The first "shot" has been fired across the bow of Obamacare

[other one]

also one thing people here in america forget about the health care system as it is set up now is that NO ONE who needs medical treatment will be turned away regardless of their abilty to pay-ever hear of an E.R.

now i know there would be a few exception to this such as certain terminal diseases and life support, but with Obama's health plan they get to pick and chose who they treat for the most part.

I don't know if that is true in the current bill because I haven't read it, but I find it highly doubtful that ER's would ever be permitted to turn patients away without being seen. Even with Obamacare. I do know that private hospitals are permitted to transfer indigent patients to public facilities after stabilizing them, but they loose Medicare certification as well as extra money from the government to reimburse them for "charity" care if they just turn them away. It is built right into the reimbursement structure with Medicare.

The problem with doing across state lines is that right now the insurance industry is about the most regulated industry in the country if not the world. But each state has it's own set of regulations and they are really different. If you are going to cross state lines, you have to have some national guidelines to control them..... they have already shown us that they can't be trusted to regulate themselves, that's why each state does it for them..... and to cross state lines with all the different laws and regulations would be disastrous. Ultimately all the insurance companies would be in New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois and California and they would be making the rules for the whole country and none of them has a reputation for regulating for their own good much the rest of us.

Of course they would have to be regulated. That would be part of a health-care bill that makes sense and could improve the system, not destroy it. In fact, they would be regulated by the Interstate Commerce Act if not by the bill. It might mean that there are fewer small insurers and a few major insurers, but their profits from healthy subscribers would more than exceed the cost of covering the chronically and terminally ill. It is possible to do this without the "death panels" and government mandates and penalties for those who don't buy health care insurance.

You may not know this, but there are already penalties built into the Medicare system for those who do not pay for Part B (doctors) and/or Part D (drugs) as soon as they become eligible. And they can be substantial, depending on how long they go without participating in the Parts. It's 10% of the current premium times every year you did not participate, which is then added to the current premium. There may be a limit on how much can be added to the premium, but I'm not up on that.

So, we can have a good bill if we, the people, make our legislators listen to us and fashion a bill that all sides can support, except maybe the left-wing loons and progressives (Socialists.)

There are no more death pannels in this bill that don't already exist parker, and the regulation you are speaking of for across state lines is not that different than is the bulk of this bill.

There are some really bad tax problems it creates, and it's against our principles that we are forcing people into the insurance system, but since I'm paying for a lot of that already, I personally can overlook it for that care tha I'm paying for in ER's can cost ten to fifteen times as much as if they went to a doctor's office. I'd rather pay thier expenses that way if they can't afford it.

[Guest shiloh357]

You didn't see me condemn the comments regarding the left blaming Sarah Palin for the shooting, and the death threats towards her?

I did say anything about Sarah Palin. It's just that in this situation, it was clear that no one could pin this thing on her. However, what I said is that you and people like you were basically silent when those on the left were calling for the death of a sitting president and burning effigies of him and expressing death wishes on Limbaugh.

I've stated that innocent deaths are always evil before in the past. You could reaosnably assume that I believe that I don't believe death threats like these are justified.

I didn't say you thought they were justified. I am simply pointing out your selective outrage.

[Burning_Ember]

I did say anything about Sarah Palin. It's just that in this situation, it was clear that no one could pin this thing on her. However, what I said is that you and people like you were basically silent when those on the left were calling for the death of a sitting president and burning effigies of him and expressing death wishes on Limbaugh.

Death threats are always horrible. Cut it with the "people like you" bit.

I didn't say you thought they were justified. I am simply pointing out your selective outrage.

I didn't say that you said that. I merely said that actual hypocrisy would be condemning a horrible act in one instance, while justifying it, or attempting to, in another. Let's talk a little bit about this 'selective outrage'

Everytime you see any instance of a death threat no matter the target, you stop what you are doing and give denounce it whenever you see it?

I could just as easily accuse you of holding 'selective outrage'. Did you say anything about Obama being burned in Effigy (complete with video) at a Wisconsin Bar? Country music played in the background while people cheered. Would saying 'people like you express selective outrage over that' make any sense? Probably not.

Did you express outrage at the death threats a 78 year old widow Frances Fox Piven received after Glenn Beck made accusations against her, about articles she wrote over half a century ago? Would saying 'people like you express selective outrage over that' make any sense? Probably not.

You didn't express any outrage over those. Does that mean you express 'selective outrage', and/or that 'people like you' are silent when it is 'your side' that commits a transgression?

No. If I did that, that would be trying to score cheap political points through partisan bickering.

1. There is a lot of stupid that goes on in the world. Which brings me to point two;

2. I cannot be expected to comment on every random death threat or stupid action someone takes that I may or may not have even heard about. With the sheer volume of despicable/stupid actions that people take, I do not take the time to comment on every little thing that I hear, and possibly build a reference of it all in some "Burning_Ember Encyclopedia of Denouncements" that you may reference when you please to see if I am in fact giving equal time and fair commentary to every possible act of evil committed by person of whatever ideology. This brings me to point #3,

3. Absence of proof does not equal proof of absence. Just because I do not express outrage in some easily referenced manner over every death threat/stupid thing I see/hear about, doesn't mean I hold no outrage over it. I'll try state this in some possibly clearer manner. I am pretty much equally outraged over comparable acts of violence, idiocy, or death threats.

So are we done bringing up random stuff and making blanket accusations, or are you going to rail on yourself for the same absurd thing you are accusing me of? Funnily enough... Otherwise your outrage would be selective over selective outrage.

Or maybe we can agree that the whole idea is pretty silly.

[Burning_Ember]

[quote nameMe thinks thou doest protest too much.

Sound and fury signifying nothing.

I have similar feelings about the post I responded to.

[Matthitjah]

Know what I love? How we've gotten completely from Obamacare beginning to be dismantled to a discussion over the merits of BE's supposed moral outrage.

The good news is that Obamacare is beginning to be dealt with.

[MorningGlory]

Know what I love? How we've gotten completely from Obamacare beginning to be dismantled to an discussion over the merits of BE's supposed moral outrage.

Doesn't this always happen? Sometimes I even bet myself as to how long it will take (and I include myself in the OT-itis).

[Rick-Parker]

There are no more death pannels in this bill that don't already exist parker, and the regulation you are speaking of for across state lines is not that different than is the bulk of this bill. There are some really bad tax problems it creates, and it's against our principles that we are forcing people into the insurance system, but since I'm paying for a lot of that already, I personally can overlook it for that care tha I'm paying for in ER's can cost ten to fifteen times as much as if they went to a doctor's office. I'd rather pay thier expenses that way if they can't afford it.

The bill does not allow for the insurance companies to offer one plan across state lines. Even insurers such as Blue Cross/Blue Shield carry the name of the State they operate in. A good bill would allow such companies to negotiate with health care systems throughout the nation and offer consistent plans to consumers throughout the country. The tax issues are non-existent. We pay state and federal taxes, so can they. They can know what their profits are for each division (state) and pay taxes as are levied by the individual states. It's done all the time. As for forcing people into the system, the type of bill I talked about and would support would not include government mandates, except for the prohibition of the exclusion of pre-existing conditions, denial of treatment based on prognosis of outcome, and charging higher premiums for those types of insured. The highest number of uninsured, even more than the indigent, are those who would pay for insurance but are excluded for or priced out of buying insurance because of, a pre-existing condition. Do away with that condition, and the cost of health care would plummet.

Again, the profits from insuring the healthy would more than cover the costs of insuring the chronically and terminally ill. If one refuses to participate in any insurance program, then those individuals would either be covered by the state medicaid plan for the poor, they would be forced to repay the government for the expense just as those who receive student loans must repay them; or the hospital could write it off as charity care and receive reimbursement from the feds as they are now.

The only government mandates must be on the insurers through Federal regulation to enforce consistency across state lines and ensure consistent and affordable premiums no matter the health condition of the insured.

[Guest Butero]

also one thing people here in america forget about the health care system as it is set up now is that NO ONE who needs medical treatment will be turned away regardless of their abilty to pay-ever hear of an E.R.

now i know there would be a few exception to this such as certain terminal diseases and life support, but with obamas health plan they get to pick and chose who they treat for the most part.

Even under Obamacare they are not going to turn you out into the streets to die. They may not spend a half million dollars to keep you alive for six months, but they will keep you comfortable for a couple of weeks until you pass.

That really makes me feel better about Obamacare. If healthcare is a right as the left keeps claiming, then if it costs half a million dollars to keep someone alive six months, so be it. People can't be denied their rights, and if he government is going to take over health care, I expect nothing less. I also expect the government to do all this while balancing the budget and without raising taxes. Until they do all that, I am opposed to Obamacare, and support it's repeal.

[Guest Butero]

The health care bill needs to be changed, drastically! Not totally done away with. The most important issue should be the ability of insurance providers having the ability to negotiate and produce a product across state lines. That would give them a much broader set of healthy insured, upon who they make money. The second thing is not covering people with preexisting conditions. They deserve to be covered too, as long as they could pay the same premium as the average healthy individual. They are expensive to cover for sure, but the costs would be covered by the increased revenues from the increased client base. AND, of course, the government mandate has to go. There are other issues to be sure, but if we kept just the above, I believe that I could support that kind of bill.

I was thinking about this earlier today. The current bill needs to be repealed in full, but what the GOP could do is create one bill that repeals Obamacare and immediately replaces it with something that will actually work. While I agree that the pre-existing thing is a problem, simply forcing insurance companies to cover everyone won't work because people will wait till they are sick to get coverage. The best solution I could come up with is to grant limited coverage for pre-existing conditions, for say 5 years, and then they would get full coverage. That way, they have an incentive to keep coverage, but if they don't, and they wait till they are sick, they aren't completely rejected. We have to come up with a way to fix the problems without putting the insurance companies out of business.

[Guest Butero]

Burning Ember, I don't usually come to your defense, as my political views are diametrically opposite of yours, but I do see what you are saying concerning the hypocrisy issue. As a conservative, I will rarely concern myself with defending Obama, even if he is threatened or made fun of. The same thing would be the case with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, or any other main stream liberal. I will however defend Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, Jim DeMint, or any other conservative against similar attacks. Why? Because I see the left attacking our people mercilessly, and feel like when it is done towards them, they are only getting what they deserve. If the left were to stop the attacks, I believe the unfair attacks from the right would stop. I am not saying their political views wouldn't be pointed out and attacked, but they wouldn't be attacked on a personal level. Let me give you an example.

I am at another web-site FB, discussing politics with differen't liberals. One is sticking with only facts, and that is all I bring into the conversation. There is no making fun of Obama or the other liberals. We just debate the issues. Then another liberal comes into the discussion and posts something making fun of Palin. It has nothing to do with her views, but is an attack on her personally. I will then counter with an attack on Obama, Pelosi or Reid. It is fighting fire with fire. I would rather stick with the issues. I would rather have civility. I would rather be in a world where we could all give our opinions and they would be respected, and where everyone was working for the common good, but that place doesn't exist. We have two sides, and both are willing to destroy each other to win.

Let's get back to you. You are a liberal, and you defend liberals. You aren't outraged when Bush is attacked. You are outraged when Obama is attacked. At the same time, you don't understand why few of us get upset when Obama is attacked. We are conservatives, and we are looking after our own. I don't see you as a hypocrite, but don't be surprised if we don't rush to Obama's defense when he is being attacked, after the left has been viciously attacking our candidates. I figure the left can more than look after their own.