ayin jade Posted June 24, 2012 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 44 Topic Count: 6,182 Topics Per Day: 0.86 Content Count: 43,840 Content Per Day: 6.09 Reputation: 11,300 Days Won: 58 Joined: 01/03/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted June 24, 2012 My dad had a good plan-he thinks we should A: get rid of the ambulance chasers, i.e. find another method of keeping doctors accountable without lawsuits coming into play, that way they wouldnt need the expensive malpractice insurance (lawsuits dont do any good anyway-the insurance just pays the lawsuit, doctor keeps on making the same mistakes) Thats not the reality. Yes, lawsuits are driving up costs, but its not to make doctors accountable. Folks want to place blame and seek damages for things that are not anyones fault as well as for genuine malpractice. Doctors' insurance companies and employers often want to settle and pay out partial claims because it is cheaper than fighting the lawsuit. So overall it doesnt reflect how good or bad doctors are. Doctors are held accountable by local medical boards which have the ability to remove their licenses for various offenses. B: the government should have taken all that bailout money they gave the car industry and used it to pay off all the bad debt in the hospitals (another reason costs are so high) and then C: force them to drop their prices to what they were in 1950. In 1950, they didnt have MRIs etc to use. Those machines cost a lot of money to buy and maintain. They are useful and necessary. Forcing them to drop their prices is not feasible unless you also expect them to only use the same equipment they had back then. Once you take out the malpractice insurance and the bad debt, hospital charges then become affordable to us, yet the doctors can still afford their BMWs and golf weekends. Think about it-thats a practical method, it drops costs all the way around-but no, theyd rather throw money away down the tube for a method that will just further bankrupt our country and violate our rights. Ironic that you talk about violating rights when just above you talked about forcing medical folks to go back to 1950s prices. Tort reform was not even addressed by obamacare. Yet it is something the medical community knows must be addressed in order to keep costs down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthitjah Posted June 24, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 1,285 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 17,917 Content Per Day: 2.23 Reputation: 355 Days Won: 19 Joined: 10/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted June 24, 2012 Obamacare is not about Health Care at all. It's about curtailing your Liberty. That's why it does not address key issues that need to be and should have been. It is a tool to take us to single payer which is what all of the proponents of it have stated openly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted June 24, 2012 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 32 Topic Count: 622 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 57,286 Content Per Day: 7.57 Reputation: 29,003 Days Won: 280 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted June 24, 2012 The only reason it's unconstitutional is because we do not let insurance companies sell insurance across state lines..... I do not know if that is changed in the bill or not. Thing's much too big to research it all. Would take full time for at least a couple of months to do that. But if you can sell insurance across state lines then it's commerce and the government would have the constitutional right to regulate it. That is not true. The commerce clause doesn't give the federal government the right to require people to buy insurance, regardless of whether or not it is sold across state lines. If it did, then it could force people to buy guns if they were sold across state lines, Bibles if they are sold across state lines, anything. Regulating commerce isn't the same as making you engage in commerce. With car insurance, you are only required to have it if you drive, not just because you are a citizen. The U.S. Constitution doesn't authorize the federal government to require you to purchase car insurnace, so they can't do so. States do have that right. There are many that disagree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted June 24, 2012 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 32 Topic Count: 622 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 57,286 Content Per Day: 7.57 Reputation: 29,003 Days Won: 280 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted June 24, 2012 Obamacare is not about Health Care at all. It's about curtailing your Liberty. That's why it does not address key issues that need to be and should have been. It is a tool to take us to single payer which is what all of the proponents of it have stated openly. have you read the healthcare bill, or is that just hearsay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted June 25, 2012 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 32 Topic Count: 622 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 57,286 Content Per Day: 7.57 Reputation: 29,003 Days Won: 280 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted June 25, 2012 Obamacare is not about Health Care at all. It's about curtailing your Liberty. That's why it does not address key issues that need to be and should have been. It is a tool to take us to single payer which is what all of the proponents of it have stated openly. have you read the healthcare bill, or is that just hearsay? Most members of Congress didn't read that bill, and the Supreme Court justices scoffed at the idea of reading that entire massive 2000 page monstrocity. The federal government has no authority to make us purchase goods or services. If you take that out of the bill, it will collapse because the bill requires everyone to be covered, even if they have pre-existing conditions. Insurance companies can't insure people after they get sick. It will drive them out of business, leading to a single payer government run system. That is what Obama wants. I recognize that some Americans want that too, but the majority don't. so we're talking here about a subject that no one really knows much about except for one small part about buying insurance. remarkable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthitjah Posted June 25, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 1,285 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 17,917 Content Per Day: 2.23 Reputation: 355 Days Won: 19 Joined: 10/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted June 25, 2012 Obamacare is not about Health Care at all. It's about curtailing your Liberty. That's why it does not address key issues that need to be and should have been. It is a tool to take us to single payer which is what all of the proponents of it have stated openly. have you read the healthcare bill, or is that just hearsay? I don't need to read the Bill to understand what the proponents of the Bil have openly said. It is a vehicle to Single Payer. When you sit down and hatch out a plan you have a Goal. The Goal of the proponents of Obamacare was a gradual step process through the bankrupting of private Insurance to Single Payer. It's why Obama has granted so many waivers until after this next election. He didn't want the system crashing before then and ruining his chances at Re-Election when he will be unaccountable should he be re-elected. All you need to know is what the Goal of the Plan is. The rest is just the tree's in the forest. Every plan has a Goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted June 25, 2012 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 32 Topic Count: 622 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 57,286 Content Per Day: 7.57 Reputation: 29,003 Days Won: 280 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted June 25, 2012 Obamacare is not about Health Care at all. It's about curtailing your Liberty. That's why it does not address key issues that need to be and should have been. It is a tool to take us to single payer which is what all of the proponents of it have stated openly. have you read the health care bill, or is that just hearsay? I don't need to read the Bill to understand what the proponents of the Bil have openly said. It is a vehicle to Single Payer. When you sit down and hatch out a plan you have a Goal. The Goal of the proponents of Obamacare was a gradual step process through the bankrupting of private Insurance to Single Payer. It's why Obama has granted so many waivers until after this next election. He didn't want the system crashing before then and ruining his chances at Re-Election when he will be unaccountable should he be re-elected. All you need to know is what the Goal of the Plan is. The rest is just the tree's in the forest. Every plan has a Goal. Dave, those people did not get what they wanted in this bill. You say that the proponents of this bill say that is what they want...... but they didn't get it. Do you realize that the presidents czar (Ezekiel Manuel) himself told the president that a single payer system would be the worst thing they could do. People seldom get what they want in Washington...... they may try and save face for their failure and tell you that this is just step one, but step two and three are not any more likely to happen with this bill passed as it would with it not. This bill will not lead to a single payer system unless they leave the rest of the bill in tact and just drop the mandated insurance. having no pre existing conditions caused our insurance to go up nearly $8,000 a year.... If the pre existing conditions is left in law, and the mandatory is removed, practically no one will be able to afford insurance at all. Even before the bill was passed,, it was going up about 15% a year, our company was struggling to keep it. I hear that people are concerned with death panels, but what are you going to do about people just not being able to afford health care. And that's worse than anything I've read in the bill. It appears to me that some of you are stuck in an ideology concerning pure capitalism and are really not looking at what is really best for "We the People" as a whole. You say that we can't afford for everyone to have health care, so who are we going to let go... I've read posts on here about people in Oregon not getting expensive cancer treatments that cost over a half million dollars when it's proven to just extend lives an average of about six weeks. Do we really want to spend the money on such things..... and if we don't, are we just going to let them die anyway. What you propose is going to have the same effect as what you are concerned about the bill doing, except it will not be a panel that decided who gets the treatments, but some doctor's or hospitals accountants. If you can't pay, you don't get the treatment. Anyway from my viewpoint on this subject some of you are just not in touch with reality..