the face of outsiders wasn't going to help.
I agree with the notion that the Great Wall was effective to some degree.
This I say with consideration that China has never been very into the whole tactical efficiency thing. Sometimes if you need a chicken pot pie, but all you have is rice... well... anyone want some rice?
*Wrex prepares for the committee of you are being totally and unacceptably racist to enter*
I like rice... but a chicken pot pie simply is not composed of such a material.
One last thing to add is the technological superiority that China toted (for a while at least) in terms of weaponry. With the right kind of weapons, no amount of skirmish raiders could have had an impact on the country at large. The mongolians used scare tactics that could have easily been turned right back on them. Building layers of walls around important pieces of land, then backing that up with the use of rather advanced weaponry would have put a very solid defense in place. Keeping them out of the country was not the problem, the problem was keeping them out of the goods, which is all they wanted in the first place.
Taking a look through the designs that were presented, I can safely say that no amount of short ranged skirmish-oriented raiders would have stood a chance whatsoever.
Man, I love this stuff though.
Seriously though, the designs behind this stuff have managed to change very little, yet they still carry a sincere scare factor. Running a squad of horsback archers through a forest lined with scouts and firecracker traps, would have sent the smarter raiders packing. Anything that got through could have been taken care of with ranged weaponry, and horseback spearmen. When you have a large squad of spears running straight at you, while being scared shiteless by firecrackers, and being thinned out with high powered "guns", there is a very low tactical advantage left. You have some short bows (some of the best in the world, but short bows nonetheless), and they have some guns... no contest.
Fateweaver wrote:
I really honestly don't see why people from Mexico can't just enter like normal. So you stand in line for 30 minutes trying to explain why you should be allowed to enter. It's akin to standing in line at the theatre. You will eventually get in but you might miss the previews.
Legal immigration to the United states, from Mexico, for unskilled laborers is actually really hard, to the extent of being impossible without family in the US. We don't issue a lot of work visas for unskilled labor, because in theory we have no shortage of labor here.
Most of the workers that are illegally here dont' really want to stay here, they want to earn some money and then go home.
As for why they enter illegally? They have no trouble finding work, at pay rates far above what they can make in Mexico.
Wrexasaur wrote:One last thing to add is the technological superiority that China toted (for a while at least) in terms of weaponry. With the right kind of weapons, no amount of skirmish raiders could have had an impact on the country at large. The mongolians used scare tactics that could have easily been turned right back on them. Building layers of walls around important pieces of land, then backing that up with the use of rather advanced weaponry would have put a very solid defense in place. Keeping them out of the country was not the problem, the problem was keeping them out of the goods, which is all they wanted in the first place.
That's still a hell of a lot of walls to build. Raider can come for crops, what's stored in homes, what livestock is around, what trader are currently on the move, etc. I'm sure many communities had defenses of their own, even with the Great Wall, but you can't put a wall around everything. Eventually that's going to be more distance than putting one across the border, and it certainly won't have the support of one continuous wall. Say your city's wall is surrounded; there's no way to get help. The Great Wall had it's own system of communication towers.
Taking a look through the designs that were presented, I can safely say that no amount of short ranged skirmish-oriented raiders would have stood a chance whatsoever.
No small skirmishing force was going to stand up against the numbers of the Chinese army at any rate, though. The problem is the raiders weren't about to get into a pitched battle if they could help it.
Seriously though, the designs behind this stuff have managed to change very little, yet they still carry a sincere scare factor. Running a squad of horsback archers through a forest lined with scouts and firecracker traps, would have sent the smarter raiders packing. Anything that got through could have been taken care of with ranged weaponry, and horseback spearmen. When you have a large squad of spears running straight at you, while being scared shiteless by firecrackers, and being thinned out with high powered "guns", there is a very low tactical advantage left. You have some short bows (some of the best in the world, but short bows nonetheless), and they have some guns... no contest.
I don't think Mongolia and Manchuria are especially well forested. This was a lot of windsept plains and steppes. And as I said, it's better to have some of your soldiers build a wall than all of your soldiers stand guard. It's simply not viable to have massive deployments of troops guarding the entire border. Spreading out a smaller amount of troops would lead to any enemy being able to break right through their lines. Stationing troops in barracks ready to respond to threats isn't going to work when your enemy can just gallop past your garrison before you've even got your horses ready.
