monovillage
Diamond Member
- Jul 3, 2008
- 8,444
- 1
- 0
Let's get one thing straight: Nothing in any healthcare reform is going to address the real illegal immigration problems we have, because nobody with any compassion whatsoever would ever turn another human being away from the ER. So, the very bad illegal immigration problem must be addressed elsewhere.
Lock the fucking border down NOW, and the problems with the cost of their care -- and the millions of other problems they cause -- will eventually fix themselves.
However, the politicians in DC are too fucking corrupt, stupid, and weak to realize that fact or do anything about it.
Lock the fucking border down NOW, and the problems with the cost of their care -- and the millions of other problems they cause -- will eventually fix themselves.
However, the politicians in DC are too fucking corrupt, stupid, and weak to realize that fact or do anything about it.
monovillage
Diamond Member
- Jul 3, 2008
- 8,444
- 1
- 0
As i said earlier, you give them the care, bill them and send them to their country of origin. The Gov could attach any of their assets in the US to pay their bill.
Yep. My dad had a heart attack in Italy a few years ago. He was there legally to visit (vacation). They gave him good care, billed his insurance and sent him on his way.
LEGALLY. If you're in the country illegally then you get care, billed to your country of origin and shipped the fuck out along with your transportation costs.
Cuda1447
Lifer
- Jul 26, 2002
- 11,757
- 0
- 71
From the way I understand it illegals are covered for emergency care. They aren't covered for a general physical or dentist appointment. If I am wrong about that, please correct me. Under this bill they WILL be covered for those things, thus more coverage, right?
If that is somehow incorrect, please explain how.
Until you do so, you can take back everything else you just said.
I do want to thank you though, for once you've decided to debate on point, rather than just saying "wrong" or "fail" like the rest of your cohorts.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Still duhverting? The topic/question at hand is BHO lying about this HC plan. Try to keep up vic.
bob4432
Lifer
- Sep 6, 2003
- 11,727
- 46
- 91
to all of you people that want this uhc and the gov to be more involved in your medical care, what area have they done such a good job that would make you think they can handle something of this magnitude?
also, who here has actually dealt w/ federal/gov health care or just the plain fed gov in general - taxes don't count. and i am talking on a personal level, not a generalization like the mil protects us, etc.
also, who here has actually dealt w/ federal/gov health care or just the plain fed gov in general - taxes don't count. and i am talking on a personal level, not a generalization like the mil protects us, etc.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
There is no UHC on the table and never has been. If anything, the level of marketplace competition in the healthcare insurance industry would increase from the recent proposals, not decrease. That's one reason why the major players in that industry are fighting it so hard. Their position right now is heavily favored by tax breaks and subsidies, and they don't want to lose those, or have to compete on a more level playing field.
Also, why shouldn't the military or the police be allowed in a discussion about the efficiency of govt services? Just because you or I don't interact with either on a daily basis doesn't mean that others don't.
Cuda1447
Lifer
- Jul 26, 2002
- 11,757
- 0
- 71
Dude, you can't win a debate by saying "You FAIL" to everyone. You also can't defend one man by criticizing another. We get it, you hated Bush. Hell, a lot of us didn't like him either. But its ridiculous to defend any mans actions by simply comparing him to another of lower perceived value.
For instance, I can't say Kim Jong Il is a good man because "at least he hasn't caused a world war". Thats essentially what you are doing by saying "Well, Obama didn't start a war by lying". Nobody fucking said he did. We are criticizing him about other things, in particular his being untruthful about many parts of this health bill.
Disagree with that if you want, but do it based on the topic at hand and the person we are talking about, not by ridiculing someone else.
Cuda1447
Lifer
- Jul 26, 2002
- 11,757
- 0
- 71
I would argue that putting in place a government based health care, subsidized by the American tax payers, is not exactly fair competition for a private health insurance company. After all, the government can make the rules up as they go along.
To put it in other words. If I were the owner of a furniture company and I was told the government was thinking about forming their own furniture company to compete with mine, I'd be fighting it. Why? Well. A. The government is going to fund its furniture company with Americans money. That means there is no barrier to entry, something I had to overcome. B. The government can advertise essentially unlimited, as they can just use their customers money to gain new customers. C. The government has an unfair advantage in that they can dictate rules about how the game is played on the fly and I would only assume they would do so to benefit themselves. So if they decided one day that you couldn't use a specific wood to build furniture, but I just so happened to favor that wood and had built a ton of furniture out of it, I might be out the money for that furniture I can't sell anymore. Instead my customers go to my competitor, the government and buy from them, as they have the products available.
Yes, its a fictional example, but its a very reasonable example of why a business would not want to be in direct competition with the government. In short, its not a fair competition.
As for the military or police being efficient. I'd like to argue against that. I cannot speak on behalf of the military, as I know VERY little about it. But I will speak about the police. I used this example in another thread, but its one that is very telling, imo.
In Florida a law was recently enacted that levied a $100 fine for people not wearing seat belts in their cars. This law was brought up under the guise of safety. Meanwhile it is legal to ride a motorcycle without wearing a helmet. Obviously the latter task is much more dangerous. Keep in mind, the former law was enacted due to safety concerns. In reality, its about money. Helmets are not mandatory because if a person gets in a wreck on a bike, they are most likely going to die if they do not have a helmet on. If they do have one on, they are much more likely to survive. Health insurance costs are much higher on a living person than a dead person, thus they lobby to make it so that helmets are not mandatory. They would rather see people die then pay out the claims. With that the government has proven that it really doesn't care about safety, as if it was about safety, a motorcycle helmet law would certainly be on the books. Why then, enact a law regarding seat belts. Simple, money. Its an EASY way to ticket people and make thousands of dollars. (And they have made thousands upon thousands).
The point to this entire story. The police force is NOT efficient with their money. If they were, they would not be looking for new ways to bring in revenue. They would instead cut cost, be frugal with their resources and spend within their means.
As is the case of any tax payer funded service, these people think they have a blank check to do with as they please. This is EXACTLY what scares a LOT of people about the government being involved in any type of health care. Health care is very expensive and the .gov is notorious for wasting money. Why then, would we want the government to under take such a responsibility? They are simply not capable of handling it responsibly, frugally and efficiently.
That said, I would like to see some changes made to our health industry. The government being a provider of health insurance is not one of them though.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
1. I clearly referred to the fact that the existing 'private' health insurance industry exists on the benefit of tax breaks and subsidies (aka your tax-free employer benefits) that give it a competitive advantage. If, given their lobbying power to prevent the elimination of those tax breaks and subsidies, the only politically-viable option is govt competition, so be it.
2. I also thought I was very clear in my opinion that the police and military are NOT efficient, and so should not be exempted from any discussion about govt efficiency.
2. I also thought I was very clear in my opinion that the police and military are NOT efficient, and so should not be exempted from any discussion about govt efficiency.
Cuda1447
Lifer
- Jul 26, 2002
- 11,757
- 0
- 71
I must have misunderstood your post then. Especially about part #2. I thought you were saying they were efficient, I apologize.
Never the less, I think my points are still valid for others to read.
As for #1, if you wouldn't mind I'd like you to elaborate on something for me. Excuse me for being a bit uninformed about the subject. Why do you think private health insurance exists based on the benefit of tax breaks. In other words, are you saying they exist soley because of that? If that is, how so? If I'm not mistaken the employer is benefiting from the tax breaks, but how exactly would the insurance company benefit from this?
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
When your employer pays you in health insurance benefits (as opposed to salary, etc), those benefits are tax-free to them. Likewise, your own salary-paid contributions to those benefits are tax-free to you. Because of this, it would be downright silly of you to consider any other health insurance option but your employers'. This is a significant competitive advantage. It also pretty much screws those who don't have access to such employer-provided benefits, like the self-employed, who might like to be able to purchase health insurance in an open marketplace, and who do not have access to ANY tax breaks on health care costs unless they exceed 7% of their gross income (and then only on that portion which exceeds 7%).
bob4432
Lifer
- Sep 6, 2003
- 11,727
- 46
- 91
ok, just take any government health program or anything that is even remotely government based. the police is not federal and i say not the military because they don't have interaction w/ just about anybody in our country at any given time. have you had first hand experience w/ any current fed health programs like medicare? medicaid? owcp? dol? what is your current level of personal engagement w/ the fed gov?
Have you had any experience with the financial projections showing the current situation unworkable in coming years?
Cuda1447
Lifer
- Jul 26, 2002
- 11,757
- 0
- 71
I see your point. Although, from an insurance companies perspective, the competition I believe is fair. The competition isn't directly with the consumer, giving them options, but rather with the employer who provides for the consumer. Any insurance company would receive the same tax benefits if done through an employer, thus there is no competitive advantage there, unless I'm missing something.
As for the self employed, you have a very valid case. Not receiving any tax benefits for paying for health insurance is certainly not fair to those people. Perhaps we should consider giving them the same tax benefits large employers receive? Maybe there is another solution we haven't thought of yet? I would like to solve that problem, but a government run insurance company is NOT what I want to see.
bob4432
Lifer
- Sep 6, 2003
- 11,727
- 46
- 91
well, according to everything i have heard/read, both setups are unworkable so if i have a choice of failing w/ gov intervention or no gov intervention, i would choose less gov intervention because the past has shown, they really screw things up - and i am talking about both sides of the aisle. i think a lot of things that the admin are trying to do is make thinks much worse than what they are - just think how the amount of "uninsured" people has grown over the months, it started at what, 30M? now it is up to 50M? i think the cbo claims that the number is in the single digit Ms, so both side are flinging a lot of shit.
but this current situation sure does feel similiar w/ obama sounding the sirens of economic failure if we do nothing much like bush did w/ the terror alerts "and we will be attacked again" with his obsession to go to war w/ iraq - a war that shouldn't have happend. sadly, same playbook, different reason.
I have. Government health care saved my life, it was absolutely top-notch.
As for wondering if the government can run a health care system, they already do. The VA health care system scores higher on patient satisfaction surveys than the private system by a considerable margin.
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: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter