Why do you think the government is your hired thug?

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: senseamp
All I am saying is I don't have a preference for whether government or charities provide services, as long as they are provided.

All I'm saying is that when you say "government" you mean "someone other than myself." If you want those services provided, do your part to help, instead of trying to compel others to help, even if they don't want to.

Totally pathetic and predictable attempt at a personal attack. As a single childless renter making around 100K, I pay the highest combined tax rate while drawing the lowest benefits from it. So no it is not, "someone other than myself" and I want my tax dollars to pay for providing those services, not have them provided to me. And yes, I think everyone benefits from universal healthcare, and everyone should pay based on their ability (on a progressive scale), once it is voted in.

I'm also single but a multiple property owner making around 100k, so I also pay a shit ton of taxes. I attempt to mitigate that by making charitable donations and making all the deductions I can. By picking the charities of your choice, you can not pay that amount in taxes while CHOOSING where your dollars go. So how about you just do that instead of trying to force everyone else to choose the same charity (UHC) as you.

Because healthcare isn't a choice, it's a necessity. Do you want people to die from lack of care if not enough people donated to a Universal Healthcare Charity that particular month? Yeah, let's do that. Turn poor sick people away from hospitals until they find a charity to pay for their care? That's Republican healthcare nirvana, but I'll pass.
That's why we treat people at the ER. We have Universal Health Care already that we all pay for. It just happens to be Universal Emergency Room Health Care. If you are against universal healthcare, you should be against treating poor people who can't pay at ERs, and for turning them away to FOAD. Are you? If you aren't then you are just an idiot who would rather pay much more to treat someone at the ER than at a private practice.

And how, exactly are we going to benefit from UHC? I can go to any doctor I want, have very low deductables, great dental, and vision (with generous tax-free discretionary funds for both,) totally covered emergency care, a $2M limit. So how is UHC going to be better for me?

There are people around aside from you, also you can buy supplemental coverage on top of your universal healthcare, same as people do with Medicare. Also, you don't have to be for Universal Healthcare, there are people aside from you who get to vote on it too.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

healthcare isn't a choice, it's a necessity

Come again? I shouldn't be able to make a choice? It should be mandatory then? ...since it is a "necessity"?

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: palehorse74
OK, screw it. Tell me:

1) Will UHC cost my family more than $225/month ($2700 per year)? (That's the price of my current family coverage that includes full medical, dental, and vision)

Are any of your costs subsidized by anyone else (say, the US taxpayer or an employer)?

2) Will the quality and/or efficiency of medical treatments, available to my family, be negatively impacted by UHC in any way?

Irrelevant question - impacted overall is relevant, one minor negative for some big positives would be a good tradeoff.

If the answer is "yes" to either of those questions, and I suspect it is, then I'd vote against it.

It's as simple as that.

So you care zero for the well being of tens of millions of fellow Americans, it's good you are clear on where your political values lie.

1) Doesn't matter who else pays. It's an out of pocket amount that it costs. However, it usually is a "benefit" and is factored into the "cost" of an employee. So in the end it is irrelevant if someone else pays - unless it is the gov't. In that case wouldn't it already be a form of socialized medicine?
2) So you are suggesting that it'd be OK for quality of care to go down?

I care about the well-being of those without INSURANCE. I want them to be able to have their own coverage - not some one size fits all UHC BS. I want them to be free from gov't control and decisions about their care. I want them to be able to seek the best care available - not some lackluster quality care because UHC lowered the bar.

UHC is not one size fits all. You are confusing single provider care with single payer care, either on purpose or through ignorance.
Is Medicare one size fits all? It's universal healthcare for seniors. Plus if you or your employer wants to obtain coverage for what UHC doesn't cover, no one is stopping you. But there should be a baseline coverage for everyone, and it's there already. Except now the baseline coverage everyone is entitled to is at the emergency rooms which can't turn anyone away. The absolutely worst place to provide healthcare from both cost and outcome point of view.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

healthcare isn't a choice, it's a necessity

Come again? I shouldn't be able to make a choice? It should be mandatory then? ...since it is a "necessity"?

So you want to be making choices about which poor person gets treated and which one gets to die?
Because that's what you want charities to do.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: palehorse74
OK, screw it. Tell me:

1) Will UHC cost my family more than $225/month ($2700 per year)? (That's the price of my current family coverage that includes full medical, dental, and vision)

Are any of your costs subsidized by anyone else (say, the US taxpayer or an employer)?

2) Will the quality and/or efficiency of medical treatments, available to my family, be negatively impacted by UHC in any way?

Irrelevant question - impacted overall is relevant, one minor negative for some big positives would be a good tradeoff.