Plus, most of the work on the Great Wall was done by soldiers. Building fortifications is going to do a lot more for them than some extra training will, so there was going to be a wall of some sort no matter what. The Chinese just decided to make it's construction more of a national priority. If you're going to have massive amounts of soldiers stationed there, they're going to have tons of spare time. Criminals were common as well, and there's only so much you can do with lots of unskilled, supervised labor.
Also, seriously you guys, stop fighting over illegal immigration in the Great Wall of China thread.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Also, seriously you guys, stop fighting over illegal immigration in the Great Wall of China thread.
... indeed.
This is a very interesting topic, but the parallels between the Great Wall, and our current dilemma are a bit sparse; not nonexistent, but certainly obtuse in many ways. This, I will admit. I am of the frame of mind that the Wall stood for an idea, rather than a serious defense, as per it's conceptual intentions. I suppose it would have worked wonders at first, but as history shows, it's efficiency declined with a pretty rapid succession of failures towards the end of it's use. I take that to be indicative of it's need for maintenance, and in turn it's ultimately unrealistic implementations; rather than it's ultimate success given various factors.
So we can get a bit back OT, I will post this clip, which I found to be relatively clear in terms of the intentions that the hardliner Dems are now trying to push.
I still see no problem with these individuals being able to chip into the system at large, especially when the main point behind anti-illegals is the fact that they are (in some ways) siphoning off of our economy. Yet again, I do take this to be a failure of "our people", rather than an invasion of "their people". If people wanted to compete with such economically efficient workers, they would do so; but expecting us to compete at what I see as an Olympic level of work ethic in many cases, is just ludicrous to me... absolutely ludicrous.
After many years of keeping illegals out (man this is going to be ridiculously complicated to actually do...) we may see an upsurge of people fighting with sincere focus, to get the jobs that a lot of (as in most of) illegals are "taking" from us. I will not lie, after many years of hard labor, I have no interest whatsoever in fighting against someone that is better than me at something that I was never that interested in doing from the get go. I love doing labor, and I say this sincerely; what I do not love, is having to break my back to make what I see as (and what literally is in my area) preposterously low amounts of income to live off of. Living off of minimum wage is truly and legitimately difficult in most areas. Living off of a few dollars more, doing work that taxes me by sheer demand of my employer, risks my health and well being and furthermore, place me in a position of no options in terms of other long-term careers; this... is insanity.
Call me mountain-man, because I am thinking about bear hunting with a bowie knife... oh man... the fact that this sounds like good times... well... that is a bad sign .
sourclams wrote:The source of illegal immigration is unscrupulous business practices that profit off of cheap labor. In the depths of the '08 Recession when the Dow was lurking around 7k looking to head to 5k, we actually had emigration discovered analogously by the impact on the Mexican economy; the income sent from the U.S. to Mexico by migrant labor declined to the point where it had an impact on domestic consumer spending within Mexico. With a poor job market, migrant workers had no need to be here and shifted back across the border.
Eliminate the jobs by enforcing labor laws and you remove the demand for illegal immigrant labor.
Of course, your cost of services increases accordingly when you have to get teenagers to be janitors for $12 an hour.
Personally, I turn a blind eye to such things and quietly profit off of my cheaper cost of living. I can see why you'd take the moral high road and pay more out of your pocket to have a nation that felt like your own, though.
I have no problem with that. In fact I have been pushing for tougher enforcement for years. I am a staunch adherent to the idea of the rule of law, and this is a blatant disregard for it.
dogma wrote:I think that's a bit hyperbolic, but it is certainly a significant issue. Though I suspect that my reasons for believing that are significantly different from yours.
That's because you live in Yanktopia! I really don't see it as hyperbolic at all. It transcends almost all of the issues that any sovereign nation has to face. Security, economics, budgetary constraints, drug and human trafficking, etc. are all problems that stem from immense illegal immigration.
Cheese Elemental wrote:Ever considered what it's like for the illegals trying to escape the terrible conditions in their countries? It's saddening to see that such bloodthirsty and arrogant barbarians still exist in such a civilised nation.
They should at least be given a modicum of kindness and respect. They don't have to be let into your country, but it's the responsibility of developed nations to help those less fortunate. Hell, I think America should out Mexico's government and take charge. That way, you wouldn't have to worry about illegals, and conditions would greatly improve.
