An alternative to Obamacare, starting with advice from Whole Foods

Actually, the current illegals ultimately will be covered if things go Obama's way. Love him or hate him, it's the truth. See, there's this other thing our lovely government is working on, lead by Obama, called "Immigration Reform". It's currently being worked and if this health care bill passes with a public option, you can bet it will be the next hot topic and issue being pushed.

Obama isn't just trying to change immigration policies, but actually convert illegals over to being legal. Something Bush played around with in discussions as well on a smaller scale and got major pushback on.

The same goes for abortions being covered by this proposed bill. While it's not said flat out that abortions are covered, it gets backdoored through the term "reproductive care" which Obama said he considers to be "essential care". Here's an Obama quote from a video where he was talking with the CEO of Planned Parenthood in AZ (if I remember right):

"In my mind, reproductive care is essential care. It is basic care. It is at the center and at the heart of the plan that I propose… It will be a plan that will provide ALL essential services, including reproductive services…"

And guess what, those terms ARE in the proposed bill

So, with that said, Illegals and abortions ARE planned to be covered.

-------------------------------

Now, past all the silly fighting and different points of view on who says what and what they mean by it... There's a much bigger concern here and it's funds. Everything you said in your post sounds beautiful. We all save money and everyone gets health coverage and proper care... cept it's a fantasy our government has proven to not be able to make possible.

The US is currently paying $500 million PER DAY in INTEREST alone on loans for their programs, activities, and employees. Medicare is now bankrupt and going way over budget and the baby boomers are about to hit it hard in the next few years as they qualify for it. More cuts to Medicare, more restrictions on Medicare coverage, and more doctors refusing to accept it.

It's very easy to say "Hey government, fix our healthcare with your endless supply of money and lawmaking abilities" and stop worrying about it. As Americans who mostly live outside their means with massive home, auto, and credit card debt they see it as no problem at all. However, we can only borrow so much money before we can't get out of the hole we dug. The government has proven in multiple cases to fail very badly in their ability to efficiently manage healthcare costs. Look at Massachuttes, remember the Tennessee public health option? What about the Native American Indians and their government healthcare, how's that working? Yeah, and now Medicare is bankrupt only getting much worse... oh yeah, and Medicaid was proven to cost more per patient per procedure than in the private sector showing how badly managed it is to lose to the big private insurance companies that over pay bonuses to their CEOs...

There are many issues we're all saying needs fixed regardless of your party or beliefs... it's a matter of fixing them without making things worse in other ways.

 

Everyone needs to be covered. It's basic math. Not covered means that a $40k bill is actually $40k ! That inevitably falls on tax payers and higher premiums to people that are insured....and is higher than if the companies were paying for the coverage. Everyone bills the Government like it's a free flowing tap, and we are overcharged on things all the time. When insurance companies are paying, they find a way to do it for less, but when they are billing the taxpayer, it's full price, plus some.

Covered means that it's matter of deductibles and premiums.

 

And this doesn't even count the $900 billion spent on the Iraq/Afghan wars since 2001.

You see, it is really about priorities, isn't it?

 

I'm with you there. Iraq was a misguided expense/debt that we really didn't need to have. Still looking for those WMD's that Bush was POSITIVE that they had.

Hell, we turned the country over with a fine toothed comb so well that we even found Saddam hiding is some small dank hole, and he didn't even have a stick in his hand

 

Yes. Even if we accept Afghanistan as necessary and justified, we still have squandered nearly $680 billion in Iraq.

Wisconsin tax payers have spent $11 billion on Iraq since 2003.

That would have been enough to provide health care to over 7 million people - roughly 1.5 million people more than the State's current census.

It really is about priorities...

 

Kinda difficult to provide FREE health care to millions of people when their way of life is threatened or obliterated.

You two kids will never get it.

 

Whatever the hell that means...

 

You know what it means.

BTW, I was thinking long and hard of a serious question I would ask Obama if I had the opportunity when it comes to health care. Here is what I came up with.

President Obama: Yes, Mr. Kinsey, you have a question?

ME: Yes, President Obama (as much as it plagues me to have to use those two words together) - Will you sir, hold yourself and all of Washington the same standard?

If yes, then I will gladly follow you.
If no, then fuck you.

In other words, I'd be willing to accept Congress (House/Senate) and the President's initiative assuming they too would also follow suit and partake in the SAME program.

If not, game over.

BTW, to the management, these stupid ADS inserted into posts are really annoying!!!

 

No, I don't know what you mean.

The Iraq war had nothing to do with US national security. It was/is a war of choice, based on arrogance and personal vindetta. Bushites and neocons were salivating over Iraq as early as the first Bush regime, and Georgey Porgy Jr. was instructing his aides to find a way to overthrow Saddam within ten days of his "election" (or should that be his "appointment by the Supreme Court"?).

With Iraq out of the equation, we would have saved at least $680 BILLION over the past 6 years.

Spending at that rate comes to over $1.1 TRILLION over ten years - just about what Congress is balking about spending on health care over a ten year period.

It really is about priorities...

 

Yeah, you do.

It had everything to do with it. You're probably too young to remember 9/11, so understandably your views are skewed.

At the cost of American lives... Nice... Again, your a bit too young to remember kid.

