An alternative to Obamacare, starting with advice from Whole Foods

You've not read the bill. They just do not call it "abortion".

It will. Again, you've not read the bill. In fact, out of that "50 million" uninsured number that the government keeps using as a way to push this bill through, nearly 1/3 of that number are Illegals!!!!

The don't call it that, but the reality is it will dictate who gets care and who is not eligible for it.

Tricking buddy... No, it does NOT take money from it. It just eliminates it. Read the bill man.

Ah, it kinda is. By eliminating competition, which it will, it kinda does take it over.

You really are brain washed aren't you. You know what Obamacare is really going to do for you. Its going to cost you money, and its going to cause more headaches than ever before. Thats the only guaranteed reality.

When government runs something, there is NO "option". And there is NO "choice".

I really feel sorry for people this ignorant.

 

You've been listening to too much of Rush, and perhaps Sara.

For example, there isn't even a "bill" to read yet, simply various proposals in both branches of Congress.

I wonder if the final health care bill will pay for the painkillers Rush needs for his addiction or not?

 

No, I'm what you call an independent thinker. I do not rely on others to tell me how to think. And how on earth would you know what Rush is saying anyway? I sure has hell don't. Are you saying you know more about what he is saying than I? Are you saying he's saying the same thing as me? Perhaps that just means more people out there actually have a differing opinion and do not following blindly like yourself.

Yes there is. Its called HR 3200. Had you been listening and following along with the discussion here you'd have realized that.

How many years old is this again? If that the worst Rush ever did, he'd be considered a saint by comparison to many others in his field.

 

I'm sorry, but it really doesn't show. Instead we hear the same neo-con drivel that is showing up so many places these days. (You deserve a duplicate content penalty)

Follow the money behind the arguments you are so "thoughtfully" repeating. The insurance industry is at the very heart of the recent economic collapse. They will do whatever, however and at any cost to preserve a system that let's them operate without meaningful regulation and oversight - all while lobbying for legislation that requires you to use their services.

Auto insurance, mortgage insurance, workers compensation insurance, home insurance, flood insurance, and in at least one State health insurance - all required by statute or as a prerequisite for doing business or getting loans. All operated by the private sector.

Oh, the wonders of unrestrained capitalism.

It used to be that "mutual insurance" companies provided benefits through "sharing risk". Unfortunately, mutual insurance companies are pretty much a thing of the past. Now it's about corporate America where benefits mean nothing and profit is made through "reducing risk".

Insurance companies eagerly anticipate the creation of health co-op's, which won't be able to compete, or better yet, legislation requiring that individuals carry health insurance.

Your (neo-con) government at work...

 

That's because you've been so brain washed you don't know which way is up.

 

Another thoughtful response from an independent thinker. Thanks Rush...

 

Let me help you out newbie... You are supposed to say something about that there Fox News if you really want to insult someone.

 

How quickly we move from the essence of the debate. Fact or fiction? Personality or principals?

If you wanna' be a Flame Warrior you need to hone up a bit. Remember UseNet? That is where the big boys sharpened their teeth.

Any thoughts about your bondage to Coporate America in general, or the insurance industry in particular, or will we simply devlove into neo-con name calling?

So predictable....

 

Look. Its simple. Open up medicade (or medicare which ever one it is) to everyone. Let us pay on a sliding scale to our income. Problem solved. All this other BS is just getting in the way to solving a very simple problem.

 

I can only assume this would be me that you refer to. No one's bud though.

Where, might I ask, are the threats that you refer to?

I had, for a moment, thought you might be a "Capitalista", but it turns out that you do not grasp the necessary facts to qualify for that one.

No, I am afraid we are dealing with a punch rummy "Palooka" here...

 

And you helped to take it off track. And you paricipated in the attacks by calling him names.

Oh yeah, I do think there's something wrong with health care. And I've said so in detail many times. I can't help it if you don't pay attention.

If I weren't suffering the searing pain of losing my beautiful daughter a few months ago, I might feel anger at your disgustingly patronizing tone here. You got no business talking down to me. I have followed the discussion, but you are just looking for an excuse to denigrate me. How about getting back to the actual topic instead of telling me what to do or calling people names.

Again, your tone here is disgusting. You have no business calling anyone a punk, and again, it does not further the debate by calling people names. There's no excuse for calling him my buddy just because we both apparently disagree with you. Guess what? There's millions of people who disagree with you. You won't have sufficient time in your entire life to insult them all. You have no business deciding no one cares about his links, decide for yourself and don't pretend to speak for us all.

I disagree, you are not supposed to attack other posters, and giving people negative labels meets that definition in my opinion. Your opinion may differ, but where do you draw the line?

There you go again, calling people here names. And being here longer doesn't gain you any real status here on the board and certainly in real life.

How about you stop calling people names, and looking for ways to attempt to denigrate others, and instead, just discuss the real issues?

Or would that not be fun for you?

I posted about my daughter because I want to remind people debating the health care reform issue that we are talking about real people who live and die. You did see those posts, right?

See, this isn't some sarcastic points board to me, it's a way to actually debate a life and death issue. If you have a heart of stone and you're just looking for fun, please go elsewhere.

 

I'm still waiting for your response to the points made about insurance companies, shared vs. reduced risk and such.

Is there any reason why you would defend government's legislation requiring that you patronize corporate America, but oppose legislation that would free you from such obligations?