I am sure FW is being a bit overly dramatic, if only to make a joke. I wouldn't have a problem with illegals coming here if they: A)actually took the legal route to get here (but this is going to require immigration reform, but the DP won't touch that for political reasons), B) They learned to speak English, if only for the sake of efficiency. I mean FFS there are tons of free ESL courses to be had, C)Didn't send the majority of their money out of country, and D)Act like they deserve so much from the American people. If you have ever seen the disgusting affair known as a Mexican Pride Parade, you would know what I mean....
JEB_Stuart wrote:I wouldn't have a problem with illegals coming here if they: A)actually took the legal route to get here (but this is going to require immigration reform, but the DP won't touch that for political reasons), B) They learned to speak English, if only for the sake of efficiency. I mean FFS there are tons of free ESL courses to be had, C)Didn't send the majority of their money out of country, and D)Act like they deserve so much from the American people. If you have ever seen the disgusting affair known as a Mexican Pride Parade, you would know what I mean....
I am interested in the numbers behind the assertion that most of the "illegals income" is being filtered directly (essentially that is) into the Mexican economy. Overall, I would think (out of common sense) that the majority of economic osmosis is being done at a corporate level, including many of the high-paying, degree having jobs being "taken" by legal immigrants.
I do agree entirely that, if you cannot speak English... GET THE FETH OUT OF THE BOOTH AND LEARN IT GODDAMIT!!! I JUST WANT SOME GAS!!! GODDAMIT!!!
imweasel wrote:I think conservatives want health care reform. One that will work.
Conservatives had control of both houses of congress and the executive, and did nothing. Didn't even float the idea. The idea that they want meaningful reform is formed out of nothing.
imweasel wrote:Not that I necessarily disagree with you, but if you are 65 or older, 'regular' health insurance companies simply won't cover you. Seniors don't get any private options. Since there was no health insurance available, the government stepped in.
Yes, when people do not have access to private healthcare it is necessary for government to step in. It was a good thing when government stepped in to provide healthcare to the elderly in the form of medicare.
Now that they are stepping in to ensure healthcare is provided to the millions who are presently uninsured, it is also a good thing.
Wrexasaur wrote:This is a very interesting topic, but the parallels between the Great Wall, and our current dilemma are a bit sparse; not nonexistent, but certainly obtuse in many ways. This, I will admit.
I agree, I don't really think they're related.
I am of the frame of mind that the Wall stood for an idea, rather than a serious defense, as per it's conceptual intentions. I suppose it would have worked wonders at first, but as history shows, it's efficiency declined with a pretty rapid succession of failures towards the end of it's use. I take that to be indicative of it's need for maintenance, and in turn it's ultimately unrealistic implementations; rather than it's ultimate success given various factors.
Well, I think there were certainly points at which the wall was given too much significance. Qin's original wall sort of sucked (made from piled dirt, wood, corpses, and crumbling bricks), and was probably something of ego trip for him. There were also points in time when large amounts of farmers were called from the fields to help rebuild it, and that seems like it would usually be a bad idea (as Mao learned too, eventually).
I think it was good investment for most of its lifetime, though. Eventually it became obsolete, but so did castles; that doesn't mean they weren't useful for most of their lifetime.
Point A would make them legal so I'd have no problem with that, B would definitely be nice (I mean, you gonna live here and leec- I mean contribute to the system at least speak our language), C would be nice...going to be here, contribute to the country you live in somewhat by spending money here, not just living off the free care and gak we provide and sending the $30/week you make back home to wife and 6 kids, and D coincides with C.
I guess I'm too much a nationalist to really be concerned with other countries welfare. Our new overlords are so worried about sticking their noses into what should be a state issue (health care) instead of worrying about the economy.
Poverty at 13.2 percent, highest it's been in 11 years and the Dems are worried about enforcing and making everyone able to buy health care do so.
Let's unfeth the US economy and then worry about HCR. Oh wait, that would probably not happen until the end of Osamas (see what I did there) term in office and would mean he didn't keep a promise to the American people.
Our new overlords have their priorities backwards. With 13% (and rising) of the populace in poverty how the hell is HCR going to work? It'll be the same damn thing we have now with those able to afford it supporting those who can't, just on a Federal level and not a State level.
Our new administration was Epic fail from the start.
JEB_Stuart wrote:That's because you live in Yanktopia! I really don't see it as hyperbolic at all. It transcends almost all of the issues that any sovereign nation has to face. Security, economics, budgetary constraints, drug and human trafficking, etc. are all problems that stem from immense illegal immigration.
