Health Care Passed

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

quote:

Originally posted by echo4papa:

quote:

Originally posted by Drunk on Mystery:

quote:

Originally posted by echo4papa:

quote:

Originally posted by Drunk on Mystery:

I'm really not sure how you would enforce that. If a man has a heart attack, the EMTs aren't going to care if he's morbidly obese or not, since it's their job to try and save his life, not figure out whether or not he qualifies for care under the Healthy Living Act.

 

And really, a law requiring certain health and eating habits would be just as invasive as banning trans fats. It'd just be manifesting the same invasive attempt to cut health costs on the opposite end of the spectrum.

 

They don't need to make a determination, but if he is outside of the guidelines without some sort of underlying cause outside of his control (glandular issues or whatever), then the cost of care provided will be past on to his own private insurance, or be his own responsibility.

 

I disagree with your point of it being on the other end of the spectrum with regards to regulations though. It presents a choice, it doesn't remove a choice from you. It basically says you have the choice to act in a manner which will most likely cause you serious health issues, but if you choose to carry out such actions, you will not be permitted to become a drain on the resources of others.

 

Think about it, obesity can be a status symbol again! Instead of looking at someone who is grossly overweight and thinking derogatory things, you might stop to wonder what that person does for a living that he can afford such a luxury as not taking care of himself in some sort of fashion. He can "afford" to be fat!

 

Interesting? HA-HA!

 

That just seems like a lawsuit waiting to happen. Imagine if someone set up a threshold for what was "too obese" and an EMT had to make a judgment call based on it, and wound up wrong. The family of the "not quite obese enough" person would sue, then sue again, then sue a third time to be safe.

 

The problem with benchmarking for emergency medicine is that they can't be even implemented until after the patient has recovered, ergo: the procedures have already occurred. If the patient is unable to pay them, someone has to foot the bill. That will always be society's burden.

 

As far as health insurance in general, I will say that, even though I have awesome coverage through my job now, when I applied 2 years ago for private insurance, I was asked to pay some astronomical amount, something like $8500 a year, because I qualified as a serious risk for lung problems.

 

When I asked why, I was told that it was because I'd reported that both of my grandfathers died of complications caused by lung problems.

 

My father's father died of lung cancer at age 72, after having smoked 2 packs a day for almost 55 years.

 

My mother's father died of pneumonia at age 85.

 

I'm a little lost as to why you keep falling back to the EMT. The EMT, or any emergency care provider isn't involved in the financial side of the equation. They provide the services immediately, regardless of the individual.

 

I was using EMTs as short hand for any emergency medical procedures. If a person who doesn't meet the health regulations, they'll still have medical needs(and statistically speaking, they'll have more of them). You can tell those people that they won't have any health coverage, save emergency coverage, provided by the state, that still won't address emergency coverage. If someone who's uninsured and they have to get emergency surgery, someone has to pay for that. It's not like we can ask a person how they want to pay for it while they're screaming in pain.

[Osprey 199]

Guys, in a free-capitalist society, I should be able to sell fatty food if there is a market for it. This isn't heroin we're talking about here.

 

If you don't want to indulge in my food or product THEN DON'T BUY IT.

 

The beauty of capitalism is that there is always a choice.

 

Same with a public ban on smoking. If I want to allow smoking at my establishment (My private property) I should be allowed to. If you don't want to be around second hand smoke then don't patronize my place of business. Its really simple.

 

Some of you are saying that its a big step to go from banning salts to banning burgers, well those may not be the steps taken in order, but a government taking away personal liberties and choice is NEVER a good thing. Some of you are wrapped up in the thought that something like this could NEVER happen in America, but it most certainly can.

 

It is not a good thing when the government is deciding what is best for you. Some of you liberals need to realize what Liberalism means. Individual rights at the forefront.

[barnettej 263]

quote:

Originally posted by SmackDaddy:

quote:

Originally posted by barnettej:

The insurance company said that my injury was Marine Corps related and would only cover 40% of my bills...

 

So I shell out the rest to the Hospital.

 

 

 

If it was deemed to be a military related injury, why was the military not responsible to pay the remainder or a portion of the difference?

 

 

*Sorry for the late response, im in Indonesia right now, wont be back in the US until next week*

 

Ahhh then comes the beauty of it all.... It wasnt deemed military related...

 

I was racking a server and the rack mounts broke, So I tried catching the server... I know, I know,... why....

 

But BCBS (Blue Cross Blue shield), insisted that my injury had something to do with the military... which I was in 6yrs ago...

 

So I wrote letters, called people, had interviews and still they would only cover 40%...

 

Could I potentially sue... sure, but what is the point of wasting money... they have more than I do, they can outlast me, they can out spend me... There for I lose before I even start.

