Whitehouse “snitch on your neighbor” project (ObamaCare)

[Dan40]

Originally Posted by VRM

If liberals hate the Constitution then why do conservatives keep trying to change it? They must not be very happy with it.

Seriously, the majority of people in this country of any party do not hate the Constitution. That is a really stupid and ignorant comment that is more fitting to have come from Limbaugh or someone else who profits from the divisions in this country.

Here is some dreamland for you that is an unfortunate reality for far too many in this country:
Conservatives want to eliminate abortion completely, despite the fact that about roughly 3/4 of the women who get abortions do so for financial reasons. And of those 3/4, about 1/3 of them are having an abortion because they are on welfare, unemployed, or simply cannot afford the basic needs of life. So how do you propose that we force these women to have kids that they already know that they cannot afford? Conservatives continue in this dreamland by doing everything they can to discourage the use of condoms, despite the fact that countries that do promote birth control have 1/2 of unwanted pregnancies (and associated welfare/Obamacare dependents).

Steve

My comment was stupid and ignorant? And your arguement that KILLING BABIES is OK for financial reasons is enlightened? Unphuckingbelievable!

FYI Those on welfare are covered by Medicaid. Medicaid does not cover abortions. Some private insurance covers abortion, Medicaid doesn't. The Hyde amendment to Roe, Wade.
I wish Medicaid did cover abortions. Call it the DARWIN amendment. But the liberals want the votes of the parasitic 'entitlement' happy poor.
Liberals bury the Constitution and bankruptcy laws to buy UNION votes. Conservatives are against abortions to buy Catholic votes. Horse and a horse.
Forget killing babies, a single barely functioning brain cell should KNOW there has to be a better way. That murdered baby might have been the one to come up with the answer.

[VRM]

Originally Posted by Dan40

My comment was stupid and ignorant? And your arguement that KILLING BABIES is OK for financial reasons is enlightened? Unphuckingbelievable!

FYI Those on welfare are covered by Medicaid. Medicaid does not cover abortions. Some private insurance covers abortion, Medicaid doesn't. The Hyde amendment to Roe, Wade.
I wish Medicaid did cover abortions. Call it the DARWIN amendment. But the liberals want the votes of the parasitic 'entitlement' happy poor.
Liberals bury the Constitution and bankruptcy laws to buy UNION votes. Conservatives are against abortions to buy Catholic votes. Horse and a horse.
Forget killing babies, a single barely functioning brain cell should KNOW there has to be a better way. That murdered baby might have been the one to come up with the answer.

Dan, You missed the point.
Let's not kill babies - lets just wait for them to die as small children because their parents cannot afford health care for them. You have no problem with that, right? As long as we save the babies we can ignore the kids.

There are plenty of people who are struggling financially without having another mouth to feed. Force them to add that mouth due to a mistake, and they are going to have to cut more corners somewhere. I can ensure that regular checkups will be one of the first things to go, and most medical care will be an emergency because they wait too long. That makes it a LOT more expensive.

However, one of the drawbacks to free care is that people go to the hospital for a hangnail, and that will be expensive as well.

We need a better solution than government run health care. Obama has the wrong plan and the GOP has nothing.

Steve

[Scott S]

Originally Posted by VRM

Force them to add that mouth due to a mistake,
Steve

The vast majority of abortions are not due to a "mistake" they are needed because of a lack of responsibility, the same for much of our health care system.

I have a huge problem with providing free unlimited health care to all, I think everyone except children should remit a co-pay of 1/4 of their body weight, double if you smoke.

Scott S

[VRM]

Originally Posted by Scott S

I have a huge problem with providing free unlimited health care to all, I think everyone except children should remit a co-pay of 1/4 of their body weight, double if you smoke.

Scott S

I really like that idea, but I would take it a step further; add a percentage for body fat (no need to penalise body builders - muscle is heavier than fat) and then convert that percentage into a dollar figure. I do think that overweight people, smokers, and cosmetic surgery adicts should pay more, as most of them will end up costing more. We also need to make sure that things like co-pays are not too excessive, even for those high-risk groups, or they will never go for checkups and then they will possibly require major medical intervention to correct what originally could have been an easily correctable problem.
I would like to figure out a way to offer incentives to medical insurers to cover more people at a lower rate.
One thing that I think would help would be to reduce the stupid lawsuits for malpractice. I am not saying we should eliminate ALL lawsuits, but a lot of them are over the top. The DNC will not like this, and I could really care less. There are other things I would do that would probably crimp GOP donations as well. Tough.

Steve

[cobra bill]

One thing that I think would help would be to reduce the stupid lawsuits for malpractice. I am not saying we should eliminate ALL lawsuits, but a lot of them are over the top. The DNC will not like this, and I could really care less. There are other things I would do that would probably crimp GOP donations as well. Tough.

Steve[/quote]

I agree about malpractice, but it only makes up 2% of the overall cost of healthcare, the bigger problem is corporate beurocrocy, there are for profit hospitals that have as many Beurocrats collecting fees as they do beds in the hospital.

[Wayne Maybury]

Originally Posted by VRM

However, one of the drawbacks to free care is that people go to the hospital for a hangnail, and that will be expensive as well.
Steve

This is a major problem with the Canadian system. Since it is "free" many people go to the hospital for the slightest ailment or in some cases because they are lonely. I firmly believe that there should be a nominal charge to visit a doctor or an ER. Firstly this would pump badly needed dollars into the system and secondly it would go a long way to reducing the over crowding. Unfortunately, none of our politicians have the guts to make this policy decision.

By the way, cosmetic surgery is not covered by Medicare in Canada.

Wayne

[VRM]

Originally Posted by Wayne Maybury

This is a major problem with the Canadian system. Since it is "free" many people go to the hospital for the slightest ailment or in some cases because they are lonely. I firmly believe that there should be a nominal charge to visit a doctor or an ER. Firstly this would pump badly needed dollars into the system and secondly it would go a long way to reducing the over crowding. Unfortunately, none of our politicians have the guts to make this policy decision.

By the way, cosmetic surgery is not covered by Medicare in Canada.

Wayne

Wayne,
Adding a charge would stop poor people from going to get most care except for emergency stuff. That is part of the problem we have now. Maybe adding a 'trivial care' charge for people that go in for stupid problems - it might make people think a little bit more about why they go in.

Cosmetic surgery should not be covered (except for reasonable reconstruction reasons), but sometimes the aftermath of that poorly executed surgery might be.

Steve

[Wayne Maybury]

Originally Posted by VRM

Wayne,
Adding a charge would stop poor people from going to get most care except for emergency stuff. That is part of the problem we have now. Maybe adding a 'trivial care' charge for people that go in for stupid problems - it might make people think a little bit more about why they go in.

Cosmetic surgery should not be covered (except for reasonable reconstruction reasons), but sometimes the aftermath of that poorly executed surgery might be.

Steve

Steve poor people (on welfare) don't pay for anything so they would also be exempt from this charge. I did say a nominal charge so I meant something in the $5 to $10 range for an initial visit. This would not hurt anyone but it would make some people think twice before going to the hospital unnecessarily.

I think that most reconstructive surgery is covered under our system but elective cosmetic surgery is definitely not covered.

Wayne

[VRM]

Originally Posted by Wayne Maybury

Steve poor people (on welfare) don't pay for anything so they would also be exempt from this charge. I did say a nominal charge so I meant something in the $5 to $10 range for an initial visit. This would not hurt anyone but it would make some people think twice before going to the hospital unnecessarily.

I think that most reconstructive surgery is covered under our system but elective cosmetic surgery is definitely not covered.

Wayne

Wayne, you did say nominal. I think my co-pay is $25 now. I would like to figure out some way to keep the welfare types from going all the time since there is no charge to them.

Steve

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by VRM

Wayne, you did say nominal. I think my co-pay is $25 now. I would like to figure out some way to keep the welfare types from going all the time since there is no charge to them.

Steve

Even if there was a copay, the ER can't refuse seeing any patient, so if the person doesn't have the money, they still are cared for, and then billed later, which they will never pay anyways. The co-pay thing only works for outpatient services, where if the person doesn't have the cash, they are not then cared for.

[Juggernaut]

[quote=VRM;972436]Dan, You missed the point.
Let's not kill babies - lets just wait for them to die as small children because their parents cannot afford health care for them. You have no problem with that, right? As long as we save the babies we can ignore the kids.


VRM,

Have you ever heard of adoption? If the parents are financially not able to provide the baby with the things the child needs to have a healthy childhood, putting the child up for adoption is an option, plenty of folks out there that can't bear children that would love to adopt one. Abortion is NOT the answer to someone's irresponsible actions.

Dan's not missing your point, you, sir, are missing the point.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

[VRM]

[quote=Juggernaut;972585]

Originally Posted by VRM

Dan, You missed the point.
Let's not kill babies - lets just wait for them to die as small children because their parents cannot afford health care for them. You have no problem with that, right? As long as we save the babies we can ignore the kids.