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthitjah Posted June 25, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 1,285 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 17,917 Content Per Day: 2.23 Reputation: 355 Days Won: 19 Joined: 10/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted June 25, 2012 Obamacare is not about Health Care at all. It's about curtailing your Liberty. That's why it does not address key issues that need to be and should have been. It is a tool to take us to single payer which is what all of the proponents of it have stated openly. have you read the health care bill, or is that just hearsay? I don't need to read the Bill to understand what the proponents of the Bil have openly said. It is a vehicle to Single Payer. When you sit down and hatch out a plan you have a Goal. The Goal of the proponents of Obamacare was a gradual step process through the bankrupting of private Insurance to Single Payer. It's why Obama has granted so many waivers until after this next election. He didn't want the system crashing before then and ruining his chances at Re-Election when he will be unaccountable should he be re-elected. All you need to know is what the Goal of the Plan is. The rest is just the tree's in the forest. Every plan has a Goal. Dave, those people did not get what they wanted in this bill. You say that the proponents of this bill say that is what they want...... but they didn't get it. Do you realize that the presidents czar (Ezekiel Manuel) himself told the president that a single payer system would be the worst thing they could do. People seldom get what they want in Washington...... they may try and save face for their failure and tell you that this is just step one, but step two and three are not any more likely to happen with this bill passed as it would with it not. This bill will not lead to a single payer system unless they leave the rest of the bill in tact and just drop the mandated insurance. having no pre existing conditions caused our insurance to go up nearly $8,000 a year.... If the pre existing conditions is left in law, and the mandatory is removed, practically no one will be able to afford insurance at all. Even before the bill was passed,, it was going up about 15% a year, our company was struggling to keep it. I hear that people are concerned with death panels, but what are you going to do about people just not being able to afford health care. And that's worse than anything I've read in the bill. It appears to me that some of you are stuck in an ideology concerning pure capitalism and are really not looking at what is really best for "We the People" as a whole. You say that we can't afford for everyone to have health care, so who are we going to let go... I've read posts on here about people in Oregon not getting expensive cancer treatments that cost over a half million dollars when it's proven to just extend lives an average of about six weeks. Do we really want to spend the money on such things..... and if we don't, are we just going to let them die anyway. What you propose is going to have the same effect as what you are concerned about the bill doing, except it will not be a panel that decided who gets the treatments, but some doctor's or hospitals accountants. If you can't pay, you don't get the treatment. Anyway from my viewpoint on this subject some of you are just not in touch with reality..... Ezekial Emanuel is Doctor Death and a Lead proponent of death Panels and a Single Payer system. The folks who wrote the Bill all say it will lead to a Single Payer system. It isbn't going to matter this week as it appears that the Supreme Courtwill rule the mandate Unconstitutional if not the whole bill. Obamacare will fall apart. Of course this will not stop the President. He will move forward with the process which will be a good indication of where the Ideology really is. It's in the Marxism of this plan and it will hang around Obama's neck like an anchor and a merit badge. Thanks for mischarecterizing the opposition to this bills position though. No one is currently dying in the streets lacking Health Care in America. That's a Leftist lie. The system does need an overhaul though and we should be listening to the Doctors and Health Care professionals on the front lines of the battle. Not Politicval hacks and Leftist's in Washington, D.C. There was some Interesting work being done by Catholic Hospitals prior to all of this in regards to overhauling Health Care. There was also some work being done by a major Hospital in Pittsburgh in regards to an overhaul. Of course they were ignored because their solutions didn't dictate removing your Liberty. As I've said, "Your security should not come at the cost of my Liberty. If it does we will have neither." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Funny I seem to be required by the government to put taxes towards social security & medicare for seniors, services I very likely will never get good returns on when I myself reach retirement age. Where is the outrage about that? The difference is that those taxes, which the government has the authority to make you pay. Having a mandate to force people to buy a good or service is not a constitutional authority given to the US government. The problem is that Obamacare requires an immense bureaucracy that has to be funded. The wages and salaries of those people have to be paid from something. The mandate forces even healthy people who don't need or want health care to buy it. That is how they pay the wages and salaries of these new government employees. The mandate is the financial workhorse of Obamacare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 What they have done is rather clever, really. They rolled out some benefits first. They give you some candy before they hit you with the bad news hoping that you will enjoy the benefits enough to soften the blow when it comes to the bad news. It's an attempt to desensitize you to the realities that come with socialized medicine. See in socialized Obamacare, the value system is different. Treatment is at the mercy of a bean counter who determines the value of your illness. If you are elderly and need an expensive hip replacement or cancer treatment, your age would count against you if it is determined that you are not expected to live but just a few more years, it may make it difficult to justify spending tens of thousands of dollars on someone who might die in about three years. It would be more cost effective to spend that money on caring for a 30 year-old who still has something to offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts