Now I am going to go out on a limb but in my world 176 + 82 = 258 so that is not a lie...no where did he say that the Democrats have a super majority, he sad they had a 82 seat majority....which is a fact, and really they had 83 being that Bernie Sanders voted in line with the Democrats.
Now I am going to go out on a limb but in my world 176 + 82 = 258 so that is not a lie...no where did he say that the Democrats have a super majority, he sad they had a 82 seat majority....which is a fact, and really they had 83 being that Bernie Sanders voted in line with the Democrats.
258-176 = 82
dur dur dur I am Dave. A man with an idiots brain. Watch me fail at life over and over again. dur dur dur
JSt0rm
Lifer
- Sep 5, 2000
- 27,399
- 3,948
- 126
My argument is that I shouldn't be paying high costs for healthcare based on my health. UHC would help me as a healthy person because I wouldn't have to pay for the unhealthy around me. I wouldn't have to buy a $100 crutch. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough for you. Other seem to have understood my post.
Blah blah blah blah
That's all you guys know
59.xx % does not equal super majority, period
Show me the 60/40 split.
Oh that's right, you can't just as Jan 20 2008 you can't show me a 60/40 split either.
That's all you guys know
59.xx % does not equal super majority, period
Show me the 60/40 split.
Oh that's right, you can't just as Jan 20 2008 you can't show me a 60/40 split either.
Please, don't bother Dave with facts and logic, his two brain cells will get confused again.
The point is that the dems had control at that time and (thankfully) killed UHC. Blaming (or crediting) the repubs with that is stupid.
Dacschle is still an idiot. When the people of MN boot him out even though he gave their state a disproportionate influence in the senate, that should tell you something.
JSt0rm
Lifer
- Sep 5, 2000
- 27,399
- 3,948
- 126
I don't think you are in a position to triage people. My point is that even though some go with sniffles the total cost would go down. Even with the extra people showing up. I'm sure a lot fo you like it the way it is. your companies pay for your health care and its nice. But the reality is its larger then your own benifits
Kirby
Lifer
- Apr 10, 2006
- 12,028
- 2
- 0
Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
My argument is that I shouldn't be paying high costs for healthcare based on my health. UHC would help me as a healthy person because I wouldn't have to pay for the unhealthy around me. I wouldn't have to buy a $100 crutch. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough for you. Other seem to have understood my post.
What do you mean, you wouldn't have to pay for the unhealthy around you? Where the hell do you think the money comes from that pays for those unhealthy fat asses?
By your argument, you should want private healthcare because your premiums would be lower.
JSt0rm
Lifer
- Sep 5, 2000
- 27,399
- 3,948
- 126
Originally posted by: nkgreen
What do you mean, you wouldn't have to pay for the unhealthy around you? Where the hell do you think the money comes from that pays for those unhealthy fat asses?
By your argument, you should want private healthcare because your premiums would be lower.
I see your point. But I disagree. If only 60% have health coverage now the 40% who don't still get emergency care therefore the cost is folded into the 60%. This would become 100% therefore my totals would go down. If I owned a business i would no longer be responsible for the healthcare costs of my employees. Also a for profit business model means that as much as 30% total payed into the system never goes to healthcare it goes to profit. I contend that the layer of bureaucracy created by going UHC is lesser then the layer of bureaucracy now in place.
Now if you are ultra rich you will still have health care above and beyond the normal person. This won't change. Brain cancer? You want to go to cedars and see the specialist that only takes 100k cash? He's still there. The pillow top will still exist with uhc just like it exists in our current system.
Yes except when republicans control it. Then it is allowed to be upto 55 senators and 53% of the house lol.
Originally posted by: nkgreen
Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
My argument is that I shouldn't be paying high costs for healthcare based on my health. UHC would help me as a healthy person because I wouldn't have to pay for the unhealthy around me. I wouldn't have to buy a $100 crutch. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough for you. Other seem to have understood my post.
What do you mean, you wouldn't have to pay for the unhealthy around you? Where the hell do you think the money comes from that pays for those unhealthy fat asses?
By your argument, you should want private healthcare because your premiums would be lower.
This argument seems strange to me. Everyone here knows we already have universal health care, right? Anyone who is sick can walk into an emergency room and be treated regardless of their ability to pay. We just have the absolute worst form of UHC imaginable. We don't allow people who can't pay to get preventative care (which is cheap), we instead require them to wait until they have a serious problem, which is expensive.
Yes, but you're assuming people would actually utilize preventive care. Not all people are rational, esp. fat-assed pizza-eating couch potatoes. The VA used to offer free healthcare to all vets, regardless of whether the condition for which the care was sought was related to military service. They've drastically cut back on that, for reasons which you would probably find interesting.
Kirby
Lifer
- Apr 10, 2006
- 12,028
- 2
- 0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: nkgreen
Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
My argument is that I shouldn't be paying high costs for healthcare based on my health. UHC would help me as a healthy person because I wouldn't have to pay for the unhealthy around me. I wouldn't have to buy a $100 crutch. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough for you. Other seem to have understood my post.
What do you mean, you wouldn't have to pay for the unhealthy around you? Where the hell do you think the money comes from that pays for those unhealthy fat asses?
By your argument, you should want private healthcare because your premiums would be lower.
This argument seems strange to me. Everyone here knows we already have universal health care, right? Anyone who is sick can walk into an emergency room and be treated regardless of their ability to pay. We just have the absolute worst form of UHC imaginable. We don't allow people who can't pay to get preventative care (which is cheap), we instead require them to wait until they have a serious problem, which is expensive.
I'm not arguing one way or the other. I realize I'm going to get reamed regardless of who pays.
I don't know enough about the health care industry to have an informed opinion, but I do know how the government works, and I don't like that either.
I'm like most people, plenty of criticism, with no solution.
JSt0rm
Lifer
- Sep 5, 2000
- 27,399
- 3,948
- 126
I think a majority would. 1 of my 3 visits in the last 10 years was to get a indepth check up that can be used as a baseline as I age. I think if people had knowledge they would use the assets available to them.
and let me add that if your argument againt UHC is because people wouldn't utilize preventative care, then I would counter that we would still be better off then where we are now.
Actually, I think you're right - people will use preventative care under UHC, just way, way too much. That's part of why VA had to scale back its services - people came in all the time for the littlest things. Since the doctor was free, why not go see him for every little ache and pain? And of course preventative care only goes so far. My mom's an RD (registered dietician), and she can tell patients all day that they need to monitor their blood sugar, cut back on the junk food, lose weight, etc., and they'll all agree, but actual compliance is still inconsistent with most patients. Not everyone is as disciplined as you are. In fact, most are not.
- Jul 13, 2005
- 33,986
- 3,321
- 126
Originally posted by: PottedMeat
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Some of his other appointments seem like good picks, but Daschle is a complete "big government healthcare" tool. He's such an idiot that he couldn't even get reelected in his own state despite being the leader of the senate. Blagojevitch would have been better, at least he's honest about his intentions
Maybe this is more of a 'Thank you' position for Obama. Doesn't he owe a lot of his campaign staff to Daschle - basically Obama got a load of experienced people when Daschle lost?
Nice try but you can`t spin it this way.....No it is NOT a Thank You!!
Daschle is highly qualified!!
umbrella39
Lifer
- Jun 11, 2004
- 13,816
- 1,126
- 126
Yep, it is very unclear at this point. As someone who works in the field, I am concerned with the great unknown which is pretty much everything at this point. I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt and see how this plays out but I would be lying if I said I wasn't already worried about my job. In SE Michigan, Beaumont Hospital laid off some 165 workers, including 65 employed in direct patient care a few weeks back. FFS I got into respiratory so I wouldn't have to worry about this kind of shit.
It will be ugly.
You will have be drafted militarily.
Wouldn't be surprised to see National Guard set up at the few remaining Hospitals.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter