Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

[quote=dogma
Nice discussing on some of the issues.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32991346/ns/health-health_care/

I'll find it somewhere regarding the law.

Frazzled wrote:[quote=dogma
Nice discussing on some of the issues.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32991346/ns/health-health_care/

Yeah, some people's benefits will be cut, but they can also be replaced through other programs.

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.

Not if healthcare becomes cheaper.

1. It won't get cheaper. There's no reason for it to get cheaper.
2. Its irrelevant if all the Sr. programs are gutted.

It is cheaper in all other comparable 1st world countries.

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

What if it turns out you have a genetic disease?

Purge the mutant.

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.

dogma wrote:

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.

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.

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:

Orkeosaurus wrote:

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?

Stuff that in your pipe and smoke it.

The Great Wall of China worked out pretty well, actually.

Of course, it was also originally filled with the dead bodies of the people working on it.

imweasel wrote:

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.

Orkeosaurus wrote:The Great Wall of China worked out pretty well, actually.

Of course, it was also originally filled with the dead bodies of the people working on it.

Wait... it did? I must be confused then as to what it's intent actually was...

http://adventure.howstuffworks.com/great-wall-of-china-landmark.htm

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.