VRM,

Have you ever heard of adoption? If the parents are financially not able to provide the baby with the things the child needs to have a healthy childhood, putting the child up for adoption is an option, plenty of folks out there that can't bear children that would love to adopt one. Abortion is NOT the answer to someone's irresponsible actions.

Dan's not missing your point, you, sir, are missing the point.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

Juggernaut,
Nope you (and Dan) missed the point - you need to read the statistics. There are plenty of kids available for adoption already. The problem is that most of them are black and American parents do not want to adopt black kids. They would rather go to China or Russia to get kids there.

In the meantime there are around 100,000 minority kids waiting for adoption right now - most of whom will never be adopted. There were about 1.2 million abortions in the US in 2005. In that same year 51,000 kids were adopted out of foster care in the US (there were more kids that were adopted from outside the US). The total number of adoption in the US does not even hit 20% of the total abortions. Roughly 900,000 abortions (3/4) are performed for financial reasons. Let's just say that half of them are kept by the mother despite the financial situation - that leaves 450,000 kids about 2/3 being minorities) to put up for adoption - in addition to the ones already available. That is more than 3 times the total number of kids adopted - and this is every year.

For those of you that whine about socialism, abortion, and gays adopting - what are you going to do about all those kids? They will become wards of the state, and that means that you and I are going to pay for them. It's cruel and harsh to say so, but you guys are just not doing the math on this. The reality of the situation does not change simply because you think abortion is morally wrong.

We need to make some fundamental changes in this country, and many conservatives are blocking progress on a number of issues. You want more stable families? Let gays marry and adopt. You want less abortions? Promote birth control side by side with abstinence. You want to avoid ever having another Obama get elected? Keep your own guys aware that they have to govern for everyone - not just the extreme right wing.

Steve

[Dan40]

Originally Posted by VRM

Dan, You missed the point.
Let's not kill babies - lets just wait for them to die as small children because their parents cannot afford health care for them. You have no problem with that, right? As long as we save the babies we can ignore the kids.

There are plenty of people who are struggling financially without having another mouth to feed. Force them to add that mouth due to a mistake, and they are going to have to cut more corners somewhere. I can ensure that regular checkups will be one of the first things to go, and most medical care will be an emergency because they wait too long. That makes it a LOT more expensive.

However, one of the drawbacks to free care is that people go to the hospital for a hangnail, and that will be expensive as well.

We need a better solution than government run health care. Obama has the wrong plan and the GOP has nothing.

Steve

Steve, you need to do some research. Re: your first paragraph.

Health care for poor parents and poor babies is FREE. Has been for many years. IT IS THE LAW. Any hospital in the US, private or public owned. And this applies to ANY PERSON in the US. legal, illegal, or citizen. LOOK IT UP. They CANNOT refuse care for any reason, including money. ALL poor people know this. The local Emergency Room IS their family Doctor. So ZERO babies are going to die from lack of health care.

2nd paragraph.

Yes there are people that are struggling financially. I won't even ask why you think THEY are not the ones MOST responsible for that. Instead I'll ask that if it is OK to preform an invasive operation on a woman to KILL a baby. Why is not OK to preform an invasive operation on her and tie her tubes? The ligation is a less serious procedure than the abortion. And CURES that problem and a host of others.


They do NOT wait at all! ER's are loaded with poor with sniffles, cuts, bruises, aches, pains, same as any Doc's office. There are and have been for decades, County Health services that do routine check ups and preventive care for the poor That's part of why I state the FACT that the liberals are lying all the time. They KNOW that coverage is there and has been there, but they want the general public to think there is a crisis, when NO such crisis exists.

Your 3rd. para.

That has been the routine for well more than a quarter of a century, maybe half a century.


Your 4th. para.

All our health care system needs is cost control. Access is at 100% and has been. And our US health care IS the very finest in the world.
WHO says its not. WHO is funded by member GOVERNMENTS. Many of which OWN their countries health care delivery system. How often do you think the WHO bites the hand that feeds them? hint, the answer is 0.
WHO ACCEPTS WHATEVER statistics a country reports to them. [along with the funding check!] Have every country report their health stats the EXACT same way that our NON-Government AMA does and we would be far and away the EASY winner. Just one phase of the WHO's report should explain all. They HEAVILY weigh their rankings on "FAIRNESS" of health care. Well ours isn't the fairest, the rich do get better care. AND ALWAYS WILL, everywhere, but in other, socialized medicine, countries it "officially" doesn't happen.