 

So I suck it up, pay the bill.

 

 

But really thats the whole thing about this Medical.

 

I am tired of getting raped by the Med Care companies... they are gaining profit while people are dieing.

 

Another prime example:

 

I sell computer software, a security solution for hug enterprises, like Best Buy and CitiBank and so forth.

 

We had a prospect in the North East, that is a health care provider. Close to the end of the meeting we were talking about price and budget..

 

The sales rep goes, "So what does your budget look like" (Because our product starts around 400k)

 

And the CISO (Chief Info Sec Officer), says "Profits are sky rocketing, we have been doubling it every yr almost, so budgeting wont be a problem"

 

Mind you, this is a health care provider... they dont do anything else...

 

2 Months before that meeting, my Grandfather died... We think it was from Cancer... but we dont know... because he could not afford the biopsy to check out what the Mass object in his system was... After all he was 67, divorced, and didnt have a job...

 

So as the CISO was laughing and smiling, gushing about their profit margin... the only thing I could think about....

 

Was the fact that I honestly wanted to rip his heart out, because its people like him that make people like my grandfather suffer and die.

 

So if this Bill is going to prevent that... then sign me up as an advocate.

[Captain Hi-Top 791]

quote:

Originally posted by Drunk on Mystery:

I was using EMTs as short hand for any emergency medical procedures. If a person who doesn't meet the health regulations, they'll still have medical needs(and statistically speaking, they'll have more of them). You can tell those people that they won't have any health coverage, save emergency coverage, provided by the state, that still won't address emergency coverage. If someone who's uninsured and they have to get emergency surgery, someone has to pay for that. It's not like we can ask a person how they want to pay for it while they're screaming in pain.

 

Okay, I was getting stuck on the judgement call portion. There is no judgement call to be made. I'm saying, people know from day one, if they cause their situation, from chain smoking, drinking or eating themselves to death, what have you, then they are personally responsible for acquiring a secondary carrier to cover those conditions created by their neglect of their personal health, or they will be responsible themselves.

 

Now, some people will be able to afford additional coverage. Some people will be able to pay out of pocket. Some people will realize they can do neither and make a change in their lives, and some people will roll the dice and continue said detrimental behavior.

 

Now we are only talking extreme cases here, but I think we also minimize impact because of ongoing care, these people are going to have issue that push them to have conversations with their doctors about their care and their coverage, realize what road they are going down, and hopefully want to make a change.

 

Yes, in the end, you will still have some that roll the dice, lose out, and can not pay, are forced to declare bankruptcy etc.

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

quote:

Originally posted by LeBrickJames:

This is why I am truly hesitant to waste my time on exposing the untruths said about the recent health care bill.

 

Reasonable discussion seems to just be lost on some people.

 

I could be wrong here, but based on your replies so far in this thread I'm assuming you support this legislation. If that's the case, and if you aren't a conservative, I'd like to know why you're happy about this. If you're really a progressive or a liberal or whatever it is that people on the left call themselves, I'd like to know why you aren't angry about what has just happened here.

 

The main thing this was supposed to be about was a public insurance program of some kind to compete with the insane private insurers. We weren't even trying to go full single payer. Just an option. If you want to buy private insurance, you can. If you want government insurance, you can do that too. But we didn't get that. We didn't get anything resembling that. We got the opposite: an individual mandate. Instead of an option, we get a law saying you have to buy private insurance. Fantastic.

 

I know it's a bit more complicated than that, and there are a few things that I like about the new bill. But it's not nearly enough, and it's not what all these people said they were going to do. The Democratic party, once again, got bullied by the Republicans and ended up passing a healthcare bill so watered down that I can't even come up with a proper analogy for it.

 

I heard Dennis Kucinich giving an interview the other day where he was explaining why he was going to vote for the bill even though he's always said that he would not vote yes on a bill that didn't include a public option. He said that he was doing it so that the healthcare debate wouldn't die and lie dormant for another 15-20 years like it did last time this was attempted.

 

I understand Kucinich's argument, and I understand why he voted the way he did. But that isn't a reason to champion this bill, and it's not a reason to not be pissed off about what's going on here.

 

Please, tell me where I'm wrong here.

[Osprey 199]

quote:

The main thing this was supposed to be about was a public insurance program of some kind to compete with the insane private insurers. We weren't even trying to go full single payer. Just an option. If you want to buy private insurance, you can. If you want government insurance, you can do that too. But we didn't get that. We didn't get anything resembling that. We got the opposite: an individual mandate. Instead of an option, we get a law saying you have to buy private insurance. Fantastic.

 

Exactly. This isn't a true liberal win (by true liberal I mean a victory for individual rights).

 

This is a win for those of you who are in favor of more government control and less individual freedom, the basis of liberalism.