Would you consider mandatory participation in a corporate controlled health plan to be a tax? If not, why not? Seems to me that if the government says you have to pay (as in Massachusettes) that the result is no different than any other tax - except for the recipient that is.

I thought you were a free and independent thinker. Share some of that wisdom with us...

 

I need more information on this because there there will likely be medical licenses lost as well as a major lawsuit. I'm being told by a Dr who should know, it is against the law to stop cancer treatment in a life saving situation, mid-treatment due to lack of payment or funds. I will gladly help in bringing this case to light to see justice.

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

There is no debate here people, there's no money. We'll be shortly reaching the point where we're spending $1 BILLION in INTEREST ALONE to China per WEEK for the loans our government has with them. Medicare is bankrupt and going WAY over budget. Yeah it was great when we had a huge working class and small # of % people retired, but that's changing. Now, there are more restrictions being proposed and applied causing more and more doctors to opt out and tell people with Medicare to go to another Dr. Others are just jacking up rates for private insurance to make up for these government programs. All this and the far majority of baby boomers have yet to hit Medicare. Guess what will happen when they do!

I still stand by people don't die from a case of "no insurance". And even though there have been busts for doctors telling people they needed an operation (when they didn't), preforming it (to collect insurance), and the patient dying, I don't think that means people die from a case of "having insurance".

Let's fix Medicare and not leave our seniors out to dry. We're already in too far to try and back out suddenly. Then when we figure out if this CAN work without destroying our country let's debate if we should apply it to the rest of the population. In the mean time let's fix our current insurance issues starting with listening to what people who have half a brain have to say like in my first post of this thread. Things that will bring costs down and make pre-existing conditions not such as issue (tort reform, creating competition outside state boundaries).

Also, let's be responsible and understand our life is our life. Nobody in the government or anywhere else cares about you like you and your family care for you. My mother-in-law should be retired right now but she till works and she still pays for her 29 year old son's health insurance refusing to stop it till he produces proof of his own policy. She is smart enough to know it could destroy him financially if he had a major problem. And no doubt she will continue to make sure he keeps his insurance if she, as a responsible parent, feels he would even consider dropping it or letting it lapse. I'm sure she would have never gotten pregnant with him if she wasn't financially stable and mentally capable enough to provide in such a way.

 

This is a reasonable post, in my opinion, Reseq, although I still stand in disagreement regarding our system as it stands, with the status of the uninsured (and the relatively unimpeachable protection afforded insurance companies, and their medical prostitutes paid to tow the profit-line - who can and do screw the insured).

More at another time. Just wanted to chime in that I was glad to see a reasoned post like this, coming from another point of view.

(Willy - guessing this makes me a Diplomat, for the moment. I've got my fire-retardant ready. ).

 

Government run stimulus = convicts get tax payer money
Post office - go's without saying
Medicare
Medicaid
Social Security

Should I really go on?

Government run anything = Disaster and Failure. Always has, always will.

What do I want? Government to get the fuck out of my way. That is all.

FYI, Corporate America is what pays the bills bud!!!

All the government is going to do is make things worse. What they SHOULD be doing is working on TORT reform, and stop doing back door deals with drug companies. All this meddling around is going to do is make things worse. Just look at things like this:

Government run stimulus = convicts get tax payer money
Post office - go's without saying
Medicare
Medicaid
Social Security

Should I really go on?

 

What does this have to do with the questions I posed - "Would you consider mandatory participation in a corporate controlled health plan to be a tax? If not, why not? Seems to me that if the government says you have to pay (as in Massachusettes) that the result is no different than any other tax - except for the recipient that is."

Or, is this just turning into a psuedo-Libertarian rant?

 

Are you going to ask some real questions, or just keep repeating the same goofy euphemisms?

I think I made myself quite clear. I want government to get the fuck out of my way. I have no issues buying my own insurance, and no issues paying for my health care. I'm an American, not a communist. I work for a living. I do not take. I make. I buy. And I give.

How can I be any clearer? There is nothing wrong with health care. There IS a problem with people suing the shit out of everyone. There IS a problem when a OBGYN's malpractice insurance is 4 times their salary. There IS a problem with the coffers in Washington fill their pockets with money from those in this industry.

Government running something that they currently cannot control is not going to solve a thing.

TORT REFORM... That's step one.
Step two - GET THE HELL OUT OF JER's WAY!!!

"mandatory" and "participation" are two words that should never be used together. Participating in something implies that ALL are sharing both RISK and BENEFIT. Government run "participation" means, I get all the risk, someone else gets the benefit.

I choose NOT to participate. Unfortunately when you make participation mandatory, I have no choice.

 

If you choose NOT to participate in auto insurance, then you are in violation of the law.

In Massachusettes, if you choose NOT to participate in private health insurance, you are in violation of the law. (Interstingly, this legislation was pushed thorugh by a Republican Governor.)

Is this the kind of choice you are referring to?

I will only ask one question at a time, since multiple questions seem to be overwhelming for you...

 

Oops, looks like things are changing:

"After June 1, 2010, Wisconsin drivers will be required to have an automobile insurance policy in force or, in limited situations, other security which could be a surety bond, personal funds, or certificate of self-insurance. Details are available at the Department of Transportation, Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV), Hill Farms State Office Building, 4802 Sheboygan Ave., Madison, WI 53702." (Wisconisn Commissioner of Insurance)

How does that requirement differ from a tax, or any other government "intrusion" on one's personal liberties?

 

I understand the logic in place here, Willy, and yes it does apply to the issue at hand. Interesting food for thought.