That it is...

 

Please provide your documentation that the US incursion and occupation of Iraq has anything whatsoever to do with the events of 9/11.

Yours is an untenable position that has been roundly discredited - even before Bushy's unilateral decision to invade and occupy. In the most graphic terms, this means that 4300 of America's finest have given their lives for nothing, and an additional 31,500 have been seriously wounded - a total casualty count of over 35,000 American service-people sacrificed for little more than ignorance and ego.

The United States is arguably, if not demonstratively, less secure than it was in 2003 (let alone 2001).

You may remember the speech given by President Eisenhower on 1/17/1961 in which he stated, "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

The Iraq occupation has nothing to do with health care in the US, except that it shifts common resources and serves to illustrate National priorities.

 

Nice.. I did not say that. You are not listening again. Nice try though.

Why is it you guys always try to tie 9/11 to Iraq and Saddam.

Again kiddo, you are too young to remember the address the President gave to our nation prior to our occupation. Post 9/11 in the days that followed the President declared a War on Terror. The goal of this war? To seek out the "terrorists" and the "countries that harbored them".

The war was not started to root out those responsible for 9/11 solely, but rather to seek out all terrorists, no matter where they hide. And to go after those regimes, leaders and countries that supported them, and gave them safe harbor.

FYI, no one in the Bush admin, Bush included ever said that 9/11 and Saddam or Iraq were in any way related.

It's called the War on Terror, not the War on only those dudes we think had something to do with 9/11.

Don't they teach you kids anything in school anymore? Thank God for reality. I cannot imagine having to read altered history on a daily basis.

What text book did you copy paste that from?

It is? You have a source for this?

And this quote has nothing to do with your argument.

No, Iraq has nothing to do with health care at all. Unless its some kid trying to argue his teachers ill gotten views by comparing the cost of Health Care to the Cost of ensuring FREEDOM.

Don't worry kid, you'll grow out of this.

 

I stated, "The Iraq war had nothing to do with US national security. "

Your response is "It had everything to do with it. You're probably too young to remember 9/11, so understandably your views are skewed."

It would appear that you are the one that is trying to tie 9/11 to Iraq, explicitly stating that 9/11 "had everything to do" with the incursion and occupation, and the staggering human and material losses incurred.

You can start with "U.S. National Security Policy Post-9/11: Perils and Prospects" by Susan E. Rice (Brookings Institute). Perhaps a bit dated, but still relevant.

Only in as much as, "the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex," was foreseen by a conservative President as a direct threat to our security and liberty in this country - words that are proving a bit more than prophetic, don't you think?

 

Oh contraire, it had a lot to do with it, as well as international security.

Correct

Nice back peddle. It's pretty obvious what you were implying.

Why not start with 8 years of no attacks on American interests. Nuff said.

The proof is in the pudding. Post Bush, the world, not just the US is a much safer place. Unfortunately that is slowly changing thanks to the undoing of policy.

 

Very sloppy logic.

"Correlation proves causation" is a logical fallicy - cum hoc ergo propter hoc - and your argument does nothing to support your thesis.

Further, you have yet to provide any support of your contention that the occupation Iraq was/is related to national security. Your assertion does not make it fact. Your opinions on the matter are worthless if you are unable to apply logic and supply sources to coraborate your "facts".

But, alas, this is a common problem with your rhetoric - consistently illogical and fragmented - as if sheer volume of words (and insults) can overwhelm opposing arguments. These traits are often indicative of small, closed minds - the kind subject to mass indoctrination and incapable of independent thought.



Meanwhile, a Treasury Department report now indicates that:

1. 48 percent are uninsured at some point over a ten-year span
2. 41 percent go without coverage for at least six months over a ten-year span
3. 36 percent go without coverage for at least one year over a ten-year span
4. 32 percent of people who are covered for all 12 months of a given year go without coverage at some point during the following nine years
5. 57 percent of Americans under age 21 are insured at some point over a ten-year span
6. 53 percent of Americans in rural areas go without insurance over a ten-year span
7. 45 percent of Americans with household incomes between $50,000-$100,000 (ten-year average) go without insurance at some point over a ten-year span

These are huge numbers, far above what you previously asserted:

I am sorry to, once again, confuse you with the facts

 

Reality often seems that way.

 

MOTS!

Is there no end to this foolishness?

 

Not that the nation's physicians know anything about the health care system in our country, but a survey conducted by Drs. Salomeh Keyhani and Alex Federman of Mount Sinai School of Medicine over the summer of 2009 (random sample of more than 2,000 physicians) found that nearly three-quarters of physicians supported some form of a public option, either alone or in combination with private insurance options.

Read about it here

 

Kool-Aid Drinker

 

I think that would count as an "ad hominem" - yet another logical fallicy.

The Master does nothing,
yet he leaves nothing undone.
The ordinary man is always doing things,
yet many more are left to be done.

The kind man does something,
yet something remains undone.
The just man does something,
and leaves many things to be done.
The moral man does something,
and when no one responds
he rolls up his sleeves and uses force.

When the Tao is lost, there is goodness.
When goodness is lost, there is morality.
When morality is lost, there is ritual.
Ritual is the husk of true faith,
the beginning of chaos.

~ Lao Tsu