If the answer is "yes" to either of those questions, and I suspect it is, then I'd vote against it.

It's as simple as that.

So you care zero for the well being of tens of millions of fellow Americans, it's good you are clear on where your political values lie.

1) Doesn't matter who else pays. It's an out of pocket amount that it costs. However, it usually is a "benefit" and is factored into the "cost" of an employee. So in the end it is irrelevant if someone else pays - unless it is the gov't. In that case wouldn't it already be a form of socialized medicine?
2) So you are suggesting that it'd be OK for quality of care to go down?

I care about the well-being of those without INSURANCE. I want them to be able to have their own coverage - not some one size fits all UHC BS. I want them to be free from gov't control and decisions about their care. I want them to be able to seek the best care available - not some lackluster quality care because UHC lowered the bar.

1) It is relevant if his costs are subsidized by anyone, to compare apples and apples. If an employer is freed of the cost of insurance, that should translate into increases in salary.

You have to look at the bigger picture on the economics, not twist the facts. If you don't look at employer costs, let's not look at any increase in taxes, either.

2) You need to read more carefully - I was pointing out the issue of his mistake in saying ANY reduction was the test, instead of looking at the tradeoffs.

If his waiting room time goes up by 15 seconds on average - that fits his ANY worsening - but he got great improvements in other areas, why would that be a problem?

The people who lack insurance, who you say you care about having it, mostly lack it because they cannot afford it. Nothing in your post offered any way for them to get it.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: palehorse74
OK, screw it. Tell me:

1) Will UHC cost my family more than $225/month ($2700 per year)? (That's the price of my current family coverage that includes full medical, dental, and vision)

Are any of your costs subsidized by anyone else (say, the US taxpayer or an employer)?

2) Will the quality and/or efficiency of medical treatments, available to my family, be negatively impacted by UHC in any way?

Irrelevant question - impacted overall is relevant, one minor negative for some big positives would be a good tradeoff.

If the answer is "yes" to either of those questions, and I suspect it is, then I'd vote against it.

It's as simple as that.

So you care zero for the well being of tens of millions of fellow Americans, it's good you are clear on where your political values lie.

1) Doesn't matter who else pays. It's an out of pocket amount that it costs. However, it usually is a "benefit" and is factored into the "cost" of an employee. So in the end it is irrelevant if someone else pays - unless it is the gov't. In that case wouldn't it already be a form of socialized medicine?
2) So you are suggesting that it'd be OK for quality of care to go down?

I care about the well-being of those without INSURANCE. I want them to be able to have their own coverage - not some one size fits all UHC BS. I want them to be free from gov't control and decisions about their care. I want them to be able to seek the best care available - not some lackluster quality care because UHC lowered the bar.

UHC is not one size fits all. You are confusing single provider care with single payer care, either on purpose or through ignorance.
Is Medicare one size fits all? It's universal healthcare for seniors. Plus if you or your employer wants to obtain coverage for what UHC doesn't cover, no one is stopping you. But there should be a baseline coverage for everyone, and it's there already. Except now the baseline coverage everyone is entitled to is at the emergency rooms which can't turn anyone away. The absolutely worst place to provide healthcare from both cost and outcome point of view.

Wrong, it is not the responsibility of the US gov't to provide INSURANCE. HealthCARE is important but differs from INSURANCE - which is what you seem to think should be universal. However, like I said - that puts things into a one size fits all situation.

Now if you want to talk about UHC(not insurance) then we can have that discussion but it seems you and your types keep trying to use UHC and UHI interchangably - then shifting the focus when you are called on one of the aspects. Why don't you people start being honest with this discussion?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

healthcare isn't a choice, it's a necessity

Come again? I shouldn't be able to make a choice? It should be mandatory then? ...since it is a "necessity"?

So you want to be making choices about which poor person gets treated and which one gets to die?
Because that's what you want charities to do.

You think the gov't should decide what gets treated and what doesn't?

I don't say anything about charities so try again.

BTW, I want people to be able to choose their Health INSURANCE coverage - no matter what level of coverage they CHOOSE.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

healthcare isn't a choice, it's a necessity

Come again? I shouldn't be able to make a choice? It should be mandatory then? ...since it is a "necessity"?

So you want to be making choices about which poor person gets treated and which one gets to die?
Because that's what you want charities to do.

You think the gov't should decide what gets treated and what doesn't?

No, I think it should pay for everyone to get treated.
BTW, deciding what gets treated and what doesn't is EXACTLY what insurance companies do now.

I don't say anything about charities so try again.

