It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

GOP can go to hell.

page: 2
23
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Jonjonj

Mods, make a negative stick!!!



I think you should keep a tally in your signature block.


I will if you will.





posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
Honestly, I sort of like the way this Healthcare debate is going.

While the GOP is trying to trash Obamacare and come up with it's own HC plan, more and more people are getting keen on the idea of a universal system. Even some on the Right.

That is where we are going to end up anyway. A UHC system. This is just political charades delaying the inevitable, but it's pushing people to look at the benefits of a UHC system.


A universal health care system will drive up costs, just as guarentee government loans has driven up the price of education.

And who will pay for it?

Thats right, future generations.

All of the moral posturing that many people who advocate universal health care do, and yet they have no problem sticking future generations with the bill.

Just like social security right?



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

People gave birth without medical coverage since the beginning. They can do so again if they need to. Jesus I swear people get so worked up over B.S.

You do NOT have a RIGHT to health care, you cannot have a right to a service provided by another.

Jaden



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 06:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope
Seriously. Birth costs A LOT of money. The average household can hardly afford the crazy prices we have in America, and the gop wants to change medicaid coverage for births.. Why?

Seriously. Looking for some consistency - do you want people to be able to have kids, or do you want more abortions sought out because a birth can literally bankrupt someone if no aid is given?

The gop seriously makes me frustrated sometimes.

Reddit post that has me upset





How about taking personal responsibility to ensure you can look after the kids you bring in to the world instead of assuming someone else will pay for them?



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



A universal health care system will drive up costs, just as guarentee government loans has driven up the price of education.


A universal system takes 30%-40% off of the cost right off the bat, as you are no longer paying for insurance company profits.



And who will pay for it?


All of us.



All of the moral posturing that many people who advocate universal health care do, and yet they have no problem sticking future generations with the bill.


It would be payed for by the current tax payers.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: deadlyhope
Seriously. Birth costs A LOT of money. The average household can hardly afford the crazy prices we have in America, and the gop wants to change medicaid coverage for births.. Why?

Seriously. Looking for some consistency - do you want people to be able to have kids, or do you want more abortions sought out because a birth can literally bankrupt someone if no aid is given?

The gop seriously makes me frustrated sometimes.

Reddit post that has me upset





How about taking personal responsibility to ensure you can look after the kids you bring in to the world instead of assuming someone else will pay for them?


So only those privileged enough to pay for the extraordinary costs associated with having a child (in a medical facility/hospital) in today's world should have kids?

I mean, we could always have forced sterilization of those in certain undesirable (lower) economic classes, since they can't pay for the pro-profit healthcare model.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

What are you talking about? Home birth is the trend these days.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 06:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler



A universal health care system will drive up costs, just as guarentee government loans has driven up the price of education.


A universal system takes 30%-40% off of the cost right off the bat, as you are no longer paying for insurance company profits.



And who will pay for it?


All of us.



All of the moral posturing that many people who advocate universal health care do, and yet they have no problem sticking future generations with the bill.


It would be payed for by the current tax payers.


The why are current tax payers getting screwed on social security? The young of today will pay far more than they ever receive.

Why would universal health care be any different?

And your 30-40%, where do you get that? What would stop medical care facilities from charging whatever they want once the government guarantees thier money?

Why did the cost of higher education rise faster than almost anything else once the government guaranteed loans?



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 06:24 PM
link   
originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: deadlyhope


People gave birth without medical coverage since the beginning.


They have.


You do NOT have a RIGHT to health care, you cannot have a right to a service provided by another.


But in an advanced society they have the right to seek maternity care rather than "home birth" for the sake of their child's health without exorbitant associated costs.

That's the point.

And anyone who is pro-life/anti-abortion and doesn't think pre-natal or maternal care are important enough to be addressed or covered is a hypocrite.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 06:30 PM
link   
Well my mother had me at home, back in the days, but then again it was one doctor for everything, no specializations and they used to do home visits.

The old days of good, honest, personalized home care.

No now, hell now doctors are like royalty and they come in all specialties.

Having a kid? is nothing wrong with a good license mid wife.

We human has been birthed since the beginning of time and will still be birthed as long as our species roam the earth, with doctors hospitals or else.

BTW if somebody can not afford a hospital and a doctor, then how in the hell they can afford children.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



The why are current tax payers getting screwed on social security? The young of today will pay far more than they ever receive.


Social security is not comparable to this issue.



And your 30-40%, where do you get that? What would stop medical care facilities from charging whatever they want once the government guarantees thier money?


That 30%-40% is not profit to the healthcare facilities. That is just profit to the insurance companies. Insurance company profit is one of the reasons I had problems with the ACA. Insurance companies are making a killing.



Why did the cost of higher education rise faster than almost anything else once the government guaranteed loans?


Another example not comparable to healthcare.

Edit: I misspoke. That percentage is not just profit, but also administrations costs.
edit on 26-6-2017 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

Stop being global warpigs, stop being world-police, reduce Military budget to domestic protection and all of a sudden yanks will be rich and even fatter than ever before.

Have you seen the $$ that get allocated annually to foreign intervention or upkeep of foreign engagements?

BILLIONS and BILLIONS and BILLIONS and BILLIONS of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

But Oh no - gotta war and bitch and complain when average Joe is broke, house repossessed, working 2 jobs etc.

LOL - yeah the 'GOP' is to blame.

LOL



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 06:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: deadlyhope
Seriously. Birth costs A LOT of money. The average household can hardly afford the crazy prices we have in America, and the gop wants to change medicaid coverage for births.. Why?

Seriously. Looking for some consistency - do you want people to be able to have kids, or do you want more abortions sought out because a birth can literally bankrupt someone if no aid is given?

The gop seriously makes me frustrated sometimes.

Reddit post that has me upset





How about taking personal responsibility to ensure you can look after the kids you bring in to the world instead of assuming someone else will pay for them?


So only those privileged enough to pay for the extraordinary costs associated with having a child (in a medical facility/hospital) in today's world should have kids?

I mean, we could always have forced sterilization of those in certain undesirable (lower) economic classes, since they can't pay for the pro-profit healthcare model.


If you can't afford kids don't have them. Simple.
The focus should be in bringing costs down, not forcing other people to pay for your kids. Take some personal responsibility and stop assuming others will pay for you.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden

At least one of my three kids were born, I think more, we had insurance....
it just didn't cover the pregnancy. that was back in the 80's and it didn't cost nearly the amount of money as it does now day...
you can claim that the er will provide sufficient care, but you are wrong. the doctor's visits start as soon as a women believes she is pregnant and continues on till birth on a regular basis. and, that prenatal care helps in bringing a healthy baby into the world.
I have no idea just how many women would end up finding themselves without maternity care, I just know that it was rather common back in the time when i was having kids. often times you'd find that the insurance you employer carried just didn't include it, or, it might have but maybe a month or two after conception, hey, the layoff came and the insurance suddenly cost more than you could afford, and even if you managed to obtain another insurance policy, it was now a pre existing condition, so it wasn't covered.
although I believe that abortions should be obtainable for any women who wishes to have one, I also believe that we should find ways to make it easier for women to have that baby and raise it and to prevent conception to begin with, and having maternity care coverage as a standard component of health insurance makes it easier.
and, it's just not good if a women's first visit of her pregnancy is in the hospital er while she is in labor!! that endangers her and the baby she is carrying.. which might just lead to the need for more expensive healthcare in the long run...




You do NOT have a RIGHT to health care, you cannot have a right to a service provided by another.



and... tell me, just what would happen if the women just decided not to see care when she went into labor??? ya know just decided I can't afford it, so I aint going, whatever happens happens....
I bet that at least in a few states, if the baby died during the birthing process... SHE WOULD BE ARRESTED AND THROWN IN JAIL!!!

can you be forced to seek medical treatment if you don't have the right to healthcare??? women have been literally forced to have c-sections they didn't want, can that be done if they don't have the right to the healthcare??



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 06:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler



The why are current tax payers getting screwed on social security? The young of today will pay far more than they ever receive.


Social security is not comparable to this issue.



And your 30-40%, where do you get that? What would stop medical care facilities from charging whatever they want once the government guarantees thier money?


That 30%-40% is not profit to the healthcare facilities. That is just profit to the insurance companies. Insurance company profit is one of the reasons I had problems with the ACA. Insurance companies are making a killing.



Why did the cost of higher education rise faster than almost anything else once the government guaranteed loans?


Another example not comparable to healthcare.


For the record, I agree with you that Obamacare was a disaster and designed by insurance companies. They just didn't anticipate young, healthy people not falling for the trash, and refusing to sign up.

Your contention that other government entitlements like guaranteed student loans and social security aren't applicable is a poor argument.

Then what is applicable?

In both of those issues, people made arguments just like you, claiming these programs would be a boon for the average person, and they had the exact opposite effect.

We already see health care facilities abusing medicare and medicaid, boosting up the price of their services to insane amounts knowing the money is guaranteed and the bureaucracy has a small chance of catching them.

The best chance we have of affordable, effective health care is to get both the government and insurance companies out of it as much as possible, and allow competition to drive costs.

If the government is to be involved it should be providing things such as HSA's and guaranteed care to extreme cases to very low income people.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence




But in an advanced society they have the right to seek maternity care rather than "home birth" for the sake of their child's health without exorbitant associated costs


Negative. No such 'right' exists. I'm not saying people shouldn't help people, but one has no 'right' to another's labors and/or resources.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 06:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: deadlyhope
Seriously. Birth costs A LOT of money. The average household can hardly afford the crazy prices we have in America, and the gop wants to change medicaid coverage for births.. Why?

Seriously. Looking for some consistency - do you want people to be able to have kids, or do you want more abortions sought out because a birth can literally bankrupt someone if no aid is given?

The gop seriously makes me frustrated sometimes.



I want people to have kids..dare I say it... when they can afford them and be responsible. When I was in my 20s the last thing I needed was a kid or two or five. If you can hardly make it without kids, don't have them yet!!

I waited until I was 38, wife was 31... Another thing people can do is wait until they have a job that provides healthcare like 70% of the workforce has today... Timing is everything and if all you got is medicaid I would say that is bad timing....geez




the republicans are just getting started on F'in over the poor and middle class. more EXCITING legislation to follow!!



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

when it comes to weather or not a health insurance policy should carry maternity care or not...
it seems that anyone affected would be more in position to take care of a kid than the many who will remain on medicaid, after even these changes...
and if you are talking about the cuts in medicaid, well, alot of them will be the result of the extension being wound down...
again affecting people that are more able to financially provide for a kid than the ones that will remain...

the only way your argument would have any relevance to this is if they decided to just stop assisting people with their healthcare period!! that will never happen though, will it???



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 06:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: deadlyhope

I think that you might be misunderstanding.

The new bill only removes the REQUIREMENT that health plans include maternity. It does not say that you can not get a health plan that includes maternity.

This is a good move. Obamacare had a stupid requirement that ALL plans include maternity. This meant that a single man or an older couple would need to pay for a plan that includes maternity. With the new policy, there will be less expensive plans available that do not include maternity coverage for those that do not need it. We will have a choice again. This is just putting things back the way that they were before.



ObamaCare was attempting to cover all contingencies when it required the 10 Essential Benefits. If a 60 year old man knocked-up an 18 year old illegal immigrant, the mom and baby would be covered by the father's ObamaCare policy.

Apparently, Democrats felt that this was too common amongst their constituents to ignore.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 06:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: deadlyhope
Seriously. Birth costs A LOT of money. The average household can hardly afford the crazy prices we have in America, and the gop wants to change medicaid coverage for births.. Why?

Seriously. Looking for some consistency - do you want people to be able to have kids, or do you want more abortions sought out because a birth can literally bankrupt someone if no aid is given?

The gop seriously makes me frustrated sometimes.

Reddit post that has me upset





How about taking personal responsibility to ensure you can look after the kids you bring in to the world instead of assuming someone else will pay for them?


So only those privileged enough to pay for the extraordinary costs associated with having a child (in a medical facility/hospital) in today's world should have kids?

I mean, we could always have forced sterilization of those in certain undesirable (lower) economic classes, since they can't pay for the pro-profit healthcare model.


If you can't afford kids don't have them. Simple.
The focus should be in bringing costs down, not forcing other people to pay for your kids. Take some personal responsibility and stop assuming others will pay for you.



edit on 26-6-2017 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)


said the person who's from a country with national healthcare
edit on 26-6-2017 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join