Illegal immigration contributes to all of those issues, though obviously not to the same degree in each case, but it doesn't give rise to any of them.
If only we had the sense to deal with the mobility of the labor pool when we negotiated NAFTA.
Fateweaver wrote:Poverty at 13.2 percent, highest it's been in 11 years and the Dems are worried about enforcing and making everyone able to buy health care do so.
Umm, access to healthcare is a pretty key issue to defining poverty.
that would probably not happen until the end of Osamas (see what I did there)
Dude, seriously, you have race issues.
Our new overlords have their priorities backwards. With 13% (and rising) of the populace in poverty how the hell is HCR going to work? It'll be the same damn thing we have now with those able to afford it supporting those who can't, just on a Federal level and not a State level.
Access to medicare is access to preventative care. This is considerably cheaper than being denied healthcare until it develops into an emergency and forces admission into ER. You won't lose your insurance because you were defined into having a pre-existing condition.
Those are some serious changes. Nowhere near enough, but a move in the right direction.
sebster wrote:Dude, seriously, you have race issues.
Buddy... friend, pal-mate-dude... seriously with the nonsense. If this is true, it does not matter, if it is not true it does not matter. I aim high, and shoot low; you on the other hand seem to take the stance as such, then drop a bomb the other way.
You... asked someone if they spoke english as a first language recently... and yes, Wrex will totally rip you up for doing so and so forth, forthwith, and furthermore.
Race is a lie... a blatant and obvious frakking lie. You are not part of a race, nor is anyone else, so your comments taken in context are irrelevant on many many many levels; as are the opposition. This, in a nutshell is why I maintain a level of respect for President Obamas administration; they take that route that none shall pass, but none shall know. Mistakes involving the beers and the sorry I was thinking about the time... totally and utterly aside with the pettiness and the having of the mishandled weapon aside... totally ASIDE!!!
Get it? Asinine with the having of it at the time and the place with the thing at that one... thing... with the... lost it...
I have anti-idiot issues. Osa, I mean Obamas skin color has nothing to do with the fact that he is blowing hot air.
Let me clear it up. feth the damn HCR bill right now. Our new overlords should be worrying about getting people on their feet, not worrying about who should or shouldn't get health care or how much to fine people or imprison them for if they don't get it.....
Is it clear to you now Seb? I'd maybe not be so critical of HCR if I wasn't weeks away from being on the street due to UI running out and nobody on the Federal level helping me out. The new 13 week extension doesn't apply to my state because it is only 6.8% unemployment rate. Too low to fall into the 13 week extension bill so 1'000s of people in my state will end up in welfare line or on the street.
Now is that more or less important than subsidized health care on the federal level? I don't frakking think so.
Wrexasaur wrote:Buddy... friend, pal-mate-dude... seriously with the nonsense. If this is true, it does not matter, if it is not true it does not matter. I aim high, and shoot low; you on the other hand seem to take the stance as such, then drop a bomb the other way.
Except that, if true, it does matter. If unexamined or subconscious racial ideas are helping form their political views, how does that not matter in a thread where those political views are being discussed?
You... asked someone if they spoke english as a first language recently... and yes, Wrex will totally rip you up for doing so and so forth, forthwith, and furthermore.
Yeah, I did. In another forum, a long time back, there was a fellow who mistook a number of statements in threads, and I would challenge him on them. In another thread a fellow made fun of him for posting about 'Irak', which he then pointed out was the French way of spelling Iraq, and that English was his second language. It seemed to me John was making mistakes similar to that guy, so I asked the question.
Race is a lie... a blatant and obvious frakking lie. You are not part of a race, nor is anyone else, so your comments taken in context are irrelevant on many many many levels; as are the opposition. This, in a nutshell is why I maintain a level of respect for President Obamas administration; they take that route that none shall pass, but none shall know. Mistakes involving the beers and the sorry I was thinking about the time... totally and utterly aside with the pettiness and the having of the mishandled weapon aside... totally ASIDE!!!
Race is a lie, but racial issues exist. It doesn't have to be posting on Stormfront about the superiority of the white race, or wailing about how the White government invented AIDS to kill blacks in Africa. It might be as simple as accepting an obviously story about only white people having to purchase insurance in Minnesota.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fateweaver wrote:I have anti-idiot issues. Osa, I mean Obamas skin color has nothing to do with the fact that he is blowing hot air.
You may have anti-idiot issues, but you don't just mention things you think are stupid. Instead, you swap Obama's name with Osama, and you keep mentioning his middle name.
Dude, at some point someone told you that only white people had to buy car insurance in Minnesota, and you believed it. It is one of the most ridiculous claims possible, but you didn't think 'that seems outrageous but somewhat unlikely, I'll either ignore that or I'll go verify it personally', you believed it and repeated it.
People accept things more readily if they fit with their preconceived notions. You seem to believe you're not racist, and that's cool, so maybe you need to take some time to yourself to think about why you accepted that ridiculous statement at face value?
Is it clear to you now Seb? I'd maybe not be so critical of HCR if I wasn't weeks away from being on the street due to UI running out and nobody on the Federal level helping me out. The new 13 week extension doesn't apply to my state because it is only 6.8% unemployment rate. Too low to fall into the 13 week extension bill so 1'000s of people in my state will end up in welfare line or on the street.
Your opinions have always been pretty clear. It's a pretty straight up approach to walking around an issue, finding something else that's more important, and then assuming that you can't do both. As I pointed out above, poverty and healthcare is not an either/or situation, the two are quite closely related.
sebster wrote:Race is a lie, but racial issues exist. It doesn't have to be posting on Stormfront about the superiority of the white race, or wailing about how the White government invented AIDS to kill blacks in Africa. It might be as simple as accepting an obviously story about only white people having to purchase insurance in Minnesota.
True, but I would say that issues exist, regardless of race or ethinicity. "Racial issues" is a hot button topic, and is only backed up by the conception that race is the cause of such issues.
There will always be problems, but attributing them to a fictitious ideals of generalization, does little more than fan the flames that burns not, but the fire that feeds them.
dogma wrote:So, it was a mistake to elect Obama because the things he wants to do aren't easy?
Just ask him what the realistic alternative was already... geez. A douche a turd sandwich... not much of an freaking option there really. I do not mean sort of really (whatever the frak that means), I mean really. Now... we can start to get into the real problems that we face.
So if it's such a bogus statement than how come when my mom got into an accident 16 years ago, the other lady was NA and had no car insurance but did not spend one day in jail because she had no goddamn car insurance? I'm pretty sure that if she was legally required to have it she would have spent time in jail for driving without it OR maybe, just maybe she was supposed to have it but due to her nationality they weren't going to do anything?
I give up. You Obamaites seem to think he is up on a higher plain than the Lord God Almighty. If in 3 weeks time I'm standing in the welfare line to apply for it and I knew who you were and what you looked like and you tried to spout the same rhetoric about how I should be happy because I can get health care for free because I'm carless, homeless and jobless I'd punch your goddamn teeth down your throat.
Seriously, put down the Kool-aid and look at the current issue. If you need help seeing it I can spell it out. 13% P-O-V-E-R-T-Y in the U-S-of-A.
Tell me with a straight face that Obama is doing the right thing by ignoring the fact that millions are jobless in the country, with no relief in sight, 10's of 1'000's more have lost their cars and homes and are eating down at soup kitchens all so he can push his agenda regarding this bs health care bill.
If he was really the good president the left-wingers claim him to be he'd put the HCR Bill on the back burner, grab a pen and some paper, and write up a new Bill extending benefits for at least another 6 months. The damn Fed. gov't has billions to throw away to AIG it can throw that same amount (actually alot less than 80+B) to helping the people he supposed to care so much about, the people who put him where he is, to get back on their feet and out of the welfare lines.
Fateweaver wrote:Seriously, put down the Kool-aid and look at the current issue. If you need help seeing it I can spell it out. 13% P-O-V-E-R-T-Y in the U-S-of-A.
If that is all you need to say (and "know" for that matter), just... freaking... say it. Simple right? ... or not.
Fateweaver wrote:So if it's such a bogus statement than how come when my mom got into an accident 16 years ago, the other lady was NA and had no car insurance but did not spend one day in jail because she had no goddamn car insurance?
Because it isn't an offense which generally results in jail time?
So, it was a mistake to elect Obama because the things he wants to do aren't easy?
What the hell is he doing? You have to be doing something to have a hard time doing it. Even some of the damned Democratic Senators in some of the States that he won electoral votes in are getting pissed and fed up with his song and dance. When even other Dems are starting to question his ability to come up with a HCR Bill that is going to work and isn't going to sink this country further into debt he obviously isn't doing what he promised.
Again, I'll spell it in plain English. I do not give a rats ass about insurance right now. Even with coverage I could not afford the deductible if something majorly bad happened to me. I get the last of my UI in 2 days, I pay rent. That leaves me with $50 to live on until I find a job. So please, oh great one, tell me how Obama is going to help me now? Is he going to write me a check for $10,000 so I can live and eat and have a roof over my head for the next 6 months?
In 2 weeks my car gets repossessed and my auto insurance will get canceled. Again, tell me why this HCR Bill is so damned important to me. Wow so I can get coverage if I get swine flu. Big deal. Had I not lost my job I could pay cash out of my pocket for a 15 min visit to have Doc. Quacknuts tell me I have a flu, give me a shot and send me home. If I fall and get hurt on my property that is what my property insurance is for. I get into an accident and something gets broken my car insurance covers me. So tell me again why I need to worry about insurance that will most likely not pertain to me unless I have a stroke or heart attack?
Such ignorance. Have some more Obama brand Kool-aid. Oh Yeah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Fateweaver, you seem to be very bitter towards Obama about your personal situation.
Would it be any different under the Republicans? I don't follow American politics very closely (not when ours are so damn interesting... especially in recent times), but as I understand it the Republicans didn't care much for people in your situation.
Fateweaver wrote:So if it's such a bogus statement than how come when my mom got into an accident 16 years ago, the other lady was NA and had no car insurance but did not spend one day in jail because she had no goddamn car insurance?
Because it isn't an offense which generally results in jail time?
* Fines can range between $250 and $1,000, with up to 90 days in jail.
* License suspension or revocation may also be part of the penalty for driving with no proof of insurance, although you may be able to avoid this if you can obtain a valid insurance policy before your court date.
Taken from the Insurance Law statutes for Mn. The lady had neither done to her. So insurance not needed because of skin color or preferential treatment because of skin color? You decide.
Fateweaver wrote:So if it's such a bogus statement than how come when my mom got into an accident 16 years ago, the other lady was NA and had no car insurance but did not spend one day in jail because she had no goddamn car insurance? I'm pretty sure that if she was legally required to have it she would have spent time in jail for driving without it OR maybe, just maybe she was supposed to have it but due to her nationality they weren't going to do anything?
That's it? 16 years ago your Mum got hit by a non-white who wasn't insured and she didn't go to jail, so you decided that there must be some law extending to all non-whites? Nothing about a judge giving leniancy to possible extreme circumstances, or anything like that. Seriously, you need to spend some time thinking about how you see race.
What's NA?
I give up. You Obamaites seem to think he is up on a higher plain than the Lord God Almighty. If in 3 weeks time I'm standing in the welfare line to apply for it and I knew who you were and what you looked like and you tried to spout the same rhetoric about how I should be happy because I can get health care for free because I'm carless, homeless and jobless I'd punch your goddamn teeth down your throat.
I'm not an Obamaite. I think he's a reasonable politician hamstrung by the generally confused, compromised mess that is the Democrat party. It's a better option than the GOP, but still a pretty crap party. I suspect you've only assumed I'm an Obamaite so that you can dismiss me and carry on complaining about whatever you want to complain about.
I think healthcare reform is a good thing. I also think that US welfare is pretty poor, depending on the state of course, and think reform is badly needed. I think it is disgraceful that you can run out of welfare.
But poverty and healthcare are not mutually exclusive. I mean, if you're worried about Obama spending too much time on the wrong things, shouldn't you be worrying about the time spent in Israel before you worried about the time spent in reforming healthcare?
Seriously, put down the Kool-aid and look at the current issue. If you need help seeing it I can spell it out. 13% P-O-V-E-R-T-Y in the U-S-of-A.
Tell me with a straight face that Obama is doing the right thing by ignoring the fact that millions are jobless in the country, with no relief in sight, 10's of 1'000's more have lost their cars and homes and are eating down at soup kitchens all so he can push his agenda regarding this bs health care bill.
If he was really the good president the left-wingers claim him to be he'd put the HCR Bill on the back burner, grab a pen and some paper, and write up a new Bill extending benefits for at least another 6 months. The damn Fed. gov't has billions to throw away to AIG it can throw that same amount (actually alot less than 80+B) to helping the people he supposed to care so much about, the people who put him where he is, to get back on their feet and out of the welfare lines.