BTW, I want people to be able to choose their Health INSURANCE coverage - no matter what level of coverage they CHOOSE.

Really, and how exactly do you choose healthcare coverage if you don't have money to pay for it?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: palehorse74
OK, screw it. Tell me:

1) Will UHC cost my family more than $225/month ($2700 per year)? (That's the price of my current family coverage that includes full medical, dental, and vision)

Are any of your costs subsidized by anyone else (say, the US taxpayer or an employer)?

2) Will the quality and/or efficiency of medical treatments, available to my family, be negatively impacted by UHC in any way?

Irrelevant question - impacted overall is relevant, one minor negative for some big positives would be a good tradeoff.

If the answer is "yes" to either of those questions, and I suspect it is, then I'd vote against it.

It's as simple as that.

So you care zero for the well being of tens of millions of fellow Americans, it's good you are clear on where your political values lie.

1) Doesn't matter who else pays. It's an out of pocket amount that it costs. However, it usually is a "benefit" and is factored into the "cost" of an employee. So in the end it is irrelevant if someone else pays - unless it is the gov't. In that case wouldn't it already be a form of socialized medicine?
2) So you are suggesting that it'd be OK for quality of care to go down?

I care about the well-being of those without INSURANCE. I want them to be able to have their own coverage - not some one size fits all UHC BS. I want them to be free from gov't control and decisions about their care. I want them to be able to seek the best care available - not some lackluster quality care because UHC lowered the bar.

1) It is relevant if his costs are subsidized by anyone, to compare apples and apples. If an employer is freed of the cost of insurance, that should translate into increases in salary.

You have to look at the bigger picture on the economics, not twist the facts. If you don't look at employer costs, let's not look at any increase in taxes, either.

2) You need to read more carefully - I was pointing out the issue of his mistake in saying ANY reduction was the test, instead of looking at the tradeoffs.

If his waiting room time goes up by 15 seconds on average - that fits his ANY worsening - but he got great improvements in other areas, why would that be a problem?

The people who lack insurance, who you say you care about having it, mostly lack it because they cannot afford it. Nothing in your post offered any way for them to get it.

1) :laugh: naive much? Lets say I don't take the company offered health Insurance - does my pay increase? (Hint: NO)

2) I read just fine. Yes, ANY reduction caused by this UHC BS. If he already has good insurance then UHC isn't better so the tradeoff is by default negative then.

I understand some can not afford Insurance, I also understand that some choose not to have it. I also understand that it's not the job of the US gov't to provide people with INSURANCE. And yes, if the gov't would get out of the way, the market would allow for cheaper/more affordable coverage. Adding MORE gov't to the healthcare industry will not lessen costs - it will only increase it.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: ayabe
Nebor - It's fallacy to believe that having military grade weaponry protects you from government tyranny or that outlawing such weapons opens that door. The door is wide open regardless. If the gov wants to seize your property for failing to pay income tax or for eminent domain purposes, regardless of what weapons you have, you will lose your property.

The Branch Davidians had hardcore weapons and the government crushed them. The same would happen to you with or without your .50cal.

I don't see it as one -or a group- against the government. I always thought in terms of total national takeover/revolt where "the people" would rise against the government. That's when being well armed would come in handy.

It would also help if ever there was a catastrophic global or national disaster/crisis where people would have to fend (defend) for themselves for a good while.

Like the LA Riots where police withdrew and told citizens that they'd have to take care of themselves for a while. :thumbsup:

Or the aftermath of Katrina. My assault weapons have only been used for defense (aside from putting holes in paper) and you know what? Just being well armed kept the "bad guys" away without ever firing a shot. The unarmed helped my neighborhood as well. They gave the "bad guys" easy targets. Why mess with a neighborhood actively guarded by men with rifles when you can go half a mile down the road and deal with men armed with nothing....

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: palehorse74
OK, screw it. Tell me:

1) Will UHC cost my family more than $225/month ($2700 per year)? (That's the price of my current family coverage that includes full medical, dental, and vision)

Are any of your costs subsidized by anyone else (say, the US taxpayer or an employer)?

2) Will the quality and/or efficiency of medical treatments, available to my family, be negatively impacted by UHC in any way?

Irrelevant question - impacted overall is relevant, one minor negative for some big positives would be a good tradeoff.

If the answer is "yes" to either of those questions, and I suspect it is, then I'd vote against it.

It's as simple as that.

So you care zero for the well being of tens of millions of fellow Americans, it's good you are clear on where your political values lie.

