obama's retarded health care reform plan

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: smashp
There Major problem with For-Profit Health care is the Profit, Cause thats what all decisions will be made upon

I think we see another Socialist.

Who cares, cold war is over. Simply calling someone socialist is not a valid argument.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Phokus

now that details are coming forth, i find myself thinking just the opposite.
healthy young individuals subsidizing unhealthy, sick individuals? sounds like socialism to me.

I agree... people who are sick should be free to be denied health insurance because they have a pre-existing condition.

Republicans.txt

You have anything to add rather than Troll.txt?

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
healthy young individuals subsidizing unhealthy, sick individuals? sounds like socialism to me.

Are you always going to be a healthy young individual?

 

[MovingTarget]

Obama's system retarded? I don't know just yet as some of the details are still being ironed out. One thing I can say for sure is that the current system is about the most retarded imaginable. At this point, ANY change to the system to cover more people is an improvement.

 

[OCGuy]

I'm all for subsidizing health care, but guess what? The restrictions have to come with it.


This should include social service visits for any parent who brings an obese child into a fast food restaurant.

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: shiner

Originally posted by: OCguy
Its OK, we'll just charge it.

I'm beginning to think all the Obama campaign literature had a typo on it. The slogan was actually supposed to be Charge, not Change.

😛

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: OCguy
I'm all for subsidizing health care, but guess what? The restrictions have to come with it.


This should include social service visits for any parent who brings an obese child into a fast food restaurant.

Remember folks ,when republicans recommend big government, it's not socialism

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: OCguy
I'm all for subsidizing health care, but guess what? The restrictions have to come with it.


This should include social service visits for any parent who brings an obese child into a fast food restaurant.

Remember folks ,when republicans recommend big government, it's not socialism

------- my post



-------your head

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: OCguy
I'm all for subsidizing health care, but guess what? The restrictions have to come with it.


This should include social service visits for any parent who brings an obese child into a fast food restaurant.

Remember folks ,when republicans recommend big government, it's not socialism

------- my post



-------your head

http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/517/petarded.jpg

 

[Fingolfin269]

I'm for whichever UHC proposal doesn't reduce my current benefits and doesn't cost me more out of pocket, whether we're talking about premiums or taxes. Yes I'm a selfish bastard who must hate myself.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
healthy young individuals subsidizing unhealthy, sick individuals? sounds like socialism to me.

Are you always going to be a healthy young individual?

no, but i'll be a healthy, fit and old and gladly pay the premiums that the actuaries have determined.

listen, i don't mean to do away with all subsidies, but what they're proposing is absurd.

 

[VinylxScratches]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: CPA
Who say's you have a right to medical care?

Nearly all industrialized nations do.

I do.

Obama voters do.

The Democrats who control the legislative and executive branches of our government do.

I'm sure there were plenty of conservatives who disagreed with Medicare as well. Guess what? We still got it. And we'll get this, too, in due time.

At some point, liberals will realize there is no middle-ground on the issue of UHC, and we'll stop pandering to the conservatives about it.

The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out, the conservative adopts them.
- Notebook, 1898

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
healthy young individuals subsidizing unhealthy, sick individuals? sounds like socialism to me.

Are you always going to be a healthy young individual?

no, but i'll be a healthy, fit and old and gladly pay the premiums that the actuaries have determined.

listen, i don't mean to do away with all subsidies, but what they're proposing is absurd.

Ok, but while you're at it, WATCH OUT FOR THAT BUS!!!

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Phokus


http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/517/petarded.jpg

I'm honored and strangely aroused that you took the time to do that....

 

[Andrew1990]

Hmm, what about those of us who are healthy but dont expect to live to be old due to starvation in the near future? Why do we have to take care of the old and sick?

 

[Strk]

Is it still going to be paid for by taxing the benefits of those who actually have them? If so, I guess I'll be saying goodbye to having a refund.

 

[JayhaVVKU]

Speaking for myself as an employed person who receives NO health care benefits, anything is better than the current system. The problem is that the current system needs to be demolished and rebuilt from the groundup, using the principal that EVERYONE is entilted to have basic health care coverage.

Insurance companies(or the government working as an insurance company) is a terrible idea and simply means there is 1 more intermediary that must earn a profit and get paid.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: JayhaVVKU
Speaking for myself as an employed person who receives NO health care benefits, anything is better than the current system. The problem is that the current system needs to be demolished and rebuilt from the groundup, using the principal that EVERYONE is entilted to have basic health care coverage.

Insurance companies(or the government working as an insurance company) is a terrible idea and simply means there is 1 more intermediary that must earn a profit and get paid.

Government doesn't make profit. Government insurance is also more efficient than private insurance (1 percent overhead vs. 10 - 30 % overhead for private insurance). You need some sort entity to create insurance so you can pool risk.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: JayhaVVKU
Speaking for myself as an employed person who receives NO health care benefits, anything is better than the current system. The problem is that the current system needs to be demolished and rebuilt from the groundup, using the principal that EVERYONE is entilted to have basic health care coverage.

Insurance companies(or the government working as an insurance company) is a terrible idea and simply means there is 1 more intermediary that must earn a profit and get paid.

Government doesn't make profit. Government insurance is also more efficient than private insurance (1 percent overhead vs. 10 - 30 % overhead for private insurance). You need some sort entity to create insurance so you can pool risk.

I'll stay at my private hospital, you can go to Walter-Reed for your government cheese.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: JayhaVVKU
Speaking for myself as an employed person who receives NO health care benefits, anything is better than the current system. The problem is that the current system needs to be demolished and rebuilt from the groundup, using the principal that EVERYONE is entilted to have basic health care coverage.

Insurance companies(or the government working as an insurance company) is a terrible idea and simply means there is 1 more intermediary that must earn a profit and get paid.

Government doesn't make profit. Government insurance is also more efficient than private insurance (1 percent overhead vs. 10 - 30 % overhead for private insurance). You need some sort entity to create insurance so you can pool risk.

I'll stay at my private hospital, you can go to Walter-Reed for your government cheese.

Only someone as retarded as you thinks government health insurance means government hospitals.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Phokus


Only someone as retarded as you thinks government health insurance means government hospitals.

People aren't going to be forced into the conditions at Walter Reed. The conditions at Walter Reed are going to make their way into other hospitals.

If uncle-sam becomes the "single-payer", look out.

 

[JayhaVVKU]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: Phokus


Only someone as retarded as you thinks government health insurance means government hospitals.

People aren't going to be forced into the conditions at Walter Reed. The conditions at Walter Reed are going to make their way into other hospitals.

If uncle-sam becomes the "single-payer", look out.

Yeah because the quality of US healthcare and facilities right now is so good it hurts!

 

[irwincur]

I am just wondering where all of the new doctors are going to come from to support an additional 20% case load. It is hard enough to get an appointment right now, it will be almost impossible to get decent treatment if the infrastructure cannot support it.

Oh, and when doctors walk away from their jobs because of the lack of compensation. Or when clinics close because we are doing nothing about tort law, simply adding more potential cases - increasing the costs of insurance to these clinics. Or the small problem that fewer people will enter the field when they realize that they will never be able to pay off their 250K student loans. What is the point of working your ass off for 12 years to be broke your entire life.

Don't know why, but no one seems to be addressing this small side effect of change.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: irwincur
I am just wondering where all of the new doctors are going to come from to support an additional 20% case load. It is hard enough to get an appointment right now, it will be almost impossible to get decent treatment if the infrastructure cannot support it.

Oh, and when doctors walk away from their jobs because of the lack of compensation. Or when clinics close because we are doing nothing about tort law, simply adding more potential cases - increasing the costs of insurance to these clinics. Or the small problem that fewer people will enter the field when they realize that they will never be able to pay off their 250K student loans. What is the point of working your ass off for 12 years to be broke your entire life.

Don't know why, but no one seems to be addressing this small side effect of change.

You do know that doctor pay is a very small part of overall health costs don't you? We don't have to cut doctor pay to make things much, much more affordable. The other "issues" have been addressed several times over.

Incentive programs / More simple health care facilities that PA & Nurse Practitioner's can manage for small issues etc.. been addressed about a million times in UHC threads here.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: Phokus


Only someone as retarded as you thinks government health insurance means government hospitals.

People aren't going to be forced into the conditions at Walter Reed. The conditions at Walter Reed are going to make their way into other hospitals.

If uncle-sam becomes the "single-payer", look out.

The government running health care, despite working fine in most other industrialized nations, will make us all die in our own filth in hell hole rate infested hospitals.

Republicans.txt