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

quote:

Originally posted by Osprey23:

Exactly. This isn't a true liberal win (by true liberal I mean a victory for individual rights).

 

This is a win for those of you who are in favor of more government control and less individual freedom, the basis of liberalism.

 

I don't even think it's a win for Democratic party as a whole. It's a win for the corporate democrats, it's a win for the insurance industry, and it's going to be a very big win for the Republicans and the tea partiers (if you consider them seperate, I'm not sure I do) once they can put their spin on it when people are actually experiencing the changes.

 

All this is going to do is give Republicans new talking points they can use to convince the American public that the Democrats are evil and trying to kill your grandparents. And the Democrats did almost exactly what the Republicans were trying to get them to do.

 

It's amazing to me how much better the Republicans are at politics.

[Ibn Battuta 127]

quote:

Originally posted by Osprey23:

 

This is a win for those of you who are in favor of more government control and less individual freedom, the basis of liberalism.

 

the basis of liberalism? what are you talking about? liberalism is the belief in freedom. We are liberals in the classical sense of the word. Are you talking about communism?

[Osprey 199]

quote:

Originally posted by bigpimpatl:

quote:

Originally posted by Osprey23:

 

This is a win for those of you who are in favor of more government control and less individual freedom, the basis of liberalism.

 

the basis of liberalism? what are you talking about? liberalism is the belief in freedom. We are liberals in the classical sense of the word. Are you talking about communism?

 

I think you read my post wrong, and I can see why as the semantics are a little hazy.

 

This bill = Win for corporatism and reduced individual rights.

 

Liberalism = individual rights above the state.

 

I was saying that true Liberalism lost today.

[Osprey 199]

quote:

Originally posted by Jackie Treehorn:

quote:

Originally posted by Osprey23:

Exactly. This isn't a true liberal win (by true liberal I mean a victory for individual rights).

 

This is a win for those of you who are in favor of more government control and less individual freedom, the basis of liberalism.

 

I don't even think it's a win for Democratic party as a whole. It's a win for the corporate democrats, it's a win for the insurance industry, and it's going to be a very big win for the Republicans and the tea partiers (if you consider them seperate, I'm not sure I do) once they can put their spin on it when people are actually experiencing the changes.

 

All this is going to do is give Republicans new talking points they can use to convince the American public that the Democrats are evil and trying to kill your grandparents. And the Democrats did almost exactly what the Republicans were trying to get them to do.

 

It's amazing to me how much better the Republicans are at politics.

 

Agree with you on all counts.

 

Before this bill insurance companies were making a 2.2% profit margin, solid, but not extravagant like Big Pharm, Big Lit, Big Bank etc.

 

After this bill don't be surprised to see insurance profit margins inflate, much like every other corporation that have had Bush and now Obama in their back pockets the past 10 years.

[KillingInTheNameOf 63]

quote:

Originally posted by Jackie Treehorn:

The main thing this was supposed to be about was a public insurance program of some kind to compete with the insane private insurers.

 

First, this is absolutely false. The primary objective was, has, and will always be providing coverage for everybody. Philosophically, the primary objective of every collectivist theory, & social entitlement program is to end poverty.

 

If cost were even remotely close to be the primary concern, don't you think a greater effort would be made to eliminate or even reduce the vast amount of waist, fraud, and mismangement in the current government run health insurance programs?

 

That primary objective will be meet in this bill, through subsidies rather than government health insurance (Hence, the cost of the bill). There will even be subsidies for the all important middle class constituency so they think they are receiving more than it costs them. Of course, like those before it, it will fail to achieve it's goal, but the left has most definitely achieved theirs.

 

2nd, my question is, if those on the left are so convinced a public option, or in theory "a non-profit health insurance company" is the solution to all that ails the health care concerns of America, what's preventing them from starting that without Government funds?

 

Why don't THEY "collectively invest" THEIR money in the start up of such a company, and put their money where their mouth is.

[Ibn Battuta 127]

ugh, I just tried to look over the actual bill HR 3590 and my goodness it is over 2000 pages long. The original bill was only 1000 words. how disappointing.

 

this is so stupid. This is why I hate politics and politicians, because our "elected" congressmen don't do jack **** other then line their own pockets and save face for their constituencies by bringing home millions of dollars pork spending projects. Heck, they'll even give contracts to their own family members and not a drop of guilt. This isn't a democracy anymore, it's a machine.

 

TRUE democracy is when people actually care and get involved, not sign your rights away to some Ivy-league, old boys club that don't give two ****s about you. Honestly, I can't even remember the last time any politicians or political groups actually tried to put aside their differences and come together for the benefit of all and draft legislation or discuss for what would be the best thing for ALL americans.

 

 

/end rant.