1) Doesn't matter who else pays. It's an out of pocket amount that it costs. However, it usually is a "benefit" and is factored into the "cost" of an employee. So in the end it is irrelevant if someone else pays - unless it is the gov't. In that case wouldn't it already be a form of socialized medicine?
2) So you are suggesting that it'd be OK for quality of care to go down?

I care about the well-being of those without INSURANCE. I want them to be able to have their own coverage - not some one size fits all UHC BS. I want them to be free from gov't control and decisions about their care. I want them to be able to seek the best care available - not some lackluster quality care because UHC lowered the bar.

UHC is not one size fits all. You are confusing single provider care with single payer care, either on purpose or through ignorance.
Is Medicare one size fits all? It's universal healthcare for seniors. Plus if you or your employer wants to obtain coverage for what UHC doesn't cover, no one is stopping you. But there should be a baseline coverage for everyone, and it's there already. Except now the baseline coverage everyone is entitled to is at the emergency rooms which can't turn anyone away. The absolutely worst place to provide healthcare from both cost and outcome point of view.

Wrong, it is not the responsibility of the US gov't to provide INSURANCE. HealthCARE is important but differs from INSURANCE - which is what you seem to think should be universal. However, like I said - that puts things into a one size fits all situation.

Now if you want to talk about UHC(not insurance) then we can have that discussion but it seems you and your types keep trying to use UHC and UHI interchangably - then shifting the focus when you are called on one of the aspects. Why don't you people start being honest with this discussion?

So the thing you want to preserve about current model is the Health INSURANCE industry? You really think that HMOs are what makes our current healthcare system great?
It's absolutely laughable. I want to preserve the medical practitioners as they are and have the US government be the insurer. Single payer, not single provider.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

healthcare isn't a choice, it's a necessity

Come again? I shouldn't be able to make a choice? It should be mandatory then? ...since it is a "necessity"?

So you want to be making choices about which poor person gets treated and which one gets to die?
Because that's what you want charities to do.

You think the gov't should decide what gets treated and what doesn't?

No, I think it should pay for everyone to get treated.
BTW, deciding what gets treated and what doesn't is EXACTLY what insurance companies do now.

I don't say anything about charities so try again.

BTW, I want people to be able to choose their Health INSURANCE coverage - no matter what level of coverage they CHOOSE.

Really, and how exactly do you choose healthcare coverage if you don't have money to pay for it?

The US Gov't should pay for all treatments?

Yes, Insurance companies offer coverage. Some things may not be covered depending on the level of your coverage.

Health INSURANCE? They don't have money to pay for it? then they CHOOSE to not purchase Insurance. But again, the costs of the current system are inflated precisely because the gov't is involved. If the gov't would GTFO - most would be able to purchase atleast some basic level of INSURANCE.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: palehorse74
OK, screw it. Tell me:

1) Will UHC cost my family more than $225/month ($2700 per year)? (That's the price of my current family coverage that includes full medical, dental, and vision)

Are any of your costs subsidized by anyone else (say, the US taxpayer or an employer)?

2) Will the quality and/or efficiency of medical treatments, available to my family, be negatively impacted by UHC in any way?

Irrelevant question - impacted overall is relevant, one minor negative for some big positives would be a good tradeoff.

If the answer is "yes" to either of those questions, and I suspect it is, then I'd vote against it.

It's as simple as that.

So you care zero for the well being of tens of millions of fellow Americans, it's good you are clear on where your political values lie.

1) Doesn't matter who else pays. It's an out of pocket amount that it costs. However, it usually is a "benefit" and is factored into the "cost" of an employee. So in the end it is irrelevant if someone else pays - unless it is the gov't. In that case wouldn't it already be a form of socialized medicine?
2) So you are suggesting that it'd be OK for quality of care to go down?

I care about the well-being of those without INSURANCE. I want them to be able to have their own coverage - not some one size fits all UHC BS. I want them to be free from gov't control and decisions about their care. I want them to be able to seek the best care available - not some lackluster quality care because UHC lowered the bar.

1) It is relevant if his costs are subsidized by anyone, to compare apples and apples. If an employer is freed of the cost of insurance, that should translate into increases in salary.

You have to look at the bigger picture on the economics, not twist the facts. If you don't look at employer costs, let's not look at any increase in taxes, either.

2) You need to read more carefully - I was pointing out the issue of his mistake in saying ANY reduction was the test, instead of looking at the tradeoffs.

If his waiting room time goes up by 15 seconds on average - that fits his ANY worsening - but he got great improvements in other areas, why would that be a problem?

The people who lack insurance, who you say you care about having it, mostly lack it because they cannot afford it. Nothing in your post offered any way for them to get it.

1) :laugh: naive much? Lets say I don't take the company offered health Insurance - does my pay increase? (Hint: NO)

Only because you are probably overpaid now. If you were in demand employee worth retaining, it would increase.
Companies compete for same employees, so if all the companies have more money to spare, wages will rise accordingly in the long term.

2) I read just fine. Yes, ANY reduction caused by this UHC BS. If he already has good insurance then UHC isn't better so the tradeoff is by default negative then.

I understand some can not afford Insurance, I also understand that some choose not to have it. I also understand that it's not the job of the US gov't to provide people with INSURANCE. And yes, if the gov't would get out of the way, the market would allow for cheaper/more affordable coverage. Adding MORE gov't to the healthcare industry will not lessen costs - it will only increase it.

Of course you have a perfectly good explanation for why Americans spend significantly more per capita on healthcare while achieving much worse results than countries with government healthcare. Now you can argue that you don't care about what the average outcomes and costs are, just your own, but elections are decided by what an average voter thinks, not you. So get over yourself.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: palehorse74
OK, screw it. Tell me:

1) Will UHC cost my family more than $225/month ($2700 per year)? (That's the price of my current family coverage that includes full medical, dental, and vision)

Are any of your costs subsidized by anyone else (say, the US taxpayer or an employer)?

2) Will the quality and/or efficiency of medical treatments, available to my family, be negatively impacted by UHC in any way?

Irrelevant question - impacted overall is relevant, one minor negative for some big positives would be a good tradeoff.

If the answer is "yes" to either of those questions, and I suspect it is, then I'd vote against it.

It's as simple as that.

So you care zero for the well being of tens of millions of fellow Americans, it's good you are clear on where your political values lie.

1) Doesn't matter who else pays. It's an out of pocket amount that it costs. However, it usually is a "benefit" and is factored into the "cost" of an employee. So in the end it is irrelevant if someone else pays - unless it is the gov't. In that case wouldn't it already be a form of socialized medicine?
2) So you are suggesting that it'd be OK for quality of care to go down?

I care about the well-being of those without INSURANCE. I want them to be able to have their own coverage - not some one size fits all UHC BS. I want them to be free from gov't control and decisions about their care. I want them to be able to seek the best care available - not some lackluster quality care because UHC lowered the bar.

UHC is not one size fits all. You are confusing single provider care with single payer care, either on purpose or through ignorance.
Is Medicare one size fits all? It's universal healthcare for seniors. Plus if you or your employer wants to obtain coverage for what UHC doesn't cover, no one is stopping you. But there should be a baseline coverage for everyone, and it's there already. Except now the baseline coverage everyone is entitled to is at the emergency rooms which can't turn anyone away. The absolutely worst place to provide healthcare from both cost and outcome point of view.

Wrong, it is not the responsibility of the US gov't to provide INSURANCE. HealthCARE is important but differs from INSURANCE - which is what you seem to think should be universal. However, like I said - that puts things into a one size fits all situation.

Now if you want to talk about UHC(not insurance) then we can have that discussion but it seems you and your types keep trying to use UHC and UHI interchangably - then shifting the focus when you are called on one of the aspects. Why don't you people start being honest with this discussion?

So the thing you want to preserve about current model is the Health INSURANCE industry? You really think that HMOs are what makes our current healthcare system great?
It's absolutely laughable. I want to preserve the medical practitioners as they are and have the US government be the insurer. Single payer, not single provider.

Uh, when did HMOs enter the discussion? I'm talking about INSURANCE. You know, like you have for your car, house, etc.

Again, it's not the responsibility of the US gov't to provide INSURANCE.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

healthcare isn't a choice, it's a necessity

Come again? I shouldn't be able to make a choice? It should be mandatory then? ...since it is a "necessity"?

So you want to be making choices about which poor person gets treated and which one gets to die?
Because that's what you want charities to do.

You think the gov't should decide what gets treated and what doesn't?

No, I think it should pay for everyone to get treated.
BTW, deciding what gets treated and what doesn't is EXACTLY what insurance companies do now.

I don't say anything about charities so try again.

BTW, I want people to be able to choose their Health INSURANCE coverage - no matter what level of coverage they CHOOSE.

Really, and how exactly do you choose healthcare coverage if you don't have money to pay for it?

The US Gov't should pay for all treatments?

For all treatments that an average HMO currently pays, yes.

Yes, Insurance companies offer coverage. Some things may not be covered depending on the level of your coverage.

So what? Some things may not be covered by government insurance, and you can go out and obtain supplemental coverage to maintain the level of coverage that you have now. That way everyone will have some level of coverage, and you can have more if that's what you feel you need. It's no different than we have with Medicare now. It's not rocket science. It's been tried and it works, including in countries like Israel.