[cobra bill]

WHO ACCEPTS WHATEVER statistics a country reports to them. [along with the funding check!] Have every country report their health stats the EXACT same way that our NON-Government AMA does and we would be far and away the EASY winner. Just one phase of the WHO's report should explain all. They HEAVILY weigh their rankings on "FAIRNESS" of health care. Well ours isn't the fairest, the rich do get better care. AND ALWAYS WILL, everywhere, but in other, socialized medicine, countries it "officially" doesn't happen.[/quote]

The statistics out there are provided by the AMA and even our own CIA and we are ranked 37th and the infant mortality rate is 50th, we are not the best! Now don't get me wrong or get your panties in a wad, we have the best in the world if you can afford it, so there is a great inequity in our country, I'm not saying that everyone should get what the wealthiest people can buy, of course not, but they should get basic care. Actually the highest rated system in the world is ours, it's the Tri care system for our military, and the VA is ranked 2nd, guess what folks it's government run! you know socialized medicine.
And by the way it's not free for those that can't afford it, those that have insurance pay it, it's costing us about $1,100 a year in our premiums to pay for them, there is no free lunch.

[Dan40]

Originally Posted by cobra bill

WHO ACCEPTS WHATEVER statistics a country reports to them. [along with the funding check!] Have every country report their health stats the EXACT same way that our NON-Government AMA does and we would be far and away the EASY winner. Just one phase of the WHO's report should explain all. They HEAVILY weigh their rankings on "FAIRNESS" of health care. Well ours isn't the fairest, the rich do get better care. AND ALWAYS WILL, everywhere, but in other, socialized medicine, countries it "officially" doesn't happen.

The statistics out there are provided by the AMA and even our own CIA and we are ranked 37th and the infant mortality rate is 50th, we are not the best! Now don't get me wrong or get your panties in a wad, we have the best in the world if you can afford it, so there is a great inequity in our country, I'm not saying that everyone should get what the wealthiest people can buy, of course not, but they should get basic care. Actually the highest rated system in the world is ours, it's the Tri care system for our military, and the VA is ranked 2nd, guess what folks it's government run! you know socialized medicine.
And by the way it's not free for those that can't afford it, those that have insurance pay it, it's costing us about $1,100 a year in our premiums to pay for them, there is no free lunch.[/quote]

Lobotomized liberals take note. I did not say care was free, I said care was free to poor people. USE all my words, not just the ones you can twist. Insurance companies do not pay for the poor. Taxes do, and spiraling costs do. Insurance companies CONTRACT with hospitals and set the price they will pay for their insureds treatments. The hospitals fees charged on their bills to patients are absolutely meaningless to insurance companies. They pay according to the contracted agreement.

Example: a hospital bill of $100,000.00 for X treatment. The patient has 80/20 coverage with a stop loss of $10,000. The patient pays $10,000.00. The insurance company pays NO attention to the $90,000.00 balance. Their pre-negotiated contract with the hospital says they will pay $18,569.45 for X treatment and that is what they pay. The hospital "adjusts" away the balance.

Medicare is somewhat similar. Example using actual rounded off numbers. My wife was recently hospitalized for 18 days, needing surgery for an illness. The bill was $80,000.00. the Medicare Part A deductible is $1000. So we paid $1000. The Medicare reimbursement for her illness was $8000.
Medicare TELLS the hospital what they will pay by geographic region. So the hospital "adjusted" away $71,000.00

In each of the examples, if a person had means but no insurance, they would owe the FULL amount of the bill. $100,000.00 or $80,000.00
The person of means has choices.
Pay the bill.
File for bankruptcy.
Or negotiate a settlement amount. The hospital will be happy to do this. They could settle for 25 cents on the dollar and still realize more than Medicare or insurance would pay them.
None of this would mean anything to a poor person. The hospital would just write it off.
Note that is the overly cumbersome and complicated financial system. None of that has to do with care.
Does the situation cry out for simplification? YES!!!
Does it require one once more of Government Control? NO!!

As I have said before, if your Cobra needs a tune up, you DO NOT turn it over to the Government for a total rebuild by a committee that never saw a car before. You install plugs and adjust what needs adjusted. You don't replace the 427 side oiler with a Hoover Hybrid.

[VRM]

Originally Posted by Dan40

Health care for poor parents and poor babies is FREE. So ZERO babies are going to die from lack of health care.

Ummmm - hello - who exactly do you think pays for 'FREE'? Do you think it might be the same people who do not want to pay for 'FREE' now? If we add more people to 'FREE', then we have to also add more people to 'PAY'. Or we have to make the people in 'PAY' pay more. Which group are you in? If we cannot afford to pay any more then 'FREE' will dry up, and they will start to move to the 'DIE' group.

Originally Posted by Dan40

Yes there are people that are struggling financially. I won't even ask why you think THEY are not the ones MOST responsible for that. Instead I'll ask that if it is OK to preform an invasive operation on a woman to KILL a baby. Why is not OK to preform an invasive operation on her and tie her tubes? The ligation is a less serious procedure than the abortion. And CURES that problem and a host of others.

Ummm - where did I say that they are not responsible? There are a lot of good and educated people out of work right now, but that is the exception rather than the rule - and a completely different thread. I am in favour of forced tubal ligation for people that abuse the system, and I have said so here in this forum before.

Originally Posted by Dan40

They do NOT wait at all! ER's are loaded with poor with sniffles, cuts, bruises, aches, pains, same as any Doc's office. There are and have been for decades, County Health services that do routine check ups and preventive care for the poor That's part of why I state the FACT that the liberals are lying all the time. They KNOW that coverage is there and has been there, but they want the general public to think there is a crisis, when NO such crisis exists.

They do not wait because they pay nothing for their care. Waynes comment about Canada is the same - there is no penalty for showing up at the ER for a hangnail. For some people, though, even $5 will be too much, and they will wait until their finger is going to fall off just to save the $5. I do not know how to make this work so that people only go when they really do need legit care. I do my best to self-diagnose and evaluate before going to the doc, but I also have a high degree of confidence in my ability to troubleshoot. Others will only be happy when 5 doctors tell them that they are not terminal.

Originally Posted by Dan40

Your 3rd. para.
That has been the routine for well more than a quarter of a century, maybe half a century.

It's a routine that needs to change if we are going to control costs.

Originally Posted by Dan40

Your 4th. para.
All our health care system needs is cost control. Access is at 100% and has been. And our US health care IS the very finest in the world.
WHO says its not. WHO is funded by member GOVERNMENTS. Many of which OWN their countries health care delivery system. How often do you think the WHO bites the hand that feeds them? hint, the answer is 0.
WHO ACCEPTS WHATEVER statistics a country reports to them. [along with the funding check!] Have every country report their health stats the EXACT same way that our NON-Government AMA does and we would be far and away the EASY winner. Just one phase of the WHO's report should explain all. They HEAVILY weigh their rankings on "FAIRNESS" of health care. Well ours isn't the fairest, the rich do get better care. AND ALWAYS WILL, everywhere, but in other, socialized medicine, countries it "officially" doesn't happen.

I agree that we need to manage costs better. We need to encourage insurers to work on efficiency, eliminate redundancy, and allow for greed of big pharma, but better manage the excessive greed. Care for the rich will always be better than that for the poor. I have no problem with that. However, 50-60% of bankruptcies (before the current economic mess) were caused by catastrophic medical costs for a family member. I think we can do better, but I am not exactly sure how without the rich paying for everyone elses care (which I do not want to happen). I take WHO stats (and pretty much everyones) with a grain of salt - the truth is usually somewhere in the middle.

Like I said - Obama has the wrong plan.

Steve

[Dan40]

"Like I said - Obama has the wrong plan."

Steve


Common ground!

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by VRM

However, 50-60% of bankruptcies (before the current economic mess) were caused by catastrophic medical costs for a family member. I think we can do better, but I am not exactly sure how without the rich paying for everyone elses care (which I do not want to happen). I take WHO stats (and pretty much everyones) with a grain of salt - the truth is usually somewhere in the middle.

Like I said - Obama has the wrong plan.

Steve

I hear that quoted all the time, but I haven't seen that happen once, presented in that way. However, what usually occurs is that the bread earner becomes sick, and immediately or eventually becomes unable to work, and then loses their job/insurance while still stacking up medical bills. At some point they file bankruptcy to wipe the slate clean, and eventually go on medicare/medicaid. It's not the medical bills themselves that cause the bankruptcy, it's the loss of their job and their health insurance that leads to mounting bills and bankruptcy. That's what I see, over and over.

[cobra de capell]

Originally Posted by Anthony

I hear that quoted all the time, but I haven't seen that happen once, presented in that way. However, what usually occurs is that the bread earner becomes sick, and immediately or eventually becomes unable to work, and then loses their job/insurance while still stacking up medical bills. At some point they file bankruptcy to wipe the slate clean, and eventually go on medicare/medicaid. It's not the medical bills themselves that cause the bankruptcy, it's the loss of their job and their health insurance that leads to mounting bills and bankruptcy. That's what I see, over and over.

http://www.shieldofachilles.net/2007...lf-of-all.html

Posted URL provides the real scope on the fact that medical BK's are way less than 1/2 of BK's - the 1/2 comes from a flawed study by die-hard liberals.