Is that too damn much to ask Seb? Is it?
I think there should have been substantially more infrastructure investment in the stimulus package, and that it should have been put through much sooner. I don't put the blame for that at Obama's feet, both sides of both houses of congress did more than enough to delay the bill and replace useful measures with pork. The final bill was still worthwhile, but it could have helped out so much more.
And again, I think it is disgraceful that unemployment can run out in the US. But that is not related to the idea that it is also disgraceful that people can be medically uninsured.
Cheese Elemental wrote:Fateweaver, you seem to be very bitter towards Obama about your personal situation.
Would it be any different under the Republicans? I don't follow American politics very closely (not when ours are so damn interesting... especially in recent times), but as I understand it the Republicans didn't care much for people in your situation.
It was my Republican governor who got a bill passed requiring Mn to extend it's state benefits.
So yes, I think if it was McCain in office he'd be worrying about the economy before worrying about HCR. Can't prove it but neither can you disprove it.
That's it? 16 years ago your Mum got hit by a non-white who wasn't insured and she didn't go to jail, so you decided that there must be some law extending to all non-whites? Nothing about a judge giving leniancy to possible extreme circumstances, or anything like that. Seriously, you need to spend some time thinking about how you see race.
What's NA?
You are supposed to automatically have your license suspended as well. The lady was at fault, had no insurance, totaled my moms car and I suffered cracked ribs for it as she t-boned my side of the car and yet not so much as a fine. I know the law hasn't changed in that amount of time regarding insurance in Mn. So, tell me again why you think she got off with nothing. NA = Native American.
Fateweaver wrote:
What the hell is he doing? You have to be doing something to have a hard time doing it.
Managing a developed nation? Trying to pass a bill on healthcare reform? Dealing with foreign policy issues? There's a pretty long list of political activities that could go here.
Fateweaver wrote:
Even some of the damned Democratic Senators in some of the States that he won electoral votes in are getting pissed and fed up with his song and dance. When even other Dems are starting to question his ability to come up with a HCR Bill that is going to work and isn't going to sink this country further into debt he obviously isn't doing what he promised.
Actually, thus far, he's done almost exactly what he promised in the course of the campaign.
Fateweaver wrote:
Again, I'll spell it in plain English. I do not give a rats ass about insurance right now. Even with coverage I could not afford the deductible if something majorly bad happened to me. I get the last of my UI in 2 days, I pay rent. That leaves me with $50 to live on until I find a job.
That's really unfortunate, and I'm sorry, but I don't see how it connects to healthcare.
Fateweaver wrote:
In 2 weeks my car gets repossessed and my auto insurance will get canceled. Again, tell me why this HCR Bill is so damned important to me.
It isn't, but you clearly feel its important enough o engage in extended conversations about it. Honestly, it seems like you're just using this as a way to express general anger with respect to your situation.
Fateweaver wrote:
Such ignorance. Have some more Obama brand Kool-aid. Oh Yeah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Fateweaver wrote:What the hell is he doing? You have to be doing something to have a hard time doing it. Even some of the damned Democratic Senators in some of the States that he won electoral votes in are getting pissed and fed up with his song and dance. When even other Dems are starting to question his ability to come up with a HCR Bill that is going to work and isn't going to sink this country further into debt he obviously isn't doing what he promised.
Again, I'll spell it in plain English. I do not give a rats ass about insurance right now. Even with coverage I could not afford the deductible if something majorly bad happened to me. I get the last of my UI in 2 days, I pay rent. That leaves me with $50 to live on until I find a job. So please, oh great one, tell me how Obama is going to help me now? Is he going to write me a check for $10,000 so I can live and eat and have a roof over my head for the next 6 months?
In 2 weeks my car gets repossessed and my auto insurance will get canceled. Again, tell me why this HCR Bill is so damned important to me. Wow so I can get coverage if I get swine flu. Big deal. Had I not lost my job I could pay cash out of my pocket for a 15 min visit to have Doc. Quacknuts tell me I have a flu, give me a shot and send me home. If I fall and get hurt on my property that is what my property insurance is for. I get into an accident and something gets broken my car insurance covers me. So tell me again why I need to worry about insurance that will most likely not pertain to me unless I have a stroke or heart attack?