Health INSURANCE? They don't have money to pay for it? then they CHOOSE to not purchase Insurance. But again, the costs of the current system are inflated precisely because the gov't is involved. If the gov't would GTFO - most would be able to purchase atleast some basic level of INSURANCE.

Oh, OK, so they CHOOOOSE to not get insurance, and then who pays for them to get treated? Or you are going to turn them away from the ER? See, unless you are willing to tell people to FOAD when they try to get healthcare at the ER without proof of ability to pay, then you are simply increasing the overall burden on healthcare system and then passing it around like a hot potato, instead of proactively dealing with the situation and providing preventative care or catching disease early and treating it when its much cheaper.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: palehorse74
OK, screw it. Tell me:

1) Will UHC cost my family more than $225/month ($2700 per year)? (That's the price of my current family coverage that includes full medical, dental, and vision)

Are any of your costs subsidized by anyone else (say, the US taxpayer or an employer)?

2) Will the quality and/or efficiency of medical treatments, available to my family, be negatively impacted by UHC in any way?

Irrelevant question - impacted overall is relevant, one minor negative for some big positives would be a good tradeoff.

If the answer is "yes" to either of those questions, and I suspect it is, then I'd vote against it.

It's as simple as that.

So you care zero for the well being of tens of millions of fellow Americans, it's good you are clear on where your political values lie.

1) Doesn't matter who else pays. It's an out of pocket amount that it costs. However, it usually is a "benefit" and is factored into the "cost" of an employee. So in the end it is irrelevant if someone else pays - unless it is the gov't. In that case wouldn't it already be a form of socialized medicine?
2) So you are suggesting that it'd be OK for quality of care to go down?

I care about the well-being of those without INSURANCE. I want them to be able to have their own coverage - not some one size fits all UHC BS. I want them to be free from gov't control and decisions about their care. I want them to be able to seek the best care available - not some lackluster quality care because UHC lowered the bar.

1) It is relevant if his costs are subsidized by anyone, to compare apples and apples. If an employer is freed of the cost of insurance, that should translate into increases in salary.

You have to look at the bigger picture on the economics, not twist the facts. If you don't look at employer costs, let's not look at any increase in taxes, either.

2) You need to read more carefully - I was pointing out the issue of his mistake in saying ANY reduction was the test, instead of looking at the tradeoffs.

If his waiting room time goes up by 15 seconds on average - that fits his ANY worsening - but he got great improvements in other areas, why would that be a problem?

The people who lack insurance, who you say you care about having it, mostly lack it because they cannot afford it. Nothing in your post offered any way for them to get it.

1) :laugh: naive much? Lets say I don't take the company offered health Insurance - does my pay increase? (Hint: NO)

Only because you are probably overpaid now. If you were in demand employee worth retaining, it would increase.
Companies compete for same employees, so if all the companies have more money to spare, wages will rise accordingly in the long term.

2) I read just fine. Yes, ANY reduction caused by this UHC BS. If he already has good insurance then UHC isn't better so the tradeoff is by default negative then.

I understand some can not afford Insurance, I also understand that some choose not to have it. I also understand that it's not the job of the US gov't to provide people with INSURANCE. And yes, if the gov't would get out of the way, the market would allow for cheaper/more affordable coverage. Adding MORE gov't to the healthcare industry will not lessen costs - it will only increase it.

Of course you have a perfectly good explanation for why Americans spend significantly more per capita on healthcare while achieving much worse results than countries with government healthcare. Now you can argue that you don't care about what the average outcomes and costs are, just your own, but elections are decided by what an average voter thinks, not you. So get over yourself.

1) no. I currenlty take my employer's insurance coverage, however those in our company who do not take it are not paid more. I swear you people haven't a clue about the real world. sheesh.

2) Yes, it's because we don't take care of ourselves and then make others pay when we go seek care(that is IF one were to buy into your premise - which is BS). Now about the "averages" you yapped about - I wasn't talking about that. ...so get over yourself...

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Uh, when did HMOs enter the discussion? I'm talking about INSURANCE. You know, like you have for your car, house, etc.

Again, it's not the responsibility of the US gov't to provide INSURANCE.

That is your OPINION. Don't confuse it with a FACT. US government already provides INSURANCE for the elderly and disabled, so clearly some people disagree with your OPINION that it's not responsibility of the US govt.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: palehorse74
OK, screw it. Tell me:

1) Will UHC cost my family more than $225/month ($2700 per year)? (That's the price of my current family coverage that includes full medical, dental, and vision)

Are any of your costs subsidized by anyone else (say, the US taxpayer or an employer)?

2) Will the quality and/or efficiency of medical treatments, available to my family, be negatively impacted by UHC in any way?

Irrelevant question - impacted overall is relevant, one minor negative for some big positives would be a good tradeoff.

If the answer is "yes" to either of those questions, and I suspect it is, then I'd vote against it.

It's as simple as that.

So you care zero for the well being of tens of millions of fellow Americans, it's good you are clear on where your political values lie.

1) Doesn't matter who else pays. It's an out of pocket amount that it costs. However, it usually is a "benefit" and is factored into the "cost" of an employee. So in the end it is irrelevant if someone else pays - unless it is the gov't. In that case wouldn't it already be a form of socialized medicine?
2) So you are suggesting that it'd be OK for quality of care to go down?

I care about the well-being of those without INSURANCE. I want them to be able to have their own coverage - not some one size fits all UHC BS. I want them to be free from gov't control and decisions about their care. I want them to be able to seek the best care available - not some lackluster quality care because UHC lowered the bar.

1) It is relevant if his costs are subsidized by anyone, to compare apples and apples. If an employer is freed of the cost of insurance, that should translate into increases in salary.

You have to look at the bigger picture on the economics, not twist the facts. If you don't look at employer costs, let's not look at any increase in taxes, either.

2) You need to read more carefully - I was pointing out the issue of his mistake in saying ANY reduction was the test, instead of looking at the tradeoffs.

If his waiting room time goes up by 15 seconds on average - that fits his ANY worsening - but he got great improvements in other areas, why would that be a problem?

The people who lack insurance, who you say you care about having it, mostly lack it because they cannot afford it. Nothing in your post offered any way for them to get it.

1) :laugh: naive much? Lets say I don't take the company offered health Insurance - does my pay increase? (Hint: NO)

Only because you are probably overpaid now. If you were in demand employee worth retaining, it would increase.
Companies compete for same employees, so if all the companies have more money to spare, wages will rise accordingly in the long term.

2) I read just fine. Yes, ANY reduction caused by this UHC BS. If he already has good insurance then UHC isn't better so the tradeoff is by default negative then.

I understand some can not afford Insurance, I also understand that some choose not to have it. I also understand that it's not the job of the US gov't to provide people with INSURANCE. And yes, if the gov't would get out of the way, the market would allow for cheaper/more affordable coverage. Adding MORE gov't to the healthcare industry will not lessen costs - it will only increase it.

Of course you have a perfectly good explanation for why Americans spend significantly more per capita on healthcare while achieving much worse results than countries with government healthcare. Now you can argue that you don't care about what the average outcomes and costs are, just your own, but elections are decided by what an average voter thinks, not you. So get over yourself.

1) no. I currenlty take my employer's insurance coverage, however those in our company who do not take it are not paid more. I swear you people haven't a clue about the real world. sheesh.

2) Yes, it's because we don't take care of ourselves and then make others pay when we go seek care(that is IF one were to buy into your premise - which is BS). Now about the "averages" you yapped about - I wasn't talking about that. ...so get over yourself...

So more money in hands of employers does not lead to higher wages? At least you admit that trickle down economics is a bunch of bunk.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

healthcare isn't a choice, it's a necessity

Come again? I shouldn't be able to make a choice? It should be mandatory then? ...since it is a "necessity"?

So you want to be making choices about which poor person gets treated and which one gets to die?
Because that's what you want charities to do.

You think the gov't should decide what gets treated and what doesn't?

No, I think it should pay for everyone to get treated.
BTW, deciding what gets treated and what doesn't is EXACTLY what insurance companies do now.

I don't say anything about charities so try again.

BTW, I want people to be able to choose their Health INSURANCE coverage - no matter what level of coverage they CHOOSE.

Really, and how exactly do you choose healthcare coverage if you don't have money to pay for it?

The US Gov't should pay for all treatments?

For all treatments that an average HMO currently pays, yes.

Yes, Insurance companies offer coverage. Some things may not be covered depending on the level of your coverage.

So what? Some things may not be covered by government insurance, and you can go out and obtain supplemental coverage to maintain the level of coverage that you have now. That way everyone will have some level of coverage, and you can have more if that's what you feel you need. It's no different than we have with Medicare now. It's not rocket science. It's been tried and it works, including in countries like Israel.

Health INSURANCE? They don't have money to pay for it? then they CHOOSE to not purchase Insurance. But again, the costs of the current system are inflated precisely because the gov't is involved. If the gov't would GTFO - most would be able to purchase atleast some basic level of INSURANCE.

Oh, OK, so they CHOOOOSE to not get insurance, and then who pays for them to get treated? Or you are going to turn them away from the ER? See, unless you are willing to tell people to FOAD when they try to get healthcare at the ER without proof of ability to pay, then you are simply increasing the overall burden on healthcare system and then passing it around like a hot potato, instead of proactively dealing with the situation and providing preventative care or catching disease early and treating it when its much cheaper.

So then the question goes back to: "You think the gov't should decide what gets treated and what doesn't? "

Oh, and try reading what I posted. I want the cost of care to be affordable so basic Health INSURANCE is cheap enough for even the "poor" can afford it. This means the gov't needs to GTFO of it and let competition and real INSURANCE take over. Obviously you have a poor understanding of Insurance, or you are once again trying to use healthcare and health insurance interechangably. Why can't you people be honest about care/insurance?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Uh, when did HMOs enter the discussion? I'm talking about INSURANCE. You know, like you have for your car, house, etc.

Again, it's not the responsibility of the US gov't to provide INSURANCE.

That is your OPINION. Don't confuse it with a FACT. US government already provides INSURANCE for the elderly and disabled, so clearly some people disagree with your OPINION that it's not responsibility of the US govt.

Please show me where in the Constitution it states the Feds should be in the INSURANCE business.

 

[theeedude]

Bottom line, you guys had 15 years to reform the current system after killing HillaryCare 1.0. Instead you demonstrated clearly with runaway inflation and unaffordability that the current system cannot be salvaged and needs to be scrapped. Now your time is up.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Uh, when did HMOs enter the discussion? I'm talking about INSURANCE. You know, like you have for your car, house, etc.

Again, it's not the responsibility of the US gov't to provide INSURANCE.

That is your OPINION. Don't confuse it with a FACT. US government already provides INSURANCE for the elderly and disabled, so clearly some people disagree with your OPINION that it's not responsibility of the US govt.

Please show me where in the Constitution it states the Feds should be in the INSURANCE business.

Get Medicare overturned in SCOTUS, then get back to me. Until then, Feds being in the INSURANCE business is perfectly Constitutional. Again it's your OPINION, don't confuse it with FACT or a SCOTUS opinion

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Uh, when did HMOs enter the discussion? I'm talking about INSURANCE. You know, like you have for your car, house, etc.

Again, it's not the responsibility of the US gov't to provide INSURANCE.

That is your OPINION. Don't confuse it with a FACT. US government already provides INSURANCE for the elderly and disabled, so clearly some people disagree with your OPINION that it's not responsibility of the US govt.

Please show me where in the Constitution it states the Feds should be in the INSURANCE business.

Get Medicare overturned in SCOTUS, then get back to me. Until then, Feds being in the INSURANCE business is perfectly Constitutional. Again it's your OPINION, don't confuse it with FACT or a SCOTUS opinion

I'll take that as a "I can't".

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: ayabe
Nebor - It's fallacy to believe that having military grade weaponry protects you from government tyranny or that outlawing such weapons opens that door. The door is wide open regardless. If the gov wants to seize your property for failing to pay income tax or for eminent domain purposes, regardless of what weapons you have, you will lose your property.

The Branch Davidians had hardcore weapons and the government crushed them. The same would happen to you with or without your .50cal.

You also forgot the child molestation charges by ex-members. In fact David quoted scripture to FBI agents over the phone about having the right to wed a any young girl he wanted in his compound because he was Jesus reborn etc...

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Are any of your costs subsidized by anyone else (say, the US taxpayer or an employer)?

My employer pays half of the $550/month total fee... and I sincerely doubt that they'd pass that money to me if they were relieved of their half of the payment. In fact, I know they wouldn't!

You also never answered my question (shocker!)... will UHC cost my wife and I more than $2700/year in increased taxes? YES or NO?

Irrelevant question - impacted overall is relevant, one minor negative for some big positives would be a good tradeoff

Who the fvck are you to tell me which of my primary concerns are irrelevant?! "one minor negative"?! HA!!

I'm sorry, but degrading the quality of care available to my family, "for the greater good," is entirely unacceptable.

Look how bad it is in Canada and the UK, who have a combined population of less than 100 million people... now imagine the crappy service we'll get with over 300 million citizens!

no fvcking way. lower quality medical care is NOT an option, and I will do everything in my power to prevent you from making it happen.

So you care zero for the well being of tens of millions of fellow Americans, it's good you are clear on where your political values lie.

things are not that black and white. I do care about everyone, but I refuse to carry everyone on my back.

I choose to help as many as I can, whenever I can. But, I am damn sick and tired of others, such as you, telling me who and what to support.