Healthcare Reform (Page 6 of 8)

Sorry, I'll post more individual posts.  Also, lick my balls.

Your argument was that the flaw in engaging in contractual agreements for health care reimbursement was that insurance companies would "interpret words".  You implied that the gov't would not do the same thing.   I suggested Roe v. Wade simply as an example of the gov't "interpreting" in a manner far more egregious than any insurance company has ever done.

There are contracts, and we are a nation that holds contract law, and the sanctity of contracts to be very important.  If you feel as if your contract is not being upheld, we have many ways to rectify that.

In the case of the government, do you not think that there is an incentive to get out of paying for expensive procedures?  Do you not think that the government will tend towards giving procedures to persons who will be more productive, or fit a better political message?

Yes I do, to quote "stop being a douche."  Take your own advice for a few minutes.

Support any statement you've made.  Your opinion is worthless unless you can support it.  I'm of the opinion that you like taking loads on the face from HIV positive men...but I can't support it.  That holds the same value as you saying you prefer a socialized system without giving any reason for it.

Totally aware of it, and I didn't need a dictionary to tell me what fungible meant, did you?

Last edited by DIAF (2010-02-26 17:37:13)

First, I'm not arguing for a socialized system. I'm arguing for a Change to something more successful. Second, better or worse is a matter of opinion. For change, we could start with leaving an employer based system. Increasing risk pools would help. Charging system abusers more would be nice. Figuring out why procedures and machines are so much cheaper elsewhere would help. Preventing insurance companies from screwing chronically I'll people would be nice. A lot is needed. Nothing will happen until it's too late though.

Alright, I've been thinking lately about this health care mess.

Any of you remember the Moral Majority?  You know, the label that
supposedly comprised right-wingers who felt they were morally
superior to everyone else and were out to take our freedoms away.

So, I'm looking at the modern Democratic party, Pelosi, Obama, et. al.,
and I'm making the same comparison:  holier-than-thou who "know" what's
right for everyone, "know" their positions are morally superior, and thus
feel empowered to restrict people's freedoms in the name of their
god, whatever that might be.

Honestly, doesn't this topic come to some degree under freedom of
religion?  If this is supposed to be a diverse nation of differing peoples
from many different races, backgrounds, countries, and religions, and
we're supposed to have freedom of religion, why doesn't this also
translate directly into this debate?

Last edited by adoniram7 (2010-03-04 13:10:23)

the O-thority?

Heh.  Bow down to the O-THORITAH! 

(just as he bows down to foreign leaders)

So much for that healthcare summit...  I enjoyed his - I've heard your ideas but I didn't like them so I'm going with the original partisan plan - speech.  Very typical of him.

Oh wait, what I should be saying is... OMGZ HE SHOOD BE IMPECHED!

The problem is that most people don't do that (pay cash for what they need for routine stuff.)  I do, but only a fool would not have health insurance if one has money enough to pay for it (my step-daughter and son-in-law, for example, do not).  Health care insurance should be viewed as "Medical disaster insurance," not "routine nicks & bumps & headaches" insurance - which, for the most part, health insurance is used for.

But you do need "Medical Disaster Insurance."  And if you don't have health care insurance, you can be sure that you will encounter a medical disaster.  Believe it, Murphy was an optimist.  And like every other kind of insurance, it is only useful if you have it before you need it.

And if you don't have it, and somehow survive the medical disaster,  the lingering after effects of the disaster are excluded from future coverage as "pre-Existing conditions."  The fact is that if you are hit by a medical disaster and survive it, the chances that you will have another disaster are markedly increased by the damage inflicted by the first.  Not only that, but the odds that the subsequent disaster will be excluded from future insurance you may purchase as being related to the pre-existing condition.

A similar problem exists if someone drops their health insurance to save money.  Any previously covered problems you have will become pre-existing conditions that are excluded when your finances recover enough for you to feel comfortable purchasing insurance again.

It's bitch; the industry has us by the short and curlies, but it's the world we live in, nonetheless.

Last edited by Unka Bart (2010-03-16 10:27:52)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100316/ap_ … e_overhaul

Because having Barry show up to support your local election has
worked out so well in the past.

That is a sweet pot.

The argument isn't really one of health coverage, nor of what the bill contains -- jus that there IS a bill that effectively moves America Leftward forever.  After that, it is just details that can be tacked onto the back of any bill, just like all the other socialist entitlements.

Virtually all of America is out there arguing whether the bill does this or that better, and they are missing the larger point -- that the bill is designed to take over the largest chunk of our economy not yet in government hands.  That is the whole reason for the bill, and why Leftists are willing to die at the altar to acheive it.

Many have observed this, and I think it is beyond reasonable dispute.

What most people call "healthcare insurance" is no such thing; it is a health plan.

If your car insurance worked the way so much healthcare insurance does, you would have a ten dollar co-pay each time you filled up, and a twenty dollar fee for all repairs.  The market would be screwy.

Um, so they forbid insurance companies to sell across state lines, and then have the audacity to bitch about monopolies forming?  WTF?  If you're so fucking outraged by insurance companies not facing enough competition, how about doing away with YOUR laws that forbid competition, morans?

Qwinn