Such ignorance. Have some more Obama brand Kool-aid. Oh Yeah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dude, what you're doing here is pointing out that Obama's political priority right now is not specifically Fateweaver, and then being outraged about that. And then calling us ignorant for not also being outraged that Obama's priority right now is something other than Fateweaver.
I understand you must be under a lot of pressure right now, but railing against Obama or the rest of us posters on this board isn't going to change that.
Cheese Elemental wrote:Fateweaver, you seem to be very bitter towards Obama about your personal situation.
Would it be any different under the Republicans? I don't follow American politics very closely (not when ours are so damn interesting... especially in recent times), but as I understand it the Republicans didn't care much for people in your situation.
It was my Republican governor who got a bill passed requiring Mn to extend it's state benefits.
So yes, I think if it was McCain in office he'd be worrying about the economy before worrying about HCR. Can't prove it but neither can you disprove it.
Fair enough. Won't follow this through, I've had enough OT today.
Fateweaver wrote:
* Fines can range between $250 and $1,000, with up to 90 days in jail.
* License suspension or revocation may also be part of the penalty for driving with no proof of insurance, although you may be able to avoid this if you can obtain a valid insurance policy before your court date.
Taken from the Insurance Law statutes for Mn. The lady had neither done to her. So insurance not needed because of skin color or preferential treatment because of skin color? You decide.
Honestly, I don't believe you. My guess is that you're glossing over what you felt was an insufficient punishment, or assuming that the lack of notification with respect to her punishment is tacit to the absence of punishment. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but I know Minnesota law requires all vehicles to carry a minimum level of insurance, regardless of how you're specific example played out.
Whatever dogma, I get called racist when reverse racism is blatantly rubbed in my face every day by my own State so don't get me started.
Regarding Obama HCR issue. I'm not whining about me. His priorities are fethed up and anyone preaching to me about how he is doing the right thing cannot see the forest for it's trees.
If he really wanted to help America he'd focus his time on the increase in poverty and it's continued rise (because it sure as hell isn't going to decline) and fix that. I'm sorry that so many who aren't facing what I'm facing can't see how bullgak this whole deal is.
Go on and think this is about me, I don't give a damn and if I offended anyone of color or creed or political affiliation than that is too damn bad. I honestly don't care.
Have a good day ladies and gentleman. I'm done with this thread.
dogma wrote:I didn't even support Obama in my post.
I didn't even vote for Obama... erm... in my post.
sebster wrote:I understand you must be under a lot of pressure right now, but railing against Obama or the rest of us posters on this board isn't going to change that.
Their are an awful lot of people in the same socioeconomic condition he is (generally of course), and in fact that boat is sinking, and some of the points he is making, do make a lot of sense. But, as a wise man once told me... "Just because Glenn Beck says a few point that make sense, has no bearing on the fact that he is totally wrong and extremely biased on every other point he makes."
Fateweaver wrote:Have a good day ladies and gentleman. I'm done with this thread.
I will reinforce that by saying you are totally not done with this thread...
Hey all, I would really like to see where this discussion goes, but I would rather we all calm down for a sec. Lets stop antagonizing each other, being pedantic, etc. I thought this was shaping into a good discussion, and I would like to avoid getting this thread locked.
Fateweaver wrote:
If he really wanted to help America he'd focus his time on the increase in poverty and it's continued rise (because it sure as hell isn't going to decline) and fix that. I'm sorry that so many who aren't facing what I'm facing can't see how bullgak this whole deal is.
Many, many people in Africa have it far worse than you or anyone else in America.
Fateweaver wrote:You are supposed to automatically have your license suspended as well. The lady was at fault, had no insurance, totaled my moms car and I suffered cracked ribs for it as she t-boned my side of the car and yet not so much as a fine. I know the law hasn't changed in that amount of time regarding insurance in Mn. So, tell me again why you think she got off with nothing.
Your line of thinking, woman deserves greater punishment that was given, woman is Native American, therefore the only possible reason for light punishment is her ethnic background, therefore there must be laws in place that only white people need car insurance... is really strongly indicating you need to do some thinking about your ideas on race.
Is it not possible that the judge was leniant for any of countless other reasons? Courts are very reluctant to seperate young mothers from their children. They will also not give sentences or suspend sentence when the individual has taken steps to remedy the situation.
My family has a history of taking pride in ourselves as human beings, and we don't want someone else to take care of us. If we don't get everything we want then that's just fine. I don't know how else to put it other then the fact that we are incredibly independent.
t.
This